[House Report 104-887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 489

104th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-887

 
           SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                      ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS




                            JANUARY 2, 1997


January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

 ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California RMM*F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri          Wisconsin
RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee               HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio        CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
TIM ROEMER, Indiana                  DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT E. (Bud) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan            JOE BARTON, Texas
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania            KEN CALVERT, California
JANE HARMAN, California              BILL BAKER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota               VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan**
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts         ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida           DAVE WELDON, Florida
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri             MATT SALMON, Arizona
MIKE WARD, Kentucky                  THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
ZOE LOFGREN, California              STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas                 GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       ANDREA H. SEASTRAND, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
WILLIAM P. LUTHER, Minnesota         STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma
                                     VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
                                     BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
                                     MARK ADAM FOLEY, Florida
                                     SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
 David D. Clement, Chief of Staff 
         and Chief Counsel
  Barry Beringer, General Counsel
  Tish Schwartz, Chief Clerk and 
           Administrator
Robert E. Palmer, Democratic Staff 
             Director


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 1997.
Hon. Robin H. Carle,
The Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Carle: In compliance with Rule XI, Clause 1(d) of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the 
Summary of Activities of the Committee on Science for the 104th 
Congress.
    The purpose of this report is to provide the Members of the 
House of Representatives, as well as the general public, with 
an overview of the legislative and oversight activities 
conducted by this Committee, as defined by Rule X, Clause 1(n) 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
    This document is intended as a general reference tool, and 
not as a substitute for the hearing records, reports, and other 
committee files.
            Sincerely,

                                          Robert S. Walker,
                                                          Chairman.
    Enclosure.


                                CONTENTS

                                 ------                                
                                                                   Page

Committee History................................................     1

Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science....     9

    1.1--P.L. 104-113, National Technology Transfer and 
      Advancement Act of 1995 (H.R. 2196/S. 1164)................     9
    1.2--P.L. 104-182, Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 
      (S. 1316/H.R. 3604)........................................    12
    1.3--P.L. 104-201, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
      1997 (H.R. 3230)...........................................    13
    1.4--P.L. 104-227, Antarctic Science, Tourism, and 
      Conservation Act of 1996 (H.R. 3060/S. 1645)...............    14
    1.5--P.L. 104-264, Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 
      1996 (Title XI of H.R. 3539/Title VII of H.R. 3322/H.R. 
      3484.......................................................    15
    1.6--P.L. 104-271, Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (H.R. 655/H.R. 
      4138)......................................................    17
    1.7--P.L. 104-289, Savings in Construction Act of 1996 (H.R. 
      2779)......................................................    19
    1.8--P.L. 104-332, National Invasive Species Act of 1996 
      (H.R. 4283/H.R. 3217)......................................    20

Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    23

    2.1--Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 (H.R. 9/
      H.R. 1022).................................................    23
    2.2--National Sea Grant College Program (H.R. 1175)..........    27
    2.3--International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 
      (H.R. 1601)................................................    28
    2.4--Department of Commerce Dismantling Act (H.R. 1756)......    29
    2.5--Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
      Authorization Act of 1995 (H.R. 1814)......................    32
    2.6--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
      Authorization Act of 1995 (H.R. 1815)......................    33
    2.7--Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development 
      Act of 1995 (H.R. 1816)....................................    35
    2.8--Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1995 (H.R. 
      1851)......................................................    37
    2.9--National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995 
      (H.R. 1852)................................................    39
    2.10--American Technology Advancement Act of 1995 (H.R. 1870)    41
    2.11--National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
      Authorization Act, FY 1996 (H.R. 2043).....................    42
    2.12--Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995 
      (H.R. 2405)................................................    45
    2.13--National Oceanographic Partnership Act (H.R. 3303) 
      (Also see P.L. 104-201/H.R. 3230 in Chapter I).............    45
    2.14--Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996 
      (H.R. 3322)................................................    48
    2.15--Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996 (H.R. 
      3936)......................................................    56

Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    59

    3.1--Propane Education and Research Act of 1995 (H.R. 1514/
      P.L. 104-284)..............................................    59
    3.2--Water Desalination Act of 1996 (S. 811/P.L. 104-298)....    59
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
  Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee 
  Legislative Activities.........................................    61

4.1 Committee on Science.........................................    61

    4.1(a)--Is Today's Science Policy Preparing Us for the 
      Future?....................................................    61
    4.1(b)--Restructuring of the Federal Scientific Establishment    62
    4.1(c)--Educational Technology in the 21st Century...........    64
    4.1(d)--U.S. Japanese Cooperation in Human Space Flight......    66
    4.1(e)--NASA Purchasing in the Earth-Space Economy...........    67
    4.1(f)--Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology..    70
    4.1(g)--U.S. Global Change Research Programs: Data Collection 
      and Scientific Priorities..................................    71
    4.1(h)--Civilian Science Agencies' Implementation of the 
      Government Performance and Results Act.....................    73
    4.1(i)--The Effects of the Six-Year Balanced Budget on 
      Civilian R&D...............................................    76
    4.1(j)--Technological Solutions to Improve Aviation Security.    79

4.2 Subcommittee on Basic Research...............................    82

    4.2(a)--The 1996 National Science Foundation Authorization, 
      Parts I and II.............................................    82
    4.2(b)--Alternative Futures of the Department of Energy 
      National Laboratories: ``The Galvin Report'' and ``National 
      Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and Better Management, A 
      GAO Report to the Secretary of Energy.''...................    84
    4.2(c)--U.S. Fire Administration FY 1996 Budget Request......    87
    4.2(d)--Science, Environment, and Technology Summit: A Long 
      Term National Science Strategy.............................    88
    4.2(e)--Federal Technology Transfer Policies and Our Federal 
      Laboratories: Methods for Improving Incentives for 
      Technology Transfer At Federal Laboratories................    90
    4.2(f)--Graduate Level Science and Engineering Education.....    93
    4.2(g)--Cyberporn: Protecting Our Children from the Back 
      Alleys of the Internet.....................................    95
    4.2(h)--Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: 
      Future Missions and Governance for the Department of 
      Energy, National Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 
      1993 (Title II), and H.R. 2142.............................    97
    4.2(i)--The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program....   103
    4.2(j)--The High Performance Computing and Communications 
      Program....................................................   105
    4.2(k)--Department of Energy National Laboratory 
      Restructuring..............................................   107
    4.2(l)--Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure 
      Program....................................................   110
    4.2(m)--National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 1997 
      Authorization..............................................   114
    4.2(n)--Government-University-Industry Collaboration: The 
      Future of U.S. Research and Development....................   115
    4.2(o)--The Use of Educational Technology and Human Resource 
      Programs To Enhance Science, Math, and Technology Literacy.   117
    4.2(p)--The Future of Antarctic Research.....................   120
4.3 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.......................   123

    4.3(a)--Federal Energy and Environment Research and 
      Development: Setting New Priorities for the Department of 
      Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National 
      Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration...............   123
    4.3(b)--Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy 
      National Laboratories: ``The Galvin Report'' and ``National 
      Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and Better Management, A 
      GAO Report to the Secretary of Energy''....................   131
    4.3(c)--Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: 
      Future Missions and Governance for DOE National 
      Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title II), and 
      H.R. 2142..................................................   134
    4.3(d)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science 
      Behind Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 1--
      Stratospheric Ozone: Myths and Realities...................   140
    4.3(e)--Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD): Are We 
      Covered?...................................................   144
    4.3(f)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science 
      Behind Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 2--Climate 
      Models and Projections of Potential Impacts of Global 
      Climate Change.............................................   147
    4.3(g)--Superfund Research and Development: The Role of R&D 
      Within A Reformed Superfund................................   151
    4.3(h)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science 
      Behind Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 3--EPA's 
      Dioxin Reassessment........................................   152
    4.3(i)--Leveraging National Oceanographic Capabilities.......   155
    4.3(j)--National Weather Service Modernization Status........   158
    4.3(k)--DOE's Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program....   160
    4.3(l)--U.S. Energy Outlook and Implications for Research and 
      Development................................................   165
    4.3(m)--FY 1997 Budget Request for DOE, NOAA, EPA, and Safe 
      Drinking Water R&D.........................................   167
    4.3(n)--DOE's FY 1997 Budget Request for Energy Efficiency 
      and Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy Programs............   169
    4.3(o)--DOE's FY 1997 Budget Request for Environment, Safety 
      and Health, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
      (Non-Defense) and Nuclear Energy...........................   172
    4.3(p)--Changes in U.S. Patent Law and Their Implications for 
      Energy and Environment R&D.................................   175
    4.3(q)--DOE's FY 1997 Budget Request for the Office of Energy 
      Research (OER).............................................   179
    4.3(r)--Environmental Regulation: A Barrier to the Use of 
      Environmental Technology...................................   182
    4.3(s)--Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV): 
      Assessment of Program Goals, Activities, and Priorities....   185
    4.3(t)--Funding DOE R&D in a Constrained Budget Environment..   190

4.4 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics........................   194

    4.4(a)--FY 1996 NASA Authorization...........................   194
    4.4(b)--The Space Shuttle Program In Transition: Keeping 
      Safety Paramount...........................................   197
    4.4(c)--The X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle: A New Way of Doing 
      Business?..................................................   199
    4.4(d)--The Space Shuttle Program In Transition: Keeping 
      Safety Paramount--Part II..................................   200
    4.4(e)--Shuttle Single Prime Contract: A Review of NASA's 
      Determination and Findings.................................   201
    4.4(f)--NASA Posture Hearing.................................   203
    4.4(g)--Fiscal Year 1997 NASA Authorization..................   204
    4.4(h)--U.S. Space Launch Strategy...........................   209
    4.4(i)--NASA's Uncosted Carry-over...........................   210
    4.4(j)--Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996........   211
    4.4(k)--Life on Mars?........................................   213
4.5 Subcommittee on Technology...................................   214

    4.5(a)--GAO Report on Cholesterol Measurement Testing 
      Standards and Accuracy.....................................   214
    4.5(b)--Technology Administration/National Institute of 
      Standards and Technology...................................   215
    4.5(c)--FAA Research and Acquisition Management..............   217
    4.5(d)--Federal Technology Transfer Policies and Our Federal 
      Laboratories: Methods for Improving Incentives for 
      Technology Transfer at Federal Laboratories................   218
    4.5(e)--Maintaining Our International Competitiveness: The 
      Importance of Standards and Conformity Assessment on 
      Industry...................................................   221
    4.5(f)--Cyberporn: Protecting Our Children from the Back 
      Alleys of the Internet.....................................   223
    4.5(g)--The Impact of Government Regulatory, Tax and Legal 
      Policy on Technology Development and Competitiveness.......   225
    4.5(h)--The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards Program: 
      An Oversight Review from Its Inception.....................   227
    4.5(i)--Medical Technology Development and Commercialization.   229
    4.5(j)--An Industry Perspective of FAA R&D Programs..........   231
    4.5(k)--Rail Safety Oversight: High Technology Train Control 
      Devices....................................................   233
    4.5(l)--Authorization Hearing of the Technology 
      Administration/National Institute of Standards and 
      Technology for FY 1997.....................................   235
    4.5(m)--FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Fiscal 
      Year 1997 Authorization and Management Reform..............   236
    4.5(n)--Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at 
      NIST.......................................................   237
    4.5(o)--Solving the Year 2000 Software Problem: Creating 
      Blueprints for Success.....................................   239
    4.5(p)--Proposed Amendments to the Metric Conversion Act.....   240
    4.5(q)--The Increasing Importance of International Standards 
      to the U.S. Industrial Community and the Impact of ISO 
      14000......................................................   243
    4.5(r)--Patent System and Modern Technology Needs: Meeting 
      the Challenge of the 21st Century..........................   245
    4.5(s)--Environmental Regulation: A Barrier to the Use of 
      Environmental Technology...................................   247
    4.5(t)--Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at 
      NIST.......................................................   250
    4.5(u)--Solving the Year 2000 Computer Problems..............   251
    4.5(v)--Technological Advances in Genetics Testing: 
      Implications for the Future................................   253

                                APPENDIX

List of Publications of the Committee on Science (104th Congress)   256



                                                 Union Calendar No. 489
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-887
_______________________________________________________________________



               SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                                _______
                                

 January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                  HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

    The Committee on Science has its roots in the intense 
reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957. 
Early in 1958 Speaker Sam Rayburn convened the House of 
Representatives, and the first order of the day was a 
resolution offered by Majority Leader John McCormack of 
Massachusetts. It read, ``Resolved that there is hereby created 
a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration . . . 
''
    The Select Committee performed its tasks with both speed 
and skill by writing the Space Act creating the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and chartering the 
permanent House Committee on Science and Astronautics, now 
known as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, with 
a jurisdiction comprising both science and space.
    The Science and Astronautics Committee became the first 
standing Committee to be established in the House of 
Representatives since 1946. It was also the first time since 
1892 that the House and Senate had acted to create standing 
Committees in an entirely new area.
    The Committee officially came into being on January 3, 
1959, and on its 20th Anniversary the Honorable Charles Mosher 
said, the Committee ``was born of an extraordinary House-Senate 
joint leadership initiative, a determination to maintain 
American preeminence in science and technology, . . . ''
    The formal jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and 
Astronautics included outer space, both exploration and 
control, astronautical research and development, scientific 
research and development, science scholarships, and legislation 
relating to scientific agencies, especially the National Bureau 
of Standards, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Council and 
the National Science Foundation.
    The Committee retained this jurisdiction from 1959 until 
the end of the 93rd Congress in 1974. While the Committee's 
original emphasis in 1959 was almost exclusively astronautics, 
over this 15-year period the emphasis and workload expanded to 
encompass scientific research and development in general.
    In 1974, a Select Committee on Committees, after extensive 
study, recommended several changes to the organization of the 
House in H. Res. 988, including expanding the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Science and Astronautics, and changing its 
name to the Committee on Science and Technology.
    To the general realm of scientific research and development 
was added energy, environmental, atmospheric, and civil 
aviation R&D, and also jurisdiction over the National Weather 
Service.
    In addition to these legislative functions, the Committee 
on Science and Technology was assigned a ``special oversight'' 
function, giving it the exclusive responsibility among all 
Congressional standing Committees to review and study, on a 
continuing basis, all laws, programs and government activities 
involving federal nonmilitary research and development.
    In 1977, with the abolition of the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy, the Committee was further assigned jurisdiction 
over civilian nuclear research and development thereby rounding 
out its jurisdiction for all civilian energy R&D.
    A Committee's jurisdiction gives it both a mandate and a 
focus. It is, however, the Committee's Chairman that gives it a 
unique character. The Committee on Science and Technology has 
had the good fortune to have had five very talented and 
distinctly different Chairmen, each very creative in his own 
way in directing the Committee's activities.
    Congressman Overton Brooks was the Science and Astronautics 
Committee's first Chairman, and was a tireless worker on the 
Committee's behalf for the 2\1/2\ years he served as Chairman.
    When Brooks convened the first meeting of the new Committee 
in January of 1959, Committee Member Ken Hechler recalled, 
``There was a sense of destiny, a tingle of realization that 
every member was embarking on a voyage of discovery, to learn 
about the unknown, to point powerful telescopes toward the 
cosmos and unlock secrets of the universe, and to take part in 
a great experiment.'' With that spirit the Committee began its 
work.
    Brooks worked to develop closer ties between the Congress 
and the scientific community. On February 2, 1959, opening the 
first official hearing of the new Committee Chairman Brooks 
said, ``Although perhaps the principal focus of the hearings 
for the next several days will be on astronautics, it is 
important to recognize that this Committee is concerned with 
scientific research across the board.'' And so, from the 
beginning, the Committee was concerned with the scope of its 
vision.
    Overton Brooks died of a heart attack in September of 1961, 
and the chairmanship of the Committee was assumed by 
Congressman George Miller of California.
    Miller, a civil engineer, was unique among Members of 
Congress who rarely come to the legislature with a technical or 
scientific background. He had a deep interest in science, and 
his influence was clearly apparent in the broadening of the 
charter of the National Science Foundation and the 
establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment. He 
pioneered in building strong relationships with leaders of 
science in other nations. This work developed the focus for a 
new Subcommittee established during his chairmanship, known as 
the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development.
    Just a few months before Miller became Chairman, President 
John F. Kennedy announced to a joint session of Congress the 
national commitment to land a man on the moon and return him 
safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Thus, during 
Miller's 11-year tenure as Chairman, the Committee directed its 
main efforts toward the development of the space program.
    Chairman Miller was not reelected in the election of 1972, 
so in January of 1973, Olin E. Teague of Texas took over the 
helm of the Committee. Teague, a man of directness and 
determination, was a highly decorated hero of the second World 
War. He was a long-standing Member of Congress and Chairman of 
the Veterans Committee before taking over the chairmanship of 
the Science and Technology Committee.
    Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Teague chaired the 
Science Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee, and in 
that capacity firmly directed the efforts to send a man to the 
moon.
    As Chairman of the Committee, Teague placed heavy emphasis 
on educating the Congress and the public on the practical value 
of space. He also prodded NASA to focus on the industrial and 
human applications of the space program.
    One of Teague's first decisions as Chairman was to set up a 
Subcommittee on Energy. During his six-year leadership of the 
Committee, energy research and development became a major part 
of the Committee's responsibilities.
    In 1976, Chairman Teague saw the fruition of three years of 
intensive Committee work to establish a permanent presence for 
science in the White House. The Office of Science and 
Technology Policy was established with a Director who would 
also serve as the President's Science Advisor.
    Throughout his leadership, he voiced constant concern that 
the complicated technical issues the Committee considered be 
expressed in clear and simple terms so that Members of 
Congress, as well as the general public, would understand the 
issues.
    After six years as Chairman, Teague retired from the 
Committee and the Congress due to serious health problems. He 
was succeeded by Don Fuqua, a Representative from northern 
Florida.
    Fuqua became Chairman on January 24, 1979, at the beginning 
of the 96th Congress and was the youngest Member to succeed to 
the Committee's chairmanship.
    Don Fuqua came to the Congress after two terms in the 
Florida State Legislature and was, at age 29, the youngest 
Democrat in Congress when he was elected in 1962.
    Fuqua's experience on the Committee dated back to the first 
day of his Congressional service. Since 1963, he had served as 
a member of the Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee. 
When Olin Teague became Chairman of the Committee in 1973, 
Fuqua took Teague's place as Chairman of the Subcommittee.
    As the Subcommittee Chairman he was responsible for major 
development decisions on the Space Shuttle and the successful 
Apollo-Soyuz link-up in space between American astronauts and 
Soviet cosmonauts. Later, the Subcommittee's responsibility was 
expanded to cover all other NASA activities and was renamed the 
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.
    As Chairman of the Committee, Fuqua's leadership could be 
seen in the expansion of Committee activities to include 
technological innovation, science and math education, materials 
policy, robotics, technical manpower, and nuclear waste 
disposal. He worked to strengthen the Committee's ties with the 
scientific and technical communities to assure that the 
Committee was kept abreast of current developments, and could 
better plan for the future.
    During the 99th Congress, the Science and Technology 
Committee, under Fuqua's chairmanship, carried out two 
activities of special note.
    The first was the initiation of a study of the nation's 
science policy encompassing the 40-year period between the end 
of the second World War and the present. The intent was to 
identify strengths and weaknesses in our nation's science 
network. At the end of the 99th Congress, Chairman Fuqua issued 
a personal compilation of essays and recommendations on 
American science and science policy issues in the form of a 
Chairman's Report.
    The second activity was a direct outgrowth of the Space 
Shuttle ``Challenger'' accident of January 28, 1986. As part of 
the Committee's jurisdictional responsibility over all the NASA 
programs and policies, a steering group of Committee members, 
headed by Congressman Robert Roe, the Ranking Majority Member, 
conducted an intensive investigation of the Shuttle accident. 
The Committee's purpose and responsibility were not only the 
specific concern for the safe and effective functioning of the 
Space Shuttle program, but the larger objective of insuring 
that NASA, as the nation's civilian space agency, maintain 
organizational and programmatic excellence across the board.
    Chairman Fuqua announced his retirement from the House of 
Representatives at the termination of the 99th Congress. He 
served 24 years on the Committee on Science and Technology and 
8 years as its Chairman.
    Congressman Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, a long-time member 
of the Committee, became its new Chairman at the beginning of 
the 100th Congress. With this fifth Chairman, the Committee was 
once again presided over by an individual with professional 
technical expertise. Congressman Roe was trained as an engineer 
and brought that broad knowledge and understanding to bear on 
the Committee's issues from the first day of his tenure.
    Congressman Roe's first official act as Chairman was to 
request a change in the Committee's name from the Committee on 
Science and Technology to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. This change was designed not only to reflect the 
Committee's broad space jurisdiction, but also to convey the 
importance of space exploration and development to the nation's 
future.
    In the 100th Congress, under Chairman Roe's stewardship, 
the Committee kept close scrutiny over NASA's efforts to 
redesign and reestablish the space shuttle program. The 
successful launch of the Shuttle Discovery in September, 1988 
marked America's return to space after 32 months without launch 
capability.
    The vulnerability of having the nation's launch capability 
concentrated singularly in the Space Shuttle, and the rapid 
increase of foreign competition in commercial space activities, 
precipitated strong Committee action to help ensure the 
competitive posture of the nation's emerging commercial launch 
industry.
    Chairman Roe's leadership to stabilize and direct the 
nation's space program led to the Committee's first phase of 
multi-year authorizations for research and development programs 
with the advent of three year funding levels for the Space 
Station.
    Within the national movement to improve America's 
technological competitiveness, Chairman Roe headed the 
Committee's initiative to expand and redefine the mission of 
the National Bureau of Standards in order for it to aid 
American industry in meeting global technological challenges.
    The Science Committee has a long tradition of alerting the 
Congress and the nation to new scientific and technological 
opportunities that have potential to create dramatic economic 
or societal change. Among these have been recombinant DNA 
research and supercomputer technology. In the 100th Congress, 
members of the Committee included the new breakthroughs in 
superconductivity research in this category.
    Several long-term efforts of the Committee came to fruition 
during the 101st Congress. As the community of space-faring 
nations expanded, and as space exploration and development 
moved toward potential commercialization in some areas, the 
need arose for legal certainty concerning intellectual property 
rights in space. Legislation long advocated by the Science 
Committee defining the ownership of inventions in outer space 
became public law during this Congress.
    Continuing the Committee's interest long range energy 
research programs for renewable and alternative energy sources, 
a national hydrogen research and development program was 
established to lead to economic production of hydrogen from 
renewable resources its use as an alternative fuel.
    At the end of the 101st Congress, the House Democratic 
Caucus voted Representative Roe Chairman of the Public Works 
and Transportation Committee to fill the vacancy in that 
Committee's Chairmanship.
    Congressman Roe, who served as Chairman of the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee for the 100th and the 101st 
Congresses, brought a leadership style of high energy and 
strong enthusiasm to the Committee. He was known for his 
tenacious commitment to understanding an issue down to its 
smallest detail.
    The hallmark of Representative Roe's four-year tenure as 
Chairman was his articulation of science, space, and technology 
as the well-spring for generating the new wealth for America's 
future economic growth and long-term security.
    At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991, 
Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of southern California 
became the sixth Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee. He was the third Chairman, among the six, to bring 
scientific or technical experience to the position. Trained in 
industrial physics, Brown worked as a civil engineer for many 
years before entering politics.
    Elected to the Congress in 1962, Brown has been a member of 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee since 1965. During 
his more than two decade tenure on the Committee before 
becoming its Chairman, he chaired Subcommittees on the 
environment, on research and technology, and on transportation 
and aviation R&D.
    Whether from his insightful leadership as a Subcommittee 
Chairman or from the solitary summit of a futurist, Brown 
brought a visionary perspective to the Committee's dialogue by 
routinely presenting ideas far ahead of the mainstream agenda.
    George Brown talked about conservation and renewable energy 
sources, technology transfer, sustainable development, 
environmental degradation, and an agency devoted to civilian 
technology when there were few listeners and fewer converts. He 
tenaciously stuck to these beliefs and time has proven his 
wisdom and clairvoyance.
    Consistent with his long-held conviction that the nation 
needed a coherent technology policy, Brown's first action as 
Chairman was to create a separate Subcommittee for technology 
and competitiveness issues. During his initial year as 
Chairman, Brown developed an extensive technology initiative 
which was endorsed by the House of Representatives in the final 
days of the 102nd Congress. The work articulated Brown's 
concept of a partnership between the public and private sectors 
to improve the nation's competitiveness.
    The culmination of the 102nd Congress saw Brown's 
persistent efforts to redirect our national energy agenda come 
to fruition. The first broad energy policy legislation enacted 
in over a decade included a strong focus on conservation, 
renewable energy sources, and the expanded use of non-petroleum 
fuels, especially in motor vehicles.
    In Brown's continuing concern to demonstrate the practical 
application of advances in science and technology, he 
instituted the first international video-conferenced meetings 
in the U.S. Congress. In March of 1992, members of the Science 
Committee exchanged ideas on science and technology via 
satellite with counterparts from the Commonwealth of 
Independent States. This pilot program in the House of 
Representatives resulted in a decision to establish permanent 
in-house capacity for video-conferencing for the House.
    As a final activity in the 102nd Congress, Brown issued a 
Chairman's Report on the federally funded research enterprise. 
The work will serve as the starting point for a comprehensive 
review and revision of federal science policy currently in the 
planning stage.
    The 1994 Congressional elections turned over control of the 
Congress to the Republican party. The House Republican 
Conference acted to change the official name of the Committee 
from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to the 
Committee on Science. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania became 
the Science Committee's first Republican Chairman, and the 
seventh Committee Chairman. Walker had served on the Science 
Committee since his election to Congress in 1976, and had been 
the Ranking Member since 1989.
    Chairman Walker acted to streamline the Subcommittee 
structure from five to four Subcommittees: Basic Research, 
Energy and Environment, Space and Aeronautics, and Technology. 
This action reflected the new Congress' mandate to increase 
efficiency and cut expenses, and also reflected Walker's 
personal desire to refocus the Committee's work. Due to the 
reduction in the number of Subcommittees and a sharper focus on 
the issues, the number of hearings was reduced, while the 
number of measures passed by the House and signed into law 
increased.
    Chairman Walker chose to use the Full Committee venue to 
hold hearings exploring the role of science and technology in 
the future. The first hearing, ``Is Today's Science Policy 
Preparing Us for the Future?'' served as the basis for much of 
the Committee's work during the 104th Congress.
    For the first time in recent Science Committee history, 
every agency under the Committee's jurisdiction was authorized. 
To preserve and enhance the core federal role of creating new 
knowledge for the future, the Science Committee sought to 
prioritize basic research policies. In order to do so, the 
Committee took strong, unprecedented action by applying six 
criteria to civilian R&D:
    (1) Federal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-
commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and 
commercialization to the marketplace.
    (2) All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused 
to the agencies' missions.
    (3) Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and 
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research 
to industry, private research foundations and universities
    (4) The Federal Government should not fund research in 
areas that are receiving, or should reasonably be expected to 
obtain, funding from the private sector.
    (5) Revolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities that 
make possible the impossible should be pursued within 
controlled, performance-based funding levels.
    (6) Federal R&D funding should not be carried out beyond 
demonstration of technical feasibility. Significant additional 
private investment should be required for economic feasibility, 
commercial development, production and marketing.
    The authorization bills produced by the Science Committee 
reflected those standards, thereby protecting basic research 
and emphasizing the importance of science as a national issue. 
As an indication of the Science Committee's growing influence, 
the recommendations and basic science programs were prioritized 
accordingly.
    During the 104th Congress, the Science Committee's 
oversight efforts were focused on exploring ways to make 
government more efficient; improve management of taxpayer 
resources; expose waste, fraud and abuse; and give the United 
States the technological edge into the 21st Century.
     Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

    During the 104th Congress, 83 bills were referred to the 
Committee on Science. Committee interests were incorporated at 
the conference stage on 4 measures; 16 legislative reports were 
filed in the House; 9 measures passed the House; 8 measures 
were incorporated into an omnibus authorization bill which 
passed the House; and 4 measures were enacted.

Background and summary of legislation
    Many of the United States' economic advances of the new 
millennium will be rooted in the research and development 
performed in our laboratories today. Our nation's future well-
being, therefore, becomes dependent on the continuous transfer 
of basic science and technology from our laboratories in the 
United States, including our federal laboratories, to the 
private sector to create commercial goods and services. 
Successful technology transfer results in the creation of 
innovative products or processes becoming available to meet or 
induce market demand.
    Congress has long tried to encourage transfer to the 
private sector of unclassified technology created in our 
federal laboratories. This is eminently logical since federal 
laboratories are considered one of our nation's greatest 
assets; yet, they are also a largely untapped resource of 
technical expertise. The United States has over 700 federal 
laboratories, employing one of six scientists in the nation and 
occupying one-fifth of the country's lab and equipment 
capabilities. It is, therefore, important to our future 
economic well-being to make the ideas and resources of our 
federal laboratory scientists available to United States 
companies for commercialization opportunities.
    By permitting effective collaboration between our federal 
laboratories and private industry, new technologies and 
industrial innovation can be effectively commercialized and 
brought into the broader economy, thus enhancing our nation's 
ability to compete in the global marketplace. To help further 
this goal, Congress first enacted the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480). The Stevenson-
Wydler Act required federal laboratories to take an active role 
in technical cooperation and established technology transfer 
offices at all major federal laboratories. That landmark 
legislation expanded considerably with the Federal Technology 
Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502) and the National 
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-189).
    The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 allowed a 
government-owned, government-operated (GOGO) laboratory staffed 
by federal employees to enter into a Cooperative Research and 
Development Agreement (CRADA) with industry, universities, and 
others. The CRADA mechanism allows a laboratory and an 
industrial company to negotiate patent rights and royalties 
before they conduct joint research, giving the company patent 
protection for any inventions and products that result from the 
collaboration. This patent protection provides an incentive for 
the companies to invest in turning laboratory ideas into 
commercial products. Furthermore, if a federal laboratory 
negotiates the payment of royalties as part of a CRADA 
arrangement, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 
provides that part of those royalties are shared with the 
federal inventor as a reward for his or her work and as an 
incentive to them and others to report and assist in the 
transfer of potentially valuable inventions. A CRADA also 
provides a federal laboratory with valuable insights into the 
needs and priorities of industry, and with the expertise 
available only in industry, that enhances a laboratory's 
ability to accomplish its mission.
    The National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 
1989, included as Section 3131 et seq. of the Department of 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (P.L. 101-189), 
extended the CRADA authority to a government-owned, contractor-
operated (GOCO) laboratory such as the Department of Energy 
laboratories. It also protected information and innovations, 
brought into and created through a CRADA, from disclosure.
    Since the inception in 1986 of the CRADA legislation, over 
2,000 agreements have been signed, resulting in the transfer of 
technology, knowledge, and expertise back and forth between our 
federal laboratories and the private sector. Under current law, 
the work done under a CRADA must not detract from the mission 
responsibilities of a federal laboratory. The federal 
laboratory may accept funds, personnel, services, and property 
from the private sector partner and may provide personnel, 
services, and property in return, but the labs are expressly 
prohibited from providing direct funding to their collaborating 
partners.
    Despite the success of the CRADA legislation, there are 
existing impediments to private companies entering into CRADAs. 
The law was originally designed to provide a great deal of 
flexibility in the negotiation of intellectual property rights 
to both the private sector partner and the federal laboratory; 
however, it provides little guidance to either party on the 
adequacy of those rights a private sector partner should 
receive in a CRADA.
    Agencies are given broad discretion in the determination of 
intellectual property rights under CRADA legislation. This has 
often resulted in laborious negotiations of patent rights for 
certain laboratories and their partners each time they discuss 
a new CRADA. With options ranging from assigning the company 
full patent title to providing the company with only a 
nonexclusive license for a narrow field of use, both sides must 
undergo this negotiation on the range of intellectual property 
rights for each CRADA.
    This uncertainty of intellectual property rights, coupled 
with the time and effort required in negotiation, may now be 
hindering collaboration by the private sector with federal 
laboratories. This, in essence, has become a barrier to 
technology transfer. Companies are reluctant to enter into 
CRADAs, or equally important, to commit substantial investments 
to commercialize CRADA inventions, unless they have some 
assurance they will control important intellectual property 
rights.
    H.R. 2196, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995, seeks to enhance the possibility of 
commercialization of technology and industrial innovation in 
the United States by providing assurances that sufficient 
rights to intellectual property will be granted to the private 
sector partner with a federal laboratory. The Act guarantees to 
the private sector partner the option, at minimum, of selecting 
an exclusive license in a field of use for a new invention 
created in a CRADA. The company would then have the right to 
use the new invention in exchange for reasonable compensation 
to the laboratory.
    In addition, H.R. 2196 addresses concerns about government 
rights to an invention created in a CRADA. It provides that the 
Federal Government will retain minimum statutory rights to use 
the technology for its own purposes. It provides limited 
government ``march-in-rights'' if there is a public necessity 
that requires compulsory licensing of the technology. H.R. 2196 
also provides enhanced financial incentives and rewards to 
federal laboratory scientists for new technology that results 
in marketable products, to be paid for from the income the 
laboratories receive for the commercialized technology.
Legislative history
    Congresswoman Constance A. Morella of Maryland introduced 
H.R. 2196 on August 4, 1995. The bill was originally 
cosponsored by Congressmen Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania, 
George E. Brown, Jr., of California, and John S. Tanner of 
Tennessee. Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV, of West Virginia 
introduced the Senate companion bill, S. 1164, on August 10, 
1995.
    On June 27, 1995, the House Science Committee's Technology 
and Basic Research Subcommittees held a joint hearing on 
technology transfer and our federal laboratories, with a focus 
on the draft text of H.R. 2196. The testimony from the June 
hearing supplemented the hearing record already established in 
the previous Congress on the bill text. On September 20, 1994, 
in the 103rd Congress, the House Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee's Technology, Environment, and Aviation Subcommittee 
held a hearing on H.R. 3590, the Technology Transfer 
Improvements Act of 1993, which led to further refinements in 
the bill.
    On October 18, 1995, the Technology Subcommittee 
unanimously reported H.R. 2196 favorably to the Full Committee, 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment 
incorporated certain provisions affecting the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), among others, 
which were approved by the House Science Committee, on June 28, 
1995, as part of H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement 
Act of 1995. The amendment provisions were passed by the House 
on October 12, 1995, in Title VI of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus 
Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995.
    On October 25, 1995, the Science Committee considered H.R. 
2196, as amended by the Subcommittee. The Committee accepted 
certain additional amendments to the bill and ordered H.R. 2196 
reported to the House without objection by voice vote. On 
December 7, 1995, H.R. 2196 was reported to the House (amended) 
by the House Committee on Science Report Number 104-390. It was 
placed on Union Calendar Number 197 on December 7, 1995. On 
December 7, 1995, H.R. 2196 was called up by the House under 
suspension of the Rules and passed by voice vote. It was 
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation on December 13, 1995. On February 7, 1996, the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 
discharged by Unanimous Consent and laid the measure before the 
Senate. S.1194 passed the Senate (amended) by voice vote on 
February 7, 1996. (Senate Report 104-194) On February 27, 1996, 
the motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the 
Senate amendments, was agreed to by voice vote. On March 7, 
1996, the President signed the bill which became P.L. 104-113.

Background, summary, and legislative history
    On June 10, 1996, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 3604, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. On June 10, 1996, the 
bill was referred to the House Committee on Commerce. On June 
11, 1996, the Commerce Committee marked-up the bill and ordered 
the measure reported (amended) by a vote of 42--0 (Report No. 
104-632 (Part I)). On June 24, 1996, the bill was referred to 
the House Committee on Science sequentially, for a period 
ending not later than July 24, 1996. On June 25, 1996, the 
measure passed the House (amended) under suspension of rules by 
voice vote. The amendment included a new Title VI: Drinking 
Water Research Authorization, which included the drinking water 
related provisions of Title V of H.R. 3322. S. 1316, Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, the Senate Companion to 
H.R. 3604, was taken-up in lieu of H.R. 3604.
    On October 12, 1996, S. 1316 was introduced by Senator 
Kempthorne and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works. On October 24, 1995, the Committee ordered the 
measure reported (amended) (Report No. 104-169). On November 
29, 1995, S. 1316 passed the Senate (amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 
99--0 (Record Vote No: 588). On July 17, 1996, the House struck 
all after the enacting clause and substituted the language of 
H.R. 3604; passed the measure by voice vote; insisted upon its 
amendment; requested conference; and the Speaker appointed 
conferees: from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of 
the Senate bill and the House amendment (except for Title V), 
and modifications committed to conference; as additional 
conferees from the Committee on Science (Walker, Rohrabacher, 
and Roemer), for the consideration of that portion of section 3 
that adds a new section 1478 and sections 23, 25(f), and 28(f) 
of the Senate bill, and that portion of section 308 that adds a 
new section 1452(n) and section 402 and Title VI of the House 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference; and as 
additional conferees from the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, for the consideration of that portion of 
section 3 that adds a new section 1471(c) and sections 9, 17, 
22(d), 25(a), 25(g), 28(a), 28(e), 28(h), and 28(i) of the 
Senate bill, and Title V of the House amendment and 
modifications committed to conference. On July 18, 1996, the 
Senate disagreed to the House amendment by unanimous consent; 
agreed to the request for conference; and appointed conferees. 
On August 1, 1996, Conference Report H. Rept. 104-741 was 
filed.
    Title VI was modified and became Title II of the Conference 
Report. Title II, Drinking Water Research, authorizes 
$26,593,000 annually to be appropriated for drinking water 
research for FY 1997 through 2003; directs the Administrator to 
develop a strategic plan for drinking water research activities 
throughout EPA, integrate the plan into ongoing EPA planning 
activities, and review all EPA drinking water research to 
ensure the research is of high quality and does not duplicate 
any other research being conducted by EPA. A section added in 
conference from the Senate bill authorizes the Administrator of 
EPA to reestablish a partnership between the Robert S. Kerr 
Environmental Research Laboratory and the National Center for 
Ground Water Research to conduct research, training, and 
technology transfer for ground water quality protection and 
restoration.
    On August 2, 1996, the House agreed to the Conference 
Report by yea-nay vote: 392--30 (Record Vote No: 399); the 
Senate agreed to the conference report by yea-nay vote: 98--0 
(Record Vote No: 263); the measure was cleared for the White 
House and presented to the President. On August 6, 1996, the 
President signed the measure (P.L. 104-182).

Background and summary of legislation
    The Committee participated in the House-Senate Conference 
on H.R. 3230, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1997. Messrs. Walker, Sensenbrenner, and Mrs. Harman were 
appointed conferees for Sections 203, Dual-Use Technology 
Programs; 211, Space Launch Modernization; 245, Amendments to 
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; 
and 247, National Oceanographic Partnership Act, of the House 
bill, and sections 211, Space Launch Modernization; 251-252, 
National Oceanographic Partnership Act; and 1044, Prohibition 
on Collection and Release of Detailed Satellite Imagery 
Relating to Israel and Other Countries and Areas, of the Senate 
amendment. All three Members signed the conference report.
    The language of Section 247 of the House bill, National 
Oceanographic Partnership Act, was similar to Section 453 of 
H.R. 3322, Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996, 
as passed by the Committee on Science. Minor changes were made 
to reconcile the House and Senate versions of this provision.
Legislative history
    H.R. 3230 was introduced on April 15, 1996, and passed by 
the House on May 15, 1996. The Senate passed S. 1745 on July 
10, 1996, and requested a conference. The conference report 
cleared the House on August 1, the Senate on September 10, and 
the President signed the legislation on September 23, 1996 
(P.L. 104-201).

Background and summary of legislation
    The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the 
Antarctic Treaty established specific principles and rules for 
protection of the Antarctic environment from human activities. 
Specifically, the Protocol addresses the protection of flora 
and fauna, imposes strict limits on the discharge of 
pollutants, and requires environmental impact assessments of 
planned governmental and non-governmental activities. The 
Protocol also forbids prospecting or development of Antarctic 
mineral resources, but excludes scientific research.
    A particularly important aspect of the Protocol is its 
reinforcement of the status of Antarctica as a natural reserve 
devoted to peace and science. Antarctica is recognized as a 
unique scientific laboratory of enormous value to the 
international community. Preservation of the unique environment 
is intrinsic to its value for scientific purposes, and the 
Environmental Protocol is intended to help ensure that the 
pristine environment of the continent is preserved.
    The Protocol was signed by the United States in October of 
1991 and was approved by the Senate in October 1992. The United 
States must enact legislation in order to ratify the protocol. 
The protocol, however, is not self-executing. In order for the 
Protocol to be fully effective and enforceable, all 26 of the 
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties must ratify the Protocol. 
Of the 26 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties only 20 have 
ratified the Protocol, leaving the United States, Russia, 
Japan, India, Belgium, and Finland to complete action. H.R. 
3060 provides the necessary legislative authority for the 
United States to implement the Protocol.
Legislative history
    H.R. 3060 was introduced by Chairman Walker and 19 other 
original cosponsors on March 12, 1996. It was referred to the 
Committee on Science and to the Committees on International 
Relations, and Resources for those provisions under their 
jurisdiction. On April 18, 1996, the Full Committee held a 
hearing to review the bill. Witnesses included: Ms. Eileen 
Claussen, Assistant Secretary of State, Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State; Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science 
Foundation; Ms. Kathryn S. Fuller, President, World Wildlife 
Fund; and Dr. Robert H. Rutford, Program of Geosciences, 
University of Texas at Dallas. All witnesses were supportive of 
legislation to implement the Protocol.
    The Full Committee met to mark up the legislation on April 
24, 1996. A quorum being present, H.R. 3060 was approved, 
without amendment, by voice vote, and ordered reported. The 
Committee filed House Report 104-593, Part 1, on May 23, 1996. 
Also on May 23, 1996, the Committees on International Relations 
and Resources discharged H.R. 3060 from further consideration.
    A related measure was introduced in the Senate by Senator 
John Kerry (D-MA) on March 26, 1996 (S. 1645). It was referred 
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. No Senate hearings were held on the measure 
this Congress. Hearings were held in the previous Congress. The 
Full Committee met to mark up the legislation on June 6, 1996. 
S. 1645 was approved by the Committee and ordered reported, 
unamended. The Committee filed Senate Report 104-332 on July 
24, 1996.
    On June 10, 1996, H.R. 3060 was called up by the House 
under Suspension of the Rules and passed by a recorded vote of 
Yeas--352 to Nays--4. H.R. 3060 was received in the Senate on 
June 11, 1996. On September 4, 1996, the Senate called up H.R. 
3060 and inserted the text of S. 1645 as amended. H.R. 3060, as 
amended, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. On September 
10, 1996, H.R. 3060, as amended by the Senate, was called up by 
the House under Suspension of the Rules, and passed by voice 
vote. H.R. 3060 was presented to the President for signature on 
September 20, 1996. On October 2, 1996, the President signed 
H.R. 3060 into law (P.L. 104-227).

Background, summary, and legislative history
    On May 16, 1996, Chairwoman Morella introduced H.R. 3438, 
the Federal Aviation Administration--Research, Engineering, and 
Development Authorization and Management Reform Act of 1996. 
Its major provisions were subsequently incorporated into Title 
VII of H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization 
Act of 1996.
    The Full Committee met to mark up a Committee print for 
H.R. 3322 on April 24, 1996. After adopting five amendments, a 
quorum being present, the Full Committee approved the Committee 
print, as amended, by a recorded vote of yeas--24 to nays--19, 
and ordered it reported. A motion was then adopted to prepare a 
clean bill for introduction in the House, and that the measure 
be deemed reported by the Committee. The Committee filed House 
Report 104-550, Part 1, on May 1, 1996. On May 6, 1996, the 
Committees on Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
National Security discharged H.R. 3322 from further 
consideration.
    On May 7, 1996, the Committee on Rules granted an open 
rule, adopting H. Res. 427. On May 9, 1996, the House passed 
the rule. H.R. 3322 was called up by the House under an open 
rule on May 29, 1996, with the Committee Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment. It was considered on May 29 and 30, 1996, 
and passed the House, with amendments, by voice vote, on May 
30, 1996. H.R. 3322 was received in the Senate on June 3, 1996, 
and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. The Senate took no formal action on this 
legislation.
    Title VII of H.R. 3322 (as passed by the House) was added 
to H.R. 3539 (Title VI/Title XI of the Conference Report), The 
Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. Title XI of the 
Conference Report is the FAA Research, Engineering, and 
Development (RD&E) Management Reform Act of 1996. Title XI 
authorizes $208 million for FAA research and development 
activities in Fiscal Year (FY) 1997--an increase of $21 million 
over the FY 1996 appropriated level. The language in Title XI 
was modified in Conference to increase the authorization for 
aviation security research by just over $21 million. This 
increase should allow the FAA to step-up its efforts to develop 
effective anti-terrorism technologies for U.S. airports. The 
title further directs the FAA research advisory committee to 
annually review the FAA research and development funding 
allocations and requires the Administrator of the FAA to 
consider the advisory committee's advice in establishing its 
annual funding priorities. Title XI streamlines the 
requirements of the National Aviation Research Plans and 
shortens the time-frame the plans must cover from 15 to 5 
years.
    On May 29, 1996, Mr. Shuster introduced H.R. 3539, the 
Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. The bill was called 
up by House Under Suspension of Rules on September 10, 1996. An 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was passed which 
included a new Title VI, the Federal Aviation Administration--
Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization and 
Management Reform Act of 1996. Title VI is identical to Title 
VII of H.R. 3322 as passed by the House on May 30, 1996. The 
House passed H.R. 3539 (amended) by recorded vote 398--17 
(Record Vote No: 411) on September 11, 1996. The bill was 
received in the Senate on September 12, 1996. On September 18, 
1996, the measure was laid before the Senate by Unanimous 
Consent and the Senate struck all after the enacting clause and 
substituted the language of S. 1994 (amended). That day, the 
Senate passed H.R. 3539 in lieu of S. 1994 by yea-nay vote: 
99--0 (Record Vote No. 293). The Senate then insisted upon its 
amendment and requested a conference. On September 19, 1996, 
the Senate appointed conferees.
    On September 24, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment by Unanimous Consent; agreed to conference; and the 
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of the 
House bill and the Senate amendment and modifications committed 
to conference; and the Speaker appointed additional conferees--
from the Committee on Rules for consideration of section 675 of 
the Senate bill, and modifications committed to conference; 
from the Committee on Science (Walker, Morella, and Brown (CA)) 
for consideration of sections 601--05 of the House bill and 
section 103 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference; and for consideration of section 501 
of the Senate amendment and modifications committed to 
conference (Walker, Sensenbrenner, and Brown (CA)); and from 
the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of section 
501 of the House bill and sections 417, 906, and 1001 of the 
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference. On 
September 26, 1996, Conference report H. Rept. 104-848 was 
filed.
    Title VI of H.R. 3539 became Title XI of the Conference 
Report with an amendment. On September 27, 1996, the House 
agreed to Conference Report by yea-nay vote: 218--198 (Record 
Vote No: 446). On October 1, 1996, the conference report was 
considered in Senate. On October 3, 1996 cloture on the 
Conference Report was invoked by yea-nay vote: 66--31 (Record 
Vote No: 304); the Senate agreed to the Conference Report by 
yea-nay vote: 92--2 (Record Vote No: 306); and the bill was 
cleared for the White House. On October 9, 1996, the President 
signed the measure (P.L. 104-264).

Background and summary of legislation
    Hydrogen, as a gas or in liquid form, is an attractive 
source of energy because it combusts to water vapor and 
nitrogen oxide, leaving almost none of the pollutants 
associated with fossil fuels. There are several methods of 
producing hydrogen from water and other renewables, however, 
basic research is still needed to overcome many technical 
barriers. In a chemical reaction known as electrolysis, an 
enormous amount of energy is required to separate hydrogen from 
water molecules and to cool the gas enough to liquefy it. 
Equipment needed to store and burn liquid hydrogen is costly 
and heavy. At present, oil, natural gas and ethanol are less 
costly to produce. But recent technological breakthroughs, 
especially in the development of solar cells, may soon provide 
an inexpensive source of electricity to power electrolysis, 
which will make hydrogen cost competitive with fossil fuels.
    In 1989, Congress passed the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, P.L. 101-
218, to foster greater efficiency in the use of available 
energy supplies and greater use of renewable energy 
technologies. The Act directed the Secretary of Energy to: 
pursue cost competitive use of renewable energy technologies 
without the need of federal financial incentives; establish 
long-term federal research goals and multi-year funding goals; 
undertake initiatives to improve the ability of the private 
sector to commercialize in the near term renewable energy and 
energy efficiency technologies; and foster collaborative 
research and development efforts involving the private sector 
through government support of a program of joint ventures.
    The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 1989 authorized a number of energy 
research and development programs, including hydrogen. In fact, 
P.L. 101-218 required a separate, autonomous hydrogen program 
be established and delineated in the budget. Hydrogen 
activities, however, were loosely administered by the 
Department of Energy and hydrogen research and development was 
never given the priority and programmatic self-sufficiency 
which Congress intended.
    A coordinated federal program for hydrogen research, 
development, and demonstration was established by passage of 
the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Program Act of 1990, P.L. 101-566. The Act set 
forth guidelines to carry out a federal program with the goal 
of resolving critical technical issues necessary for the 
development of hydrogen technologies. The funding authorization 
for the Act expired in FY 1994.
    A supplemental legislative initiative for hydrogen 
research, development, and demonstration was included in 
Section 2026 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486. 
The provisions reinforced the five-year program on renewable 
hydrogen energy contained in P.L. 101-566 and required 
collaborative projects with industry to test and evaluate the 
production of hydrogen from a renewable energy source and to 
assess the feasibility of modifying existing natural gas 
pipelines to transport hydrogen and natural gas mixtures.
    H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995, continues to 
support a hydrogen research program by focusing the program on 
basic research and development. It establishes a coordinated 
basic research, development and demonstration program at DOE.
Legislative history
    H.R. 655 was introduced by Chairman Walker on January 24, 
1995, and referred solely to the Committee on Science. On 
February 1, 1995, the Full Committee held a hearing to review 
the bill. Witnesses included: the Honorable Christine A. Ervin, 
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Alan C. Lloyd, Chief Scientist, 
South Coast Air Quality Management District; Mr. Edward Trlica, 
President, Energy Partners, Inc.; and, Dr. Robert H. Williams, 
Senior Research Scientist, Center for Energy and Environmental 
Studies, Princeton University. Comments and criticisms were 
received on the bill.
    The Full Committee met to mark up the legislation on 
February 10, 1995. Mr. Walker offered an Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute, which was adopted by unanimous consent. 
This amendment incorporated suggestions made by the witnesses 
at the hearing. After adopting eleven amendments to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, a quorum being 
present, the Full Committee approved H.R. 655, as amended, by 
voice vote, and ordered the bill reported. The Committee filed 
House Report 104-95 on March 30, 1995.
    On May 1, 1995, the Committee on Rules granted an open 
rule, adopting H. Res. 136. On May 2, 1995, the House passed 
the rule and passed the bill, with amendments, by voice vote. 
H.R. 655 was received in the Senate on May 3, 1995, and was 
referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources' Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development.
    On March 20, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy Research and 
Development held a hearing on the bill. The Full Committee 
marked up the bill on September 12, 1996 and ordered it 
reported, with an amendment, by voice vote (no subcommittee 
markup was held). On September 13, 1996, the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources reported H.R. 655, with an 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (no legislative report 
was filed by the Senate on this measure).
    H.R. 4138, the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, was introduced 
by Chairman Walker on September 24, 1996, and referred solely 
to the Committee on Science for consideration. H.R. 4138 
incorporates some changes made to the earlier bill (H.R. 655) 
to accommodate interests of Members of the Senate. H.R. 4138 
was called up under Suspension of the Rules on September 26, 
1996 and passed by voice vote. The bill was received in the 
Senate on September 27, 1996, and on September 28, 1996 passed 
by unanimous consent. H.R. 4138 was presented to the President 
on September 30, 1996, for signature. On October 9, 1996, the 
President signed H.R. 4138 into law (P.L. 104-271).

Background and summary of legislation
    The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-168), as amended 
by the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act (P.L. 100-418), was enacted in 
order to set forth the policy of the United States to convert 
to the metric system. Section 3 of that Act requires that each 
federal agency use the metric system of measurement in its 
procurements, grants and other business related activities, 
unless that use is likely to cause significant cost or loss of 
markets to United States firms, such as when foreign 
competitors are producing competing products in non-metric 
units.
    Currently, many federal agencies are requiring as a 
condition of obtaining federal construction contracts that all 
bidders must agree to use products measured in round metric 
units. This standard is known as ``hard-metric.'' This can 
require retooling, substantial capitalization costs, and other 
expensive production changes for some suppliers to physically 
change the size of the product.
    This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has sometimes 
been imposed without appropriate regard to whether the method 
is impractical or likely to cause significant costs or a loss 
of markets to United States firms.
    Some United States businesses that manufacture basic 
construction products suffer harm by being forced to convert to 
hard-metric production, or by being foreclosed from effectively 
bidding on federally financed projects.
    Hard-metric conversion requirements may place domestic 
producers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign 
producers; may reduce the number of companies that may compete 
for contracts with the Federal Government; and may force 
manufactures to maintain double inventories of similar but 
incompatible products. The hard-metric conversion requirement 
has also unnecessarily raised the cost to the Federal 
Government of some lighting and concrete masonry products and 
there is a consensus that relief is in order for these 
industries.
    While the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 currently provides 
an exception to metric usage when impractical or when it will 
cause economic inefficiencies, there is a need for ombudsmen 
and procedures to ensure the effective implementation of this 
exception for afflicted industries. The changes made by this 
Act will advance the goals of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 
while eliminating significant problems in its implementation.
    While estimates of savings vary, analysis of several 
projects indicates that hard metric conversion can cost 15-20% 
more to implement than ``soft metric'' conversion. Soft metric 
simply requires that building materials be measured in metric 
units instead of being manufactured in round metric dimensions.
Legislative history
    H.R. 2779 was introduced by Congressman Cox on December 15, 
1995, and referred to the Committee on Science. On May 16, 
1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing entitled, 
``Proposed Amendments to the Metric Conversion Act,'' to review 
H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act. The witnesses 
discussed the need for flexibility in construction metrication 
by using ``soft metric'' versus ``hard metric'' measurements, 
especially where there are cases of adverse economic impact and 
barriers to competition. Witnesses testified regarding the need 
for the bill and their concerns with its implementation.
    Presenting testimony at the hearing were: the Honorable 
Christopher Cox (R-CA); Mr. William Fabbri, Vice-President and 
General Manager of Lightolier; Mr. Rod Lee, Senior Vice 
President of Marketing at Lithonia Lighting; Mr. Norbert Rappl, 
President of Comac Building Supply; Mr. Donald Emich, President 
of Binkley & Ober; Mr. Randall Pence, Director of Government 
Relations for the National Concrete and Masonry Association 
(NCMA); Mr. Mark Bohannon, Counsel for Technology at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce; Mr. William Brenner, Director of the 
Construction Metrication Council; Mr. Tom Cunningham, Senior 
Project Manager at R.M. Schoemaker; Mr. David Wright, Vice 
President of United Masonry Inc. of Virginia; and Ms. Lorelle 
Young, President of the U.S. Metric Association. (See Committee 
Publication 104-50)
    The Subcommittee convened to mark up H.R. 2779 on June 19, 
1996. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was offered as 
the markup vehicle, which was adopted by voice vote. The 
amendment provides specific relief for the concrete masonry and 
lighting industries in the interpretation of the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975. In addition, it provides a mechanism, 
through the appointment of an ombudsman in each executive 
branch agency, for other afflicted industries to gain such 
relief in the future.
    Subsequently in Subcommittee, an amendment to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute was offered, and adopted by voice 
vote, that clarified a definition in Section 3 of the bill with 
respect to hard versus soft metric. The Subcommittee passed 
H.R. 2779, as amended, by voice vote and ordered the bill 
reported, by voice vote, to the Full Committee for further 
consideration.
    The Full Committee met to mark up H.R. 2779 on June 26, 
1996. The only amendment offered was a manager's amendment by 
Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella to make technical 
corrections. This amendment was adopted by voice vote. H.R. 
2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996, was then passed, 
as amended, by voice vote, and ordered reported, by voice vote, 
to the Full House for consideration (House Report 104-639). On 
July 23, 1996, the House passed H.R. 2779 by voice vote. On 
July 24, 1996, the Senate received H.R. 2779 and referred it to 
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on July 29, 
1996. It passed the Senate with an amendment on September 28, 
1996. The House agreed to the Senate amendment under suspension 
of the rules on September 28, 1996, and presented it to the 
President on September 30, 1996. On October 11, 1996, the 
President signed H.R 2779 into law. (P.L. 104-289).

Summary of the legislation and legislative history
    On March 29, 1996, Mr. LaTourette introduced H.R. 3217, the 
National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The bill amends the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 
1990 to mandate: (1) regulations to prevent the introduction 
and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes 
through ballast water; and (2) voluntary guidelines to prevent 
such introduction and spread in U.S. waters by ballast water 
and other vessel operations. The bill authorizes mandatory 
regulations if guideline compliance is inadequate; provides for 
enforcement through revocation of clearance and civil and 
criminal penalties; encourages negotiations with foreign 
governments to develop and implement an international program 
for preventing such introduction and spread in North American 
waters; and mandates studies of Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake 
Bay, San Francisco Bay, Honolulu Harbor, Prince William Sound, 
and other waters.
    H.R. 3217 also requires annual grants for six years for 
aquatic nuisance species prevention and control research in the 
Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. It establishes a 
clearinghouse of national data on ballasting practices and 
compliance with guidelines under the bill, and mandates a 
ballast water management program for the Navy's seagoing fleet 
to limit the risk of invasion by nonindigenous species from 
ballast water. The bill further requires: (1) a ballast water 
management program to demonstrate technologies and practices to 
prevent aquatic nonindigenous species from being introduced 
into and spread through ballast water in U.S. waters; and (2) 
that the installation and construction of those technologies 
and practices be performed in a U.S. shipyard or ship repair 
facility. It also modifies: (1) the composition and research 
priorities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; and (2) 
zebra mussel demonstration program requirements. The measure 
requires the Task Force to encourage (including through 
financial assistance) the development and use of regional 
coordination panels and similar entities in regions other than 
the Great Lakes; provides for interstate (in addition to 
existing State) aquatic nuisance species management plans, 
allowing Indian tribes as well as States to participate; and 
authorizes appropriations.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, and to the Committee on Resources. On 
September 12, 1996, the Transportation Committee ordered the 
bill reported (amended) by voice vote (Report No: 104-815 (Part 
I)). On September 20, 1996, the measure was sequentially 
referred to the Committee on Science. The Committee on 
Transportation agreed to changes recommended by the Committee 
on Science to ensure that: (1) authorization contained within 
the bill were consistent with authorizations passed by the 
House in H.R. 3322; (2) the measure did not earmark funds 
within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee to specific 
research institutions; and (3) all research funding authorized 
by the measure within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee 
is peer reviewed. On September 24, 1996, the Committee on 
Resources and the Committee on Science were discharged from 
further consideration of the bill; the measures was called up 
by the House under Suspension of Rules; and passed the House 
(amended--including Science Committee recommended changes) by 
voice vote. On September 25, 1996, the bill was received in the 
Senate and referred to Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
    On September 28, 1996, Mr. LaTourette introduced H.R. 4283, 
the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. H.R. 4283 is the 
text of H.R. 3217 amended to take into account changes 
requested by the Senate. On September 28, 1996, H.R. 4283 was 
called up by the House by Unanimous Consent and passed the 
House by voice vote. On September 30, 1996, the bill was 
received in the Senate. On October 3, 1996, the Senate passed 
the bill by Unanimous Consent, and it was cleared for the White 
House. The President signed H.R. 4283 on October 26, 1996 (P.L. 
104-332).
  Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

Background and summary of legislation
    The Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis legislation 
was drafted in response to the need to develop clear and 
consistent guidelines on the conduct of risk assessment and 
cost benefit analysis for programs throughout the Federal 
Government which regulate and otherwise manage risks to human 
health, safety and the environment. The legislation seeks to 
ensure that these assessments and analyses are formulated using 
the best science available.
    The cost of regulation runs in the hundreds of billions of 
dollars. Federal regulatory costs are too often out of 
proportion to the problems that the regulations are designed to 
address, requiring expenditures of substantial economic 
resources on reductions in risk which are hypothetical.
    Federal risk assessment, characterization and communication 
has often been biased and based on a series of hypothetical 
assumptions which are designed to overstate the risks. In many 
contexts, federal agencies explicitly state that their risk 
assessment process is designed to produce estimates that ``err 
on the side of safety'' because of scientific uncertainties, 
and to ensure that the broadest range of the public is covered. 
It is generally believed that the ``upper bound estimates'' are 
highly improbable and differ from the most plausible level of 
risk by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, the practice of 
only calculating upper bound or worst case estimates of risk 
inappropriately collapses scientific findings with a 
preconceived policy judgment or bias. The perceived 
overstatement of risk is a serious concern among the regulated 
community. Many argue there should be ``best estimates'' or 
estimates of expected value in addition to upper-bound 
estimates to provide a more realistic benchmark.
    Some federal provisions require consideration of the costs 
and benefits of regulatory alternatives, although the specific 
language authorizing such consideration differs greatly among 
statutes. While these resulting regulatory decisions are 
judicially reviewable, the general standards of review is for 
courts to be deferential to federal agencies concerning the 
analysis of factual issues. Moreover, many federal statutes 
prohibit, or do not explicitly authorize, consideration of 
costs and benefits for determining regulatory requirements.
    The Reagan Administration issued Executive Order 12291 in 
order to encourage agencies to at least try to assess the costs 
and benefits of regulatory options where statutes did not 
otherwise compel such an assessment. As an executive order, the 
assessments were not judicially reviewable. The Clinton 
Administration has replaced Executive Order 12291 with 
Executive Order 12866 which, more or less, continues the 
requirements of 12291.
    Many advocate giving more prominence to the consideration 
of the relationship between costs and benefits and setting 
regulatory priorities to both save money and increase 
protection by focusing resources on the greatest risk reduction 
opportunities. Major purposes of the bill include:
    1. To present the public and executive branch with the most 
scientifically objective and unbiased information concerning 
the nature and magnitude of health, safety, and environmental 
risks in order to provide for sound regulatory decisions and to 
educate federal, state and local decision makers and the 
public.
    2. To provide for full consideration and relevant data and 
potential methodologies used to assess, communicate and 
characterize health, safety, and environmental risk.
    3. To require an explanation of significant choices in the 
risk assessment process which will allow for better peer review 
and public understanding.
    4. To improve consistency within the executive branch in 
preparing risk assessments and risk characterizations through, 
among other methods, further research in the risk assessment 
methodology.
    5. To undertake for every major rule designed to protect 
health, safety and the environment an analysis of the costs and 
benefits of that regulatory action.
    6. To establish a certification process by the head of each 
agency promulgating rules designed to protect health, safety 
and the environment that such regulations are based on 
objective and unbiased scientific and economic evaluation, and 
that the incremental risk reduction or other benefits will be 
likely to justify, and be reasonably related to, the 
incremental costs incurred by state, local, tribal governments, 
and the Federal Government and other public and private 
entities.
    7. To establish a certification process that no regulatory 
or non-regulatory alternative considered by the agency, or 
proposed to the agency, would be more likely to achieve a 
substantially equivalent reduction in risk in a more cost-
effective manner.
    8. To establish an independent and external peer review 
program of risk assessments used to formulate those 
regulations.
    9. To clarify that judicial review of this legislation 
shall be pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.
    To establish that for any risk assessment, risk 
characterization, cost benefit analysis, or peer review 
program, prepared by, or on behalf of, any federal agency, that 
the head of each agency shall prioritize threats to human 
health, safety and the environment according to the seriousness 
of the risk and to achieve the greatest reduction in risk, 
given the resources available to address those risks.
Legislative history
    In the 103rd Congress, Chairman Walker was an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 2910, the Risk Communication Act of 1993, 
introduced by Representative Carlos Moorhead (R-CA) on August 
6, 1993. In the 104th Congress, H.R. 2910 became Title III--
Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis for New Regulations 
introduced as part of H.R. 9, the ``Job Creation and Wage 
Enhancement Act of 1995'' by Representatives Bill Archer (R-
TX), Tom Delay (R-TX), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Linda Smith (R-WA) 
and Billy Tauzin (R-LA), on January 4, 1995. Title III of H.R. 
9 was referred to the Committee on Science, and to the 
Committees on Commerce and Government Reform and Oversight for 
those provisions under their jurisdiction. H.R. 9 was also 
referred to the Committees on Budget, Judiciary, Rules, Small 
Business, and Ways and Means for other titles and sections 
under their jurisdiction.
    On January 31, 1995, the Full Committee held the first of 
two hearings on Title III of H.R. 9. The first hearing focused 
on the views of the private sector and witnesses included: Dr. 
Jerry J. Jasinowski, President, National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM), representing the Alliance for Reasonable 
Regulation; Dr. John Graham, Professor of Policy and Decision 
Sciences, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Mr. Gordon Garner, 
Executive Director, Louisville and Jefferson County 
Metropolitan Sewer District; Mr. Sam Kazman, General Counsel, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Scott Holman, 
President/CEO, Bay Cast, Inc. Witnesses were supportive of the 
bill.
    On February 3, 1995, the Full Committee held the second 
hearing on Title III of H.R. 9. Testimony was received from 
Members of Congress, the Administration, and academia, 
regulatory and other public policy institutes and included: 
Congressman John Mica (R-FL); Congressman Dick Zimmer (R-NJ); 
the Honorable Jack Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), the White House; Dr. Lynn Goldman, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and 
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 
Mr. Keith Collins, Acting Chief Economist, Department of 
Agriculture; Mr. William Schultz, Deputy Commissioner for 
Policy, Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Thomas A. Burke, 
Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management, John 
Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health; Dr. 
Paul R. Portney, Vice President, Resources for the Future; Mr. 
Thomas O. McGarity, University of Texas School of Law; Mr. 
Terry F. Yosie, Senior Vice President, E. Bruce Harrison 
Company; The Honorable Don Ritter, former Representative from 
the 15th district, Pennsylvania, Chairman, National 
Environmental Policy Institute; and Mr. Thorne Auchter, former 
Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. EPA Assistant Administrator Dr. Lynn Goldman 
testified that the Administration believes the bill would 
create delays and make government less efficient.
    The Full Committee met to mark up Title III of H.R. 9 on 
February 8, 1995. Chairman Walker offered an Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute, which was adopted. The amendment 
incorporated suggestions made by witnesses at the hearings. 
After adopting twelve amendments to the Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute, a quorum being present, the Full Committee 
approved Title III of H.R. 9, as amended, by voice vote, and 
ordered the bill reported. The Committee filed House Report 
104-33 (Part II) on February 15, 1995. House Report 104-33 
(Part I) was filed by the Commerce Committee, also on February 
15, 1995.
    H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 
1995, was introduced by Chairman Walker on February 23, 1995. 
It was a compromise bill introduced following the filing of 
House reports by the Science and Commerce Committees. H.R. 1022 
was referred to the Committee on Science, and to the Committees 
on Commerce and Government Reform and Oversight for those 
provisions under their jurisdiction. On February 24, 1995, the 
Rules Committee granted, by a recorded vote, Yeas--9, Nays--3, 
a modified open rule providing for two hours of debate and a 
ten hour time limit on amendments by adopting H. Res. 96 and 
reported it to the House. On February 27, 1995, the Committee 
on Rules discharged Committees of jurisdiction from further 
consideration of H.R. 1022.
    H.R. 1022 was called up by the House on February 27, 1996, 
and the House passed the rule. General debate and amendments 
were considered on February 27 and 28, 1995. On February 28, 
1995, the House agreed to amendments adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole and defeated a motion to recommit, with 
instructions, by a recorded vote, Yeas--174, Nays--250. The 
House then passed H.R. 1022, amended, by a recorded vote, 
Yeas--286, Nays--141. Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 
101, the House incorporated the text of this measure, as passed 
by the House, into H.R. 9.
    H.R. 9 was called up by the House by rule on March 3, 1995. 
At that time, the House struck all after Section 1 and inserted 
in lieu thereof the provisions of a text composed of 4 
divisions: (1) H.R. 830; (2) H.R. 925; (3) H.R. 926; and (4) 
H.R. 1022, as each bill was passed by the House. A motion to 
recommit with instructions was defeated by a recorded vote, 
Yeas--180, Nays--239. The House passed H.R. 9, as amended, on 
March 3, 1995 by a recorded vote, Yeas--277, Nays--141. H.R. 9 
was received in the Senate on March 9, 1995, and referred to 
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Senate took 
no formal action on H.R. 9.
    Provisions of H.R. 9 and H.R. 1022 were incorporated into 
H.R. 2586, to provide for a temporary increase in the public 
debt limit. H.R. 2586 was introduced by Representative Bill 
Archer on November 7, 1995, and referred to the Ways and Means 
Committee. The Ways and Means Committee held a markup on 
November 7, 1995, and ordered the bill reported, as amended. 
House Report 104-325 was filed by the Ways and Means Committee 
on November 7, 1995. On November 9, 1995, the House passed H. 
Res. 258, the rule under which H.R. 2586 was considered by a 
recorded vote, Yeas--220, Nays--200, and passed the bill, H.R. 
2586, by a recorded vote, Yeas--227, Nays--194. Also on 
November 9, 1995, the Senate passed H.R. 2586, as amended, by a 
recorded vote, Yeas--49, Nays--47. On November 10, 1995, the 
House agreed to the Senate amendment, clearing the measure for 
the President by a recorded vote, Yeas--219, Nays--185. The 
President vetoed H.R. 2586 on November 10, 1995.

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Sea Grant College Program Act was passed in 
1966 to increase understanding of marine resources in order to 
improve their management, utilization and conservation. In 
1970, Sea Grant was transferred from the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) to the newly-created National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National Sea Grant 
College Program, one of two extramural ocean research programs 
within OAR, accounts for roughly 20 percent of OAR's annual 
expenditure. Authorization for the National Sea Grant College 
Program expired at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995.
    The Committee amended H.R. 1175, the Marine Resources 
Revitalization Act of 1995, to make it consistent with the 
provisions of H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Act Authorization of 1995. H.R. 1815 was incorporated into H.R. 
2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995.
    H.R. 1175, as amended by the Science Committee, amended 
Public Law 89-454 to provide for the reauthorization of the 
National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.) 
for FY 1996, terminated low-priority elements of the program, 
and made certain improvements to refocus the program on 
scientific research.
    The core Sea Grant Program was funded at $49 million in FY 
1995. Of that total, $2.9 million was used for administration 
of the national program. An additional $1.5 million was 
appropriated for oyster disease research and $2.8 million for 
zebra mussel research, which is authorized under a separate 
statute. The Administration requested $49.4 million for the Sea 
Grant Program for FY 1996 and recommended no funding for the 
Sea Grant zebra mussel and oyster disease programs.
    Through amendments to H.R. 1175, the Committee refocused 
the Sea Grant program exclusively on scientific research and 
authorized $34.5 million for this purpose along with an 
additional $1.5 million for administration of the national 
program for FY 1996. H.R. 1175, as passed by the Science 
Committee, eliminated the Dean John Knauss Marine Policy 
Fellowship Program and the Sea Grant International Program. The 
bill refocused the Sea Grant program on scientific research by 
refocusing the definition of ``fields related to ocean, 
coastal, and Great Lakes resources on science.'' The bill also 
banned the use of federal Sea Grant funds for lobbying 
activities, and restricted future funding for institutions 
which receive appropriations earmarks.
Legislative history
    On February 21, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
NOAA's FY 1996 budget. Testifying on NOAA's budget before the 
Subcommittee was Dr. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans 
and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce, and Administrator of 
NOAA. Dr. Baker indicated the Administration's support for 
funding Sea Grant at $49 million for FY 1996.
    Mr. Young introduced H.R. 1175 on March 8, 1995. It was 
referred to the Committee on Resources and reported, as 
amended, on May 16, 1995. H.R. 1175 was then referred to the 
Committee on Science on May 17, 1995. The full Science 
Committee held a markup of H.R. 1175 on June 28, 1995, and 
adopted an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by 
Mr. Walker to incorporate the Sea Grant-related provisions of 
H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of 1995, into H.R. 1175. The substitute 
authorized appropriations of $36 million for FY 1996 for the 
National Sea Grant College Program. H.R. 1175, as amended, was 
ordered reported by voice vote to the full House for 
consideration. On July 11, 1995 the measure was reported to the 
House and placed on the Union Calendar.
    The provisions of H.R. 1175, as amended by the Committee on 
Science, were incorporated into Title IV of H.R. 2405, the 
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995. H.R. 2405 
passed the House on October 12, 1995. Prior to passage, the 
House adopted a Weldon (PA) amendment which increased the 
authorization level for the Sea Grant Program in H.R. 2405 from 
$36 million to $53 million for FY 1996. No other changes were 
made to the Sea Grant provisions of H.R. 2405. The Senate took 
no action on H.R. 2405 during the 104th Congress.
    Committee Publication Number 104-10 and H. Rept. 104-123 
(Part II).

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 1601 gives the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) the authority to proceed on its current, 
baseline International Space Station development plan, 
extending from Fiscal Year 1996 through assembly complete in 
Fiscal Year 2002. It authorizes a total of $13,141,000,000 not 
to exceed $2,121,000,000 in any one fiscal year. The 
authorization is conditioned upon each year's success, meaning 
NASA must stay on budget and on time for the legislation to 
remain effective.
    The Space Station program has been redesigned a number of 
times since its inception in 1984 as the Space Station Freedom 
program, and was first funded in the Fiscal Year 1985 budget 
cycle. In early 1993, President Clinton ordered NASA to 
redesign the Freedom program again, ultimately resulting in the 
Alpha design announced in September of that year. The cost of 
the Space Station has increased from $8 billion, as proposed in 
1984, to $30 billion prior to the final redesign. Most of that 
nearly 4 to 1 cost growth can be attributed to redesigns and 
fiscal stretch-outs called for by actions taken by the 
Congress.
    The 1993 redesign was aimed at cost reduction while at the 
same time limiting the annual total to $2.1 billion. This along 
with a total authorization of $13,141,000,000 is a significant 
savings over earlier designs and projections. The redesigned 
Space Station will offer more laboratory space and more power 
than any of the previous designs. The President has spared the 
Space Station from NASA's significant budget cuts and touted it 
as the highest national priority in space today.
Legislative history
    H.R. 1601 was introduced on May 10, 1995, by Chairman 
Robert S. Walker and Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. It was referred solely to 
the Committee on Science and its Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics.
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on 
the overall budget of NASA on February 13, 1995, reviewing 
testimony from NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin. On March 
16, 1995, the Subcommittee held another hearing that examined, 
in detail, NASA program budgets with testimony from non-agency 
witnesses including a Space Station panel. Witnesses on that 
panel included: Mr. Richard H. Kohrs, Director, Center for 
International Aerospace Cooperation; Mr. Norman R. Parmet, 
Chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Dr. Hans Mark, 
Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at 
the University of Texas at Austin; Dr. Maxime A. Faget, founder 
of Space Industries, Inc.; and Ms. Lori Garver, Executive 
Director of the National Space Society. During these hearings, 
witnesses expressed strong support for the Space Station 
program. In addition, the Subcommittee sponsored a NASA program 
review of the Space Station on February 16, 1995, for the 
benefit of Subcommittee Members and their staffs.
    On June 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
completed its consideration of H.R. 1601, as amended, and 
reported it to the Full Committee for consideration. On June 
28, 1995, the Full Committee approved H.R. 1601, as amended, by 
the Yeas and Nays: 34--8, and it was reported to the House (H. 
Rept. 104-210). On September 21, 1995, the Rules Committee 
adopted H. Res. 228, an open rule, and reported H.R. 1601 to 
the House. On September 27, 1995, the Rule passed the House. A 
Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. On 
September 28, 1995 the House agreed to amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole and H.R. 1601 passed the House, as 
amended, by voice vote. On October 10, 1995, H.R. 1601 was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Senate took no formal 
action on this legislation, however the Space Station was 
authorized at the budget request level in Fiscal Year 1996 by 
S. 1048, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.

Background and summary of legislation
    The Department of Commerce was established on March 4, 
1913. Prior to its creation, the government's commerce and 
labor activities were performed by the Department of Commerce 
and Labor, which was established by Congress on February 14, 
1903. The Department of Commerce has five basic missions: to 
promote the development of American business and increase 
foreign trade; to improve the nation's technological 
competitiveness; to foster environmental stewardship and 
assessment; to encourage economic development; and to compile, 
analyze and disseminate statistical information on the U.S. 
economy.
    The policy debate over the elimination of the Department of 
Commerce focuses mainly on the Department's role in community 
development, economic analysis, management of important 
statistical programs, international trade policy, oceanic and 
atmospheric matters, technology promotion, and 
telecommunications policy. Those in Congress in favor of 
abolishing the Department argue that it is an unmanageable 
conglomeration of marginally related programs, most of which 
duplicate those performed in other federal agencies. H. Con. 
Res. 67, which served as a blueprint for fiscal spending 
through the year 2002, passed both Houses of Congress on June 
29, 1995, and expressed the sense of Congress that the 
Department of Commerce should be eliminated.
    H.R. 1756 would establish a Commerce Programs Resolution 
Office for a period of three years from the date of enactment 
of the bill to deal with the disposition of those functions 
currently housed in the Department of Commerce. It provides a 
detailed plan to dismantle the Department, calling for the 
termination, consolidation, privatization and streamlining of 
programs within the Department. Specifically, H.R. 1756 would 
terminate the Technology Administration, including the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership (MEP); transfer the weights and measures functions 
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and would sell NIST 
laboratories to the private sector; privatize the National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS); transfer many of the 
functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to several different agencies and 
departments; terminate state fisheries grants and commercial 
fisheries promotion programs, coastal and water pollution 
research activities, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research (OAR); and privatize certain other NOAA functions.
Legislative history
    H.R. 1756 was introduced by Congressman Dick Chrysler (R-
MI) on June 15, 1995. The Committee on Commerce had primary 
jurisdiction over H.R. 1756. In addition, sequential referral 
was given to the Committees on Science, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Banking and Financial Services, International 
Relations, National Security, Agriculture, Ways and Means, 
Government Reform and Oversight, the Judiciary, and Resources. 
The Science Committee considered only those portions of H.R. 
1756 under its jurisdiction. House-related legislation includes 
H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1995, introduced by Representative John R. Kasich (R-OH) on 
October 17, 1995.
    On June 28, 1995, the Full Committee held the first in a 
series of hearings on restructuring the federal scientific 
establishment. This first hearing focused on the creation of a 
Department of Science to house the science elements of the 
Federal Government. The proposal combined the science programs 
of the existing Commerce and Energy Departments, along with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 
Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
the United States Geological Survey. Witnesses included: the 
Honorable George A. Keyworth, former Reagan science advisor and 
Chairman, The Progress and Freedom Foundation; the Honorable 
Don Ritter, former Representative, 15th district in 
Pennsylvania and Chairman, National Environmental Policy Forum; 
the Honorable Henson Moore, former Representative from 
Louisiana and former Deputy Secretary of Energy under President 
Bush and President and CEO, The American Forest and Paper 
Association; and Dr. Joseph Spigai, Director, Engineering 
Management Program, the University of Maryland. All witnesses 
were supportive of housing federal science programs under one 
roof.
    On September 12, 1995, the Full Committee held the second 
hearing on restructuring the federal scientific establishment, 
specifically to review H.R. 1756. Witnesses included: the 
Honorable Ronald H. Brown, Secretary, Department of Commerce; 
the Honorable Barbara Hackman Franklin, former Secretary of 
Commerce and President and CEO, Barbara Franklin Enterprises; 
Representative Dick Chrysler; Admiral James D. Watkins, former 
Secretary of Energy and President, Consortium for Oceanographic 
Research and Education; Mr. Paul Wolff, former Assistant 
Administrator for Ocean Services, NOAA; Dr. John Knauss, former 
Administrator of NOAA and Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate 
School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island; Dr. Richard 
Hallgren, Executive Director, American Meteorological Society; 
Mr. Mike Smith, President, WeatherData, Inc.; Mr. Anthony R. 
O'Neill, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Fire 
Protection Association; Mr. John F. Walrad, Director of 
Licensing and Patents, Vickers, Inc.; Dr. Robert Jay Hermann, 
Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United 
Technologies; Dr. Harold K. Forsen, Vice President, Director, 
Bechtel Hanford, Inc.; Mr. Samuel D. Cheatham, Vice President, 
Corporate Strategic Initiatives, Storage Technology 
Corporation; Mrs. Jean G. Mayhew, Chairman, NTIS Advisory 
Board, Director of Information Services, United Technologies 
Research Center; and, Mr. Daniel C. Duncan, Vice President, 
Government Relations, Information Industry Association. 
Secretary Brown was of the opinion that the various programs 
within the Department were synergistic and not in need of 
elimination, privatization or movement to other agencies; that 
Administration downsizing and streamlining efforts were 
adequate to address any inefficiencies. Most of the other 
witnesses expressed the opinion that the intramural programs 
within NIST should be kept together, as should the programs 
within NOAA.
    The Full Committee met to mark up the legislation on 
September 14, 1995. Mr. Walker offered an Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute, which was adopted by unanimous consent. 
The substitute would place the science functions of the 
Department of Commerce under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
in a sub-cabinet level Administration. After adopting seven 
amendments to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, a 
quorum being present, the Full Committee approved H.R. 1756, as 
amended, by voice vote, and ordered the bill reported. No 
formal report was filed on this bill. However, the markup 
proceedings can be found in Science Committee publication No. 
40.
    A related measure was introduced in the Senate by Senator 
Spencer Abraham (R-MI) on June 15, 1995 (S. 929). It was 
referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The 
Full Committee held hearings on the bill on July 25, and July 
27, 1995. The Full Committee met to mark up the legislation on 
September 7, 1995. S. 929 was approved by the Committee and 
ordered reported, amended. The Committee filed Senate Report 
104-164 on October 20, 1995. No further action was taken by the 
Senate.
    Of the above-mentioned House Committees with jurisdiction 
over H.R. 1756, only the Ways and Means Committee filed a 
report with the House--House Report 104-260, (Part 1). No 
formal action was taken by the House on H.R. 1756. However, 
H.R. 1756 was passed as Title XVII of H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, on October 26, 
1995.

Background and summary of legislation
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment holds 
jurisdiction over the Office of Research and Development (ORD), 
which is responsible for the environmental research, 
development, and demonstration programs of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). Programs of the ORD have not been 
authorized since enactment of the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration Act of 1981 (P.L. 96-569), which 
expired on September 30, 1981.
    The bill, the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995, met the Committee's 
responsibility to set priorities and reflects a strong 
commitment to both good fundamental science and a balanced 
budget. H.R. 1814 authorized all ORD programs within the limits 
established in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
Fiscal Year 1995 (H. Con. Res. 67), refocused ORD resources on 
its core missions, and improved the oversight of science within 
the Agency.
    The Administration requested $629.4 million for EPA's ORD 
for FY 1996, an increase of $83.8 million, or 15.4 percent, 
over the FY 1995 estimate of $545.5 million. H.R. 1814 
authorized appropriations in the amount of $490 million for FY 
1996, a decrease of $139.4 million, or 22.1 percent, from the 
requested level, and a decrease of $55.5 million, or 10.2 
percent, from the FY 1995 estimate.
Legislative history
    On February 13, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
receive testimony on ways to reduce spending in the research 
and development programs of the three agencies under its 
jurisdiction, including the EPA. Additional testimony was taken 
on EPA's FY 1996 budget request for ORD in a hearing held by 
the Subcommittee on February 16, 1995. Dr. Robert J. Huggett, 
Assistant Administrator for the ORD at EPA, and Dr. Roger O. 
McClellan, President of the Chemicals Industries Institute of 
Toxicology and Member of the Executive Committee of the Science 
Advisory Board, presented testimony.
    Mr. Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, introduced H.R. 1814 on June 13, 1995, and the 
bill was referred solely to the Committee on Science. The 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to markup a 
Subcommittee print of the legislation on June 8, 1995. No 
amendments to the measure were offered, and the Subcommittee 
adopted the Subcommittee print of H.R. 1814 by voice vote and 
ordered it to be reported to the Full Committee for further 
consideration. The Full Committee met on June 21, 1995 to 
consider H.R. 1814. The Committee adopted two amendments: (1) 
Mr. Walker's en bloc amendment for clarification; and (2) Mr. 
Boehlert's en bloc amendment to restore funding to the EPA 
graduate fellowship program. H.R. 1814, as amended, was ordered 
to be reported to the House by a voice vote. Combined with six 
other authorization bills reported out of the Committee on 
Science into an omnibus authorization, H.R. 1814 became Title V 
of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 
1995. Mr. Walker introduced H.R. 2405 on September 27, 1995, 
and the House of Representatives passed the bill on October 12, 
1995 by a vote of 248 to 161. The Senate received H.R. 2405 on 
October 17, 1995 and referred the measure to the Committee on 
Commerce.
    Committee Publication Number 104-10 and H. Rept. 104-199.

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
created in 1970 by Executive Order of President Nixon, has 
obtained most of the funding for its programs over the last 
twenty years through direct appropriation without annual 
legislative authorization. During the 102nd Congress, the first 
comprehensive NOAA authorization bill was approved and signed 
into law, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567). With three 
exceptions, P.L. 102-567 only authorized funding for Fiscal 
Years (FY) 1992 and 1993. The exceptions were the Next 
Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) program and the Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program (authorized 
through completion), and the NOAA Fleet Modernization 
(authorized through FY 1997). No comprehensive NOAA 
authorization bills have been signed into law since the 102nd 
Congress.
    NOAA programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Science include: all of the National Weather Service (NWS); the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); and the 
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Services (NESDIS), and portions of the National Ocean Service 
(NOS). H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995, met the Committee's 
responsibility to authorize programs under its jurisdiction, 
set priorities within NOAA and streamline NOAA operations while 
staying within the budget resolution targets for NOAA required 
to balance the budget by the year 2002.
    The Administration's budget request for FY 1996 included a 
request of $2,201,531,000 for NOAA, an increase of 
$179,779,000, or 8.9 percent, over the FY1995 estimate of 
$2,021,752,000. The Committee recommended an authorization 
level of $1,725,201,000 for FY 1996, a decrease of 
$476,330,000, or 21.6 percent, from the President's request, 
and a decrease of $296,551,000, or 14.7 percent, from the FY 
1995 estimate. The Committee's recommendation was consistent 
with the amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for FY 1995 (H. Con. Res. 67) and 
reflected a strong commitment to good fundamental science that 
is vital to the nation's future.
Legislative history
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on February 13, 1995, to 
receive testimony on ways to reduce spending in the research 
and development programs of the three agencies under its 
jurisdiction, including NOAA. In addition, NOAA's FY 1996 
budget request for programs under the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment was addressed in a 
Subcommittee hearing held on February 21, 1996. Dr. D. James 
Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and 
Administrator of NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Joel 
Myers, President of Accu-Weather, Inc.; and Mr. Joel 
Willemssen, Director of Accounting and Information Management 
Division of the U.S. General Accounting Office, presented 
testimony.
    Mr. Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 1815 on June 13, 1995, and 
the bill was referred to the Committee on Science and in 
addition to the Committee on Resources. Within the Science 
Committee, the measure was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment, which met to markup a Subcommittee 
print of the legislation on June 8, 1995. The Subcommittee 
adopted three amendments: (1) Mr. Weldon's amendment to 
reinstate funding for Global Learning and Observations to 
Benefit the Environment (GLOBE); (2) Mr. Ehlers' amendment to 
remove two zebra mussel research accounts from the list of 
program terminations; and (3) Mr. Roemer's amendment (offered 
by Mr. McHale) to clarify the duties of the National Weather 
Service (NWS). The Subcommittee print was approved, as amended, 
by a roll call vote of 13 to 3, and the bill was reported to 
the Full Committee for further consideration.
    The Full Committee met on June 28, 1995 to consider H.R. 
1815. The Committee adopted an en bloc amendment offered by Mr. 
Walker, as amended by an amendment by Mr. Brown, to make 
clarifications and minor changes in authorization levels; 
prohibit the use of funds authorized by the bill for lobbying; 
and restrict eligibility for funding to those organizations 
which do not receive earmarked funds. The Walker en bloc 
amendment included three additional amendments: (1) Mr. 
Cramer's en bloc amendment to clarify the availability of 
funding for new NEXRAD installations; (2) Mr. Boehlert's 
amendment to maintain the existing ratio of intramural to 
extramural funding in NOAA climate research; and (3) Mr. 
Weldon's (PA) amendment to create a new section 203 of the bill 
``Use of Ocean Research Resources of Other Federal Agencies.'' 
The Committee also adopted an amendment offered by Mr. Walker, 
as amended by an amendment by Mr. Brown, to require the 
Secretary of Commerce to conduct a review of all NOAA 
laboratories. The Committee adopted two additional amendments: 
(1) Mr. Calvert's amendment to delete language terminating the 
National Weather Service Agriculture and Fruit Frost Program; 
and (2) Mr. Roemer's amendment to terminate the National 
Weather Service Marine Facsimile Service. The Committee ordered 
H.R. 1815, as amended, to be reported to the House by voice 
vote.
    Combined with six other authorization bills reported out by 
the Committee on Science into an omnibus authorization, 
H.R.1815 became Title IV of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian 
Science Authorization Act of 1995. Mr. Walker introduced H.R. 
2405 on September 27, 1995, and the House of Representatives 
passed the bill on October 12, 1995, by a vote of 248 to 161. 
The Senate received H.R. 2405 on October 17, 1995 and referred 
the measure to the Committee on Commerce.
    Committee Publication Number 104-10 and H. Rept. 104-237.

Background and summary of legislation
    In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
P.L. 102-486, which authorized numerous Department of Energy 
civilian energy research, development, demonstration and 
commercial application programs. In most cases, however, 
specific sums were authorized only for FY 1993 and FY 1994. 
Exceptions for programs under the Committee's jurisdiction 
include the Federal Energy Management Program, Codes and 
Standards, Alternative Fueled and Electric Vehicles, Solar 
International Program, Renewable Energy and Environmental 
Technology Transfer, Coal R&D, Electric and Magnetic Field 
(EMF) Research, and Nuclear Energy.
    The lack of authorizations for the bulk of the DOE civilian 
programs under the Committee's jurisdiction and the mandate 
given to Congress by the American people to produce a balanced 
budget by the year 2002 dictated a need for comprehensive 
authorization legislation. The balanced budget mandate required 
substantial reductions to prior funding levels. H.R. 1816, the 
Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 
1995, authorized appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 for 
civilian research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application activities of the Department of Energy. The 
authorization was based on extensive testimony received through 
four days of Subcommittee hearings held early in the first 
session of the 104th Congress.
    In February 1995, the President transmitted to Congress a 
request of $5,688,027,000 for Department of Energy civilian 
research and development programs for FY 1996, an increase of 
$341,734,000, or 6.4 percent, over the FY 1995 estimate of 
$5,346,293,000. Also included in the President's FY 1996 budget 
request was the proposal to realign and downsize the Department 
of Energy ``to reflect changing world conditions and changing 
demands on the Nation's science and technology 
infrastructure.'' The Administration estimated that the 
proposal would save more than $14.1 billion in outlays over the 
five-year period encompassing Fiscal Years 1996 through 2000--
some $8.4 billion in program savings and $5.7 billion from 
asset sales.
    On June 2, 1995, the Secretary of Energy provided Mr. 
Rohrabacher with information concerning a proposed FY 1996 
budget amendment reducing the Department's request by a total 
of $207,556,000. However, the absence of a formal amendment, 
the lack of detail in the Secretary's June 2 communication, and 
the limited time available prevented the Committee from making 
use of the proposed budget amendment in considering the 
authorization of DOE programs for FY 1996. In the absence of a 
clear message from the Administration, the Committee 
recommended an overall authorization level of $4,250,000,000 
for FY 1996, a decrease of $ 1,438,027,000, or 25.3 percent, 
from the requested level, and a decrease of $1,096,293,000, or 
20.5 percent, from the FY 1995 estimate. The Committee's 
recommendation is consistent with the amounts established in 
the House-passed Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 
1995 (H. Con. Res. 67), as well as the conference report on the 
Resolution.
Legislative history
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on February 13, 1995, to 
receive testimony on ways to reduce spending in the research 
and development programs of the three agencies under its 
jurisdiction, including the Department of Energy. On February 
14, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony 
on the DOE's Fiscal Year 1996 budget requests for energy R&D 
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Witnesses from 
the DOE included: Ms. Christine A. Ervin, Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Ms. Patricia Fry 
Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; Dr. Tara J. 
O'Toole, Assistant Secretary for Environment Safety and Health; 
Rear Admiral Richard J. Guimond, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; 
and Mr. Ray A. Hunter, Acting Deputy Director, Office of 
Nuclear Energy. During the February 14 hearing, outside 
witnesses testifying were Mr. Myron Gottlieb, Vice President of 
Natural Gas Supply Technology Development at the Gas Research 
Institute; Mr. Linden Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics; 
Dr. Amos E. Holt, Senior Vice President of Engineering for the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; and Mr. Michael L. 
Marvin, Director of Governmental and Public Affairs for the 
American Wind Energy Association.
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on the DOE's FY 1996 
budget request for the Office of Energy Research (OER) on 
February 16, 1995. Witnesses included: Dr. John Peoples, Jr., 
Director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Dr. Nicholas 
P. Samios, Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory; Dr. 
Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory; Dr. Alan Schriesheim, Director of Argonne National 
Laboratory; Dr. Charles V. Shank, Director of Lawrence Berkeley 
Laboratory; Dr. Robin Roy, Project Director of the Office of 
Technology Assessment (OTA); and Dr. David E. Baldwin, 
Associate Director for Energy at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory. The Subcommittee heard additional testimony on the 
DOE's R&D programs on February 21, 1995 during testimony 
presented by Mr. Scott Sklar, Executive Director of the Solar 
Energy Industries Association, and Mr. Howard Geller, Executive 
Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy.
    Mr. Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 1816 on June 13, 1995, and 
the bill was referred to the Committees on Science and 
Commerce. Within the Science Committee, the measure was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, which 
met to markup a Subcommittee print of the legislation on June 
8, 1995. The Subcommittee adopted three amendments to the 
measure: (1) Mr. Bartlett's amendment to increase the 
authorization for the AP600 light water reactor; (2) Mr. Davis' 
amendment to maintain programs at the National Institute for 
Petroleum and Energy Research; and (3) Mr. Davis' amendment to 
provide the Committee with an opportunity to increase 
authorizations in the event that budget caps were lifted. The 
Subcommittee print, as amended, was approved by a voice vote 
and ordered reported to the Full Committee for further 
consideration. The Full Committee met on June 20, 1995, to 
consider H.R. 1816. In addition to the substitute offered by 
Mr. Walker, the Committee accepted two additional amendments: 
(1) Mr. Foley's amendment to strike authorizing language for 
the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GTMHR); and (2) Ms. 
Lofgren's amendment to increase funding for Magnetic Fusion 
Energy operating and capital equipment. On June 22, 1995, the 
Committee agreed to H.R. 1816, as amended, by voice vote and 
ordered the bill to be reported to the House. Combined with six 
other authorization bills reported out of the Committee on 
Science into an omnibus authorization, H.R. 1816 became Title 
III of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization 
Act of 1995. H.R. 2405 was placed on the House calendar and 
passed the House of Representatives on October 12, 1995, by a 
vote of 248 to 161. The Senate received H.R. 2405 on October 
17, 1995 and referred the measure to the Committee on Commerce.
    Committee Publication Number 104-10 and H. Rep. 104-236.

Background and summary of legislation
    In 1974, Congress enacted the Federal Fire Protection and 
Control Act in response to a nationwide concern with loss of 
life and property from fires. The Act established the United 
States Fire Administration (USFA) in an effort to prevent and 
reduce the loss of life and property. The USFA coordinates the 
nation's fire safety and emergency medical service activities. 
The USFA works with state and local units of government to 
educate the public on fire prevention and control, collect and 
analyze data related to fire, promote the use of sprinkler 
systems in residential and commercial buildings, conduct 
research and development on fire suppression, promote 
firefighter health and safety, and coordinate with other 
federal agencies charged with emergency response activities.
    The USFA also administers the National Fire Academy (NFA), 
which provides training to fire and emergency personnel in fire 
protection and control activities.
    H.R. 1851, the National Fire Administration Authorization 
Act of 1995, authorizes appropriations for the activities of 
the USFA and the NFA for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. The bill 
is based on a hearing held on the National Fire Administration 
during the first session of the 104th Congress and authorizes 
$28 million in appropriations for Fiscal Years (FY) 1996 and 
1997.
    H.R. 1851 also amends section 31 of the Federal Fire 
Prevention and Control Act which requires the installation of 
hard-wired smoke detectors in all multifamily housing owned or 
operated by the Federal Government by October 25, 1995. The 
bill extends this deadline for three years for housing 
controlled by the Department of the Army. In addition, H.R. 
1851 requires the Administrator to inform the Congress 60 days 
prior to terminating or privatizing any USFA activities or 
programs. Finally, the bill directs the Administrator to submit 
a detailed report, three months after enactment, on what, if 
any, programs will be reduced or eliminated in order to meet 
the final appropriations levels.
Legislative history
    Testifying before the Subcommittee during the FY 96 budget 
authorization hearing for the National Fire Administration on 
March 16, 1995 were: the Honorable Steny Hoyer, Representative 
from the 5th Congressional District of Maryland, and co-
Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus; the 
Honorable Carrye Brown, Administrator of the U.S. Fire 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration 
(FEMA); James F. Coyle, Deputy Superintendent, National Fire 
Academy, United States Fire Administration (USFA); Gary Tokle, 
Assistant Vice President for Public Fire Protection, National 
Fire Protection Association; Francis McGarry, President, 
National Association of State Fire Marshals; Bill Jenaway, 
President, Executive Board, Congressional Fire Services 
Institute; and Dan Shaw, Chief, Placitas, New Mexico Fire 
Department. All the witnesses testified to the success and 
importance of the United States Fire Administration.
    H.R. 1851 was introduced by Mr. Schiff, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research, on June 15, 1995, and referred 
to the Committee on Science. Within the Science Committee, the 
measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
which met to markup a Subcommittee print of the legislation on 
June 14, 1995. The Subcommittee adopted three amendments to the 
Subcommittee print of H.R. 1851: Mr. Schiff offered an 
technical amendment to make current outdated fire standards and 
Mr. Weldon (PA) offered two amendments--(1) to insert a new 
section on privatization; and (2) to insert a new section 
requiring a report on USFA budget reduction. The Subcommittee 
approved the measure, as amended, by voice vote and reported 
the measure to the Full Committee for further consideration. 
The Full Committee met on June 28, 1995, to consider H.R. 1851. 
After accepting an additional clarifying amendment offered by 
Mr. Walker, the Committee approved the bill by voice vote and 
ordered it to be reported to the House. Combined with six other 
authorization bills reported out by the Science Committee into 
an omnibus authorization, H.R. 1851 became Title VII of H.R. 
2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996. 
H.R. 2405 was introduced by Mr. Walker on September on 
September 27, 1995, and passed the House of Representatives on 
October 12, 1995, by a vote of 248 to 161. The Senate received 
H.R. 2405 on October 17, 1995 and referred the measure to the 
Committee on Commerce.
    Committee Publication Number 104-7 and H. Rept. 104-235.

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Science Foundation is an independent federal 
agency established in 1950 to promote and advance scientific 
progress in the United States. The NSF Act of 1950 authorizes 
and directs NSF to initiate and support basic research and 
programs to strengthen research potential and education at all 
levels in the sciences and engineering. Although the NSF budget 
is only four percent of the total federal R&D budget, the 
Foundation makes an important contribution to the nation's 
science and technology enterprise. NSF builds U.S. scientific 
strength by funding research and education activities at more 
than 2,000 colleges and universities and other research 
institutions in all areas of the United States.
    H.R. 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization 
(NSF) Act of 1995, authorizes $3,126,000,000 for FY 96 and 
$3,171,400,000 for FY 97. In addition, H.R. 1852 establishes 
new requirements for NSF preparation of a strategic plan; 
eliminates one or more of NSF's directorates; places a funding 
ban on institutions which receive appropriations earmarks; 
requires options for a 10 percent reduction in the proportion 
of federal indirect costs; prohibits expenditure of 
unauthorized funds for construction of major national research 
facilities; subjects temporary NSF employees to the same 
financial disclosure requirements as permanent employees; 
directs NSF to consider the impact of research grants on 
undergraduate science education; and redesignates the Critical 
Technologies Institute as the Science Studies Institute, with a 
refined mission, and places limits on NSF funding.
    H.R. 1852, as amended, imposes new requirements on the NSF 
for long-range program planning and organization. The NSF Act 
of 1950 is amended by transforming the existing NSF annual 
report to Congress into a 3-year strategic plan to be updated 
annually. In addition, NSF is required to prepare and submit 
annually to Congress a 5-year plan for new construction, 
repair, and upgrades to National Research Facilities (major 
research facilities and equipment, such as telescopes, which 
are available for use by researchers throughout the world). The 
bill prohibits obligation of funds appropriated for national 
facilities costing in excess of $50 million, unless the project 
for which the funds are to be expended has been explicitly 
authorized.
    H.R. 1852, as amended, establishes eligibility criteria for 
certain NSF program activities. With certain exceptions, the 
Director shall exclude from consideration for awards made by 
NSF after Fiscal Year 1995 any person who receives federal 
funds for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. Relative to awards from NSF, H.R. 
1852 requires that grant documents include a statement of the 
current NSF policy that NSF-supported research facilities 
should not be used in fee-for-service competition with private 
companies that provide equivalent services.
Legislative history
    The Subcommittee held authorization hearings for NSF on 
February 22 and March 2, 1995. On February 22, 1995, the 
Subcommittee held the first authorization hearing which 
featured the testimony of Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the 
National Science Foundation (accompanied by Dr. Anne Peterson, 
Dr. Luther Williams and Dr. Neal Sullivan). The March 2 
authorization hearing included testimony from Dr. Julian 
Wolpert, Professor of Geography, Public Affairs and Urban 
Planning, Princeton University--representing the Consortium of 
Social Science Associations; Dr. Richard Herman, Dean, College 
of Computer, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences, University of 
Maryland, and Chairman of the Joint Policy Board for 
Mathematics; Dr. Roland Schmitt, Chairman, American Institute 
of Physics--representing the Executive Committee, Council of 
Scientific Society of Presidents; James E. Sawyer, Senior Vice 
President and Chairman, Greiner Engineering, Inc.--representing 
the American Association of Engineering Societies; Dr. 
Corneilius J. Pings, President, Association of American 
Universities--representing the National Association of State 
Universities and Land Grant Colleges; Dr. Rita Colwell, 
President, University of Maryland Biotechnical Institute and 
American Association for Advancement of Science; Dr. Pamela 
Ferguson, President, Grinnell College--representing the 
Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Great Lakes Colleges 
Association, and Central Pennsylvania Consortium; and Erich 
Bloch, Distinguished Fellow, Council on Competitiveness, and 
former Director, NSF.
    H.R. 1852 was introduced by Mr. Schiff, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research, on June 15, 1995, and referred 
to the Committee on Science. Within the Science Committee, the 
measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
which met to markup a Subcommittee print of H.R. 1852 on June 
8, 1995. The Subcommittee adopted three amendments: (1) a 
technical amendment to the lobbying prohibition section offered 
by Mr. Schiff; (2) an amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to 
ensure that the impact a grant would have on undergraduate and 
graduate education be taken into consideration during any award 
decision; and (3) a substitute offered by Mr. Schiff (to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Geren) that would allow for further 
authorizations for NSF pending the outcome of a budget 
conference resolution. The measure, as amended, was adopted by 
voice vote and ordered to be reported to the Full Committee for 
further consideration. The Full Committee met on June 28, 1995, 
to consider H.R. 1852. The Committee accepted additional 
amendments, offered by Mr. Brown and Mr. Boehlert, as part of 
the en bloc amendment offered by Mr. Walker and adopted by 
unanimous consent to be considered as original text for 
purposes of amendment. The Committee agreed by voice vote to 
H.R. 1852, as amended, and ordered the measure to be reported 
to the House. Combined with six other authorization bills 
reported out by the Science Committee into an omnibus 
authorization, H.R. 1851 became Title I of H.R. 2405, the 
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996. H.R. 2405 
was introduced by Mr. Walker on September on September 27, 
1995, and passed the House of Representatives on October 12, 
1995, by a vote of 248 to 161. The Senate received H.R. 2405 on 
October 17, 1995, and referred the measure to the Committee on 
Commerce.
    Committee Publication Number 104-6 and H. Rept. 104-231.

Background and summary of legislation
    The purpose of the bill is to authorize Fiscal Year 1996 
appropriations for the activities of the Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Technology, and for Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services and Construction of Research Facilities 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and other purposes.
    Technology is the engine of economic growth and has perhaps 
never been more important to our nation's well-being. Within 
the Department of Commerce, both the Technology's 
Administration and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology strive to promote technological innovation and our 
nation's future competitiveness.
    H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995, 
provides an authorization for Fiscal Year 1996 appropriation 
for the Technology Administration and National Institute of 
Standards and Technology's (NIST) Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services, as well as Construction of Research 
Facilities. The authorization levels in H.R. 1870 are guided in 
principle by H. Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget.
    H.R. 1870 also contains recommended language intended to 
clarify or extend NIST authority to perform certain important 
administrative functions, including the following: permanently 
extend the NIST personnel demonstration project; increase the 
participant cap on post-doctoral fellows; provide authority to 
donate excess scientific equipment to secondary schools; create 
authority for a Metro shuttle for NIST employees; and restate 
existing authorities for NIST activities in standards and 
conformity assessment to incorporate requirements for NIST to 
survey existing practices and report to Congress on 
recommendations for improvements in these activities.
    The Committee believes that H.R. 1870 meets the Committee's 
responsibility to set priorities and reflects a strong 
commitment to both fundamental scientific research vital to the 
nation's future, and balance the federal budget.
Legislative history
    On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
hearings on the Fiscal Year 1996 budget for the Technology 
Administration and NIST. The following witnesses testified 
before the Subcommittee: Dr. Mary Good, Under Secretary of 
Technology, Department of Commerce; Dr. Arati Prabhakar, 
Director of NIST; Ms. Cynthia Beltz, Research Fellow for the 
American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Edward Hudgins, Director of 
Regulatory Studies for the Cato Institute; Ms. Laurie Conner, 
Vice-President of Percepton, Inc.; Mr. Arthur Cassie, President 
and CEO of Cubicon, Inc.; Mr. David Gibson, President of X-Ray 
Optical Systems; Ms. Jan Pounds, Director of Massachusetts 
Manufacturing, Bay State Skills Corporation; Mr. Leo Reddy, 
President of the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing; 
and Mr. Larry Rhoades, President of Extrude Hone Corporation. 
(See Committee Publication 104-5)
    On June 16, 1995 the Subcommittee on Technology convened to 
mark up the Subcommittee print of the ``American Technology 
Advancement Act of 1995,'' providing authorization for 
appropriations for the Technology Administration and NIST. Of 
the five amendments offered, three were defeated by roll call 
votes and two were adopted by voice votes. Mrs. Morella moved 
that the Subcommittee print, as amended, be ordered reported to 
the Full Committee for consideration. The motion was adopted by 
voice vote.
    On June 28, 1996, the Full Committee convened to mark up 
H.R. 1870, the ``American Technology Advancement Act of 1995,'' 
which authorizes funding for Fiscal Year 1996 for the 
Department of Commerce's Technology Administration (TA) at 
$5,066,000 and for the core Scientific and Technical Research 
and Services (STRS) and the Construction of Research Facilities 
(CRF) activities for NIST at $275,579,000 and $62,055,000 
respectively. The bill was adopted, as amended, by voice vote, 
and was ordered reported to the Full House for consideration.
    On August 4, 1995, H.R. 1870 was reported to the House 
(Amended). House Report 104-232. H.R. 1870, along with six 
other authorization bills reported out of the Committee on 
Science, was rolled into H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian 
Science Authorization Act of 1995. H.R. 2405 was introduced by 
Mr. Walker on September 27, 1995, and passed the House of 
Representatives on October 12, 1995, by a vote of 248 to 161. 
The Senate received H.R. 2405 on October 17, 1995 and referred 
the measure to the Committee on Commerce.

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
was established as a result of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts research for the solution of 
problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere 
and develops, constructs, tests, and operates aeronautical and 
space transportation vehicles. It conducts activities required 
for the exploration of space with manned and unmanned vehicles 
and arranges for the most effective utilization of the 
scientific and engineering resources of the United States with 
other nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities for 
peaceful purposes. The purpose of this bill is to authorize 
appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for all programs within 
NASA except the International Space Station. The bill also 
authorizes the Office of Commercial Space Transportation within 
the Department of Transportation and the Office of Space 
Commerce within the Department of Commerce. The International 
Space Station was authorized in H.R. 1601, the International 
Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H. Rept. 104-210, 
filed July 28, 1995).
    The U.S. space program is at a critical point in its 
history. With the collapse of the Cold War, it no longer serves 
the explicit geopolitical purposes for which it was created and 
subsequently, enjoys less popular support from a public that no 
longer sees the need for space activity to demonstrate 
superiority over the Soviet Union. At the same time, there is 
general support for civil space activities and the recognition 
that the civil space program's scientific and technical 
contributions to the country have been and will continue to be 
of great significance. Thus, the civil space program finds 
itself at a crossroads. It has completed its Cold War mission 
successfully and must seek to contribute to America's future in 
new ways.
    Two other developments will affect the evolution of the 
U.S. space program. First, federal space policies and projects 
must be designed and implemented within the framework of 
progress towards and maintenance of, a balanced federal budget 
as well as other important economic, domestic, and foreign 
policy goals of the United States. Thus, federal outlays for 
the civil space program through NASA can be expected to decline 
for several years. As a result, NASA is in the midst of a 
reorganization to adjust to the end of the Cold War, 
accommodate lower budgets than anticipated in the late 1980's, 
and lay the foundation for a National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration that can take the United States into the next 
century. The Committee is in general agreement with NASA 
Administrator Daniel Goldin that non-essential or obsolete 
programs, activities, and infrastructure should be redirected, 
privatized, or canceled during the course of this 
reorganization.
    Second, near-Earth space is no longer the completely 
unknown and foreign environment it was at the point of NASA's 
creation in 1958, but is rather a frontier with abundant energy 
and material resources analogous to the positive 
characteristics of the early American frontier. This is most 
apparent in the rapid and continuing rise of a commercial space 
industry and the transition of NASA from its scientific 
research and technology focus towards the orientation of an 
operational agency. These two developments are working at 
cross-purposes. The rise of a commercial space industry 
suggests that NASA no longer needs to operate large, continuous 
systems and can instead focus on leading-edge scientific 
research. The Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 
1996, begins the process of moving NASA in these new 
directions.
Legislative history
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held two formal 
hearings for the Fiscal Year 1996 NASA authorization. On 
February 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing to review the budgets of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), and the Office of Space 
Commerce (OSC). Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, 
NASA's Administrator; Mr. Frank C. Weaver, Director of OCST at 
the Department of Transportation (DOT); and Mr. Keith Calhoun-
Senghor, Director of OSC at the Department of Commerce.
    On March 16, 1995 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held its second hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 1996 NASA 
Authorization. The hearing reviewed, in detail, NASA program 
budgets with testimony from non-agency witnesses. Specifically, 
there were six panels of witnesses that reviewed: (1) 
Restructuring NASA; (2) International Space Station and Space 
Shuttle; (3) Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV); (4) Aeronautics 
and Technology; (5) Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE); and (6) 
Space Science. Witnesses included: Mr. David H. Moore, 
Principal Analyst for the Congressional Budget Office's Natural 
Resources and Commerce Division; Mr. Wolfgang Demisch, of 
Bankers Trust; Mr. Rick Tumlinson, President of the Space 
Frontier Foundation; Mr. Gerald M. May, Assistant Director for 
the National Legislative Commission at the American Legion; Mr. 
Richard H. Kohrs, Director, Center for International Aerospace 
Cooperation; Mr. Norman R. Parmet, Chairman of the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel; Dr. Hans Mark, Professor of Aerospace 
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of 
Texas at Austin; Dr. Maxime A. Faget, founder of Space 
Industries, Inc.; Ms. Lori Garver, Executive Director of the 
National Space Society; Mr. Robert G. Minor, President, Space 
Systems Division of Rockwell International; Mr. Jerry 
Pournelle, from the Citizen Advisory Council on National Space 
Policy; Mr. Bob Citron, President and CEO of Kistler Aerospace 
Corporation; Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of Aerospace and Science 
Policy at the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics; Mr. Robert Spitzer, Vice President of Engineering 
at Boeing; Dr. Scott Pace, Chair of the Policy Committee at the 
National Space Society; Mr. Charles W. Hayes, National Program 
Manager for Cray Research; Dr. James G. Anderson, Professor, 
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard 
University; Mr. Eric J. Barron, Director of the Earth Systems 
Science Center at Pennsylvania State University; Mr. Jack L. 
Brock, Jr., Director of Information Resource Management/
National Security and International Affairs at the General 
Accounting Office; Dr. Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory; Dr. Arthur Charo, Senior Analyst, 
International Security and Space Program, Office of Technology 
Assessment; Dr. Francis Everitt, Gravity Probe B Office, Hansen 
Experimental Physics Lab; Dr. William Boynton, Chairman of the 
Space Science Working Group at the University of Arizona; Dr. 
Dan Lester, Research Scientist for the Department of Astronomy 
and McDonald Observatory at the University of Texas at Austin; 
and Mr. David Gump, President of Luna Corporation.
    H.R. 2043, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, was 
introduced by Chairman Robert S. Walker and Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. on 
July 17, 1995. H.R. 2043 was solely referred to the Committee 
on Science and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics. On July 19, 1995, the Subcommittee 
ordered the bill reported, as amended, by a voice vote to the 
Full Committee for further consideration. On July 25, 1995, the 
Full Committee adopted, as amended, H.R. 2043, by a voice vote 
and the bill was ordered reported (H. Rept. 104-233) to the 
House for consideration. H.R. 2043 became Title II of H.R. 
2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995. 
H.R. 2405 was introduced by Chairman Walker on September 27, 
1995. It was referred to the Committee on Science and, in 
addition, to the Committees on Commerce and Resources for those 
provisions under their jurisdiction. On September 29, 1995, the 
Committee on Rules discharged, by adoption of H. Res 234, the 
Committees of jurisdiction from further consideration of H.R. 
2405, and granted an open rule. Since each title within H.R. 
2405 was reported out of the Committee on Science separately, 
there was no report filed by the Committee. H.R. 2405 was 
considered in the House on October 11 and 12, 1995. On October 
12, 1995, H.R. 2405 passed the House, as amended, by the Yeas 
and Nays: 248--161. H.R. 2405 was received in the Senate on 
October 17, 1995 and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Senate took no formal 
action on this legislation, however the Senate did pass S. 
1048, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.

Background
    H.R. 2405 consists of seven separate titles as follows: 
Title I B National Science Foundation (H.R. 1852); Title II B 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (H.R. 2043); 
Title III B Department of Energy (H.R. 1816); Title IV B 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (H.R. 1815); 
Title V B Environmental Protection Agency (H.R. 1814); Title VI 
B National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology 
Administration (H.R. 1870); and, Title VII B United States Fire 
Administration (H.R. 1851). See write-ups on these bills under 
appropriate subcommittee headings in this section as each bill, 
or title of H.R. 2405, was reported out of the Committee 
separately.
Legislative history
    H.R. 2405 was introduced by Chairman Walker on September 
27, 1995. It was referred to the Committee on Science and, in 
addition, to the Committees on Commerce and Resources for those 
provisions under their jurisdiction. On September 29, 1995, the 
Committee on Rules discharged, by adoption of H. Res. 234, the 
Committees of jurisdiction from further consideration of H.R. 
2405, and granted an open rule. Since each title within H.R. 
2405 was reported out of the Science Committee separately, 
there was no report filed by the Committee on H.R. 2405. On 
October 11, 1995, the House passed the Rule and began 
consideration of H.R. 2405. It was considered on October 11 and 
12, 1995. On October 12, 1996, H.R. 2405 passed the House, with 
amendments, by a recorded vote of Yeas--248 to Nays--161. H.R. 
2405 was received in the Senate on October 17, 1995, and 
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. The Senate took no formal action on this 
legislation.

Background and summary and legislative history
    On April 23, 1996, Mr. Weldon (PA), introduced H.R. 3303, 
the National Oceanographic Partnership Act. The bill was 
referred to the Committees on National Security, Resources, and 
Science.
    The bill establishes the National Oceanographic Partnership 
Program and sets forth the purposes of the program. It 
establishes the: (1) National Ocean Research Leadership 
Council; (2) Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group; and 
(3) Ocean Research Advisory Panel under the program. It also 
sets forth the composition of membership and specified duties 
of each. In addition, it mandates annual reports to Congress, 
and authorizes appropriations for the National Oceanographic 
Partnership Program for FY 1997.
    The full Science Committee met to mark up a Committee print 
for H.R. 3322 on April 24, 1996. The Committee print included a 
modified version of H.R. 3303 (which included no new 
authorizations) as part of Title IV. The Full Committee 
approved the Committee print, as amended, by a recorded vote of 
yeas--24 to nays--19, and ordered it reported. A motion was 
then adopted to prepare a clean bill for introduction in the 
House, and that the measure be deemed reported by the 
Committee. The Committee filed House Report 104-550, part 1, on 
May 1, 1996. On May 6, 1996, the Committees on Resources, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and National Security 
discharged H.R. 3322 from further consideration.
    On May 7, 1996, the Committee on Rules granted an open 
rule, adopting H. Res. 427. On May 9, 1996, the House passed 
the rule. H.R. 3322 was called up by the House under an open 
rule on May 29, 1996, with the Committee Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment. The amendment stripped the bill of the 
provisions from H.R. 3303 which had been incorporated into H.R. 
3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997.
    On July 30, 1996, modified provisions of H.R. 3303 were 
incorporated in subtitle E of Title II of H.R. 3230. H.R. 3230 
was introduced by Mr. Spence (by request) on April 15, 1996, 
and referred to the House Committee on National Security. On 
May 1, 1996, the National Security Committee marked-up the 
measure and ordered it to be reported (amended) by the yeas and 
nays: 49--2 (Report No: 104-563). On May 15, 1996, the bill 
passed the House (Amended) by recorded vote: 272--153 (Record 
Vote No: 174). On July 10, 1996, the Senate struck all after 
the enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 1745 
amended; it passed Senate (amended) by unanimous consent; the 
Senate insisted upon its amendments; the Senate requested a 
conference; and appointed conferees.
    On July 17, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendments by voice vote; agreed to conference; the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on National Security for 
consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference; and the Speaker 
appointed additional conferees from: the Committee on Science 
(Walker, Sensenbrenner, and Harman), for consideration of 
sections 203, 211, 245, and 247 of the House bill, and sections 
211, 251-252, and 1044 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference; the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence for consideration of matters within 
the jurisdiction of that committee under clause 2 of rule 
XLVIII; the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for 
consideration of sections 1085 and 1089 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference; the 
Committee on Commerce for consideration of sections 601, 741, 
742, 2863, 3154, and 3402 of the House bill, and sections 345-
347, 561, 562, 601, 724, 1080, 2827, 3175, and 3181-91 of the 
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference; 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities for 
consideration of sections 572, 1086, and 1122 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference; the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for consideration 
of sections 332-36, 362, 366, 807, 821-25, 1047, 3523-39, 3542, 
and 3548 of the House bill, and sections 636, 809(b), 921, 924-
25, 1101, 1102, 1104, 1105, 1109-1134, 1081, 1082, 1401-34, and 
2826 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference; the Committee on International Relations, for 
consideration of sections 233-234, 237, 1041, 1043, 1052, 1101-
05, 1301, 1307, 1501-53 of the House bill, and sections 234, 
1005, 1021, 1031, 1041-43, 1045, 1323, 1332-35, 1337, 1341-44, 
and 1352-54 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference; the Judiciary, for consideration of 
sections 537, 543, 1066, 1080, 1088, 1201-16, and 1313 of the 
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference; 
the Committee on Resources, for consideration of sections 247, 
601, 2821, 1401-14, 2901-13, and 2921-31 of the House bill, and 
sections 251-52, 351, 601, 1074, 2821, 2836, and 2837 of the 
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference; 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
consideration of sections 324, 327, 501, and 601 of the House 
bill, and sections 345-348, 536, 601, 641, 1004, 1009-1010, 
1311, 1314, and 3162 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference; the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 
consideration of sections 556, 638, and 2821 of the House bill, 
and sections 538 and 2828 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference; the Committee on Ways 
and Means, for consideration of sections 905, 1041(c)(2), 
1550(a)(2), and 3313 of the House bill, and sections 
1045(c)(2), 1214 and 1323 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference. On July 18, 1996, the 
Senate amendment was deleted from the panel appointed from the 
Committee on Commerce; the Panel from the Committee on Commerce 
was also appointed for the consideration of section 3174 of the 
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference; 
and the panel from the Committee on Science was also appointed 
for the consideration of section 1044 of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference.
    On July 30, 1996, the Conference filed its report 
(Conference Report H. Rept. 104-724). The Conference report 
included Subtitle E of Title II: National Oceanographic 
Partnership Program. Subtitle E directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to establish the National Oceanographic Partnership 
Program for promoting the goals of assuring national security, 
advancing economic development, protecting quality of life, and 
strengthening science education and communications through 
improved knowledge of the ocean. Establishes a National Ocean 
Research Leadership Council, which shall: (1) prescribe 
policies and procedures, and provide reviews and assessments, 
concerning the program's implementation; (2) submit annual 
reports to the Congress; (3) establish a partnership program 
office; and (4) establish the Ocean Research Advisory Panel. 
The subtitle requires related reports and authorizes $20.5 
million for carrying out the program. On August 1, 1996, the 
House Agreed to Conference Report by yea-nay vote: 285--132 
(Record Vote No: 397). On September 10, 1996, the Senate agreed 
to the conference report by Yea-Nay Vote: 73--26 (Record Vote 
No: 279); and the measure was cleared for the White House. On 
September 23, 1996, the President signed the measure (Public 
Law No. 104-201).

    The Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996 
authorizes $19.7 billion for most programs and missions under 
the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. The Department of 
Energy programs for FY97 were not authorized in this bill, as 
these authorizations were passed by the House on October 12, 
1995 as part of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science 
Authorization Act of 1995. (See write-ups on H.R 2043--NASA, 
H.R. 1870--NIST, H.R. 1852--NSF, H.R. 1851--USFA, H.R. 1816--
DOE, H.R. 1815--NOAA, and H.R. 1814--EPA.)
Background (By Title)
    Title I--National Science Foundation--The National Science 
Foundation (NSF) was established as an independent agency by 
the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-
1875). The purposes of the Foundation are: to increase the 
nation's base of scientific and engineering knowledge and 
strengthen its ability to conduct research in all areas of 
science and engineering; to develop and help implement science 
and engineering education programs that can better prepare the 
nation for meeting the challenges of the future; and to promote 
international cooperation through science and engineering. In 
its role as a leading federal supporter of science and 
engineering, the agency also has an important role in national 
policy planning. NSF promotes the progress of science and 
engineering through the support of research and education 
programs. Its major emphasis is on high-quality, merit-selected 
research--the search for improved understanding of the 
fundamental laws of nature upon which our future well-being as 
a nation depends. Its educational programs are aimed at 
ensuring increased understanding of science and engineering at 
all educational levels, maintaining an adequate supply of 
scientists, engineers, and science educators to meet our 
country's needs. Title I authorizes funding for the National 
Science Foundation for FY97, providing real growth in the 
Research and Related Activities account, reducing the number of 
research directorates from seven to six, ending academic 
earmarks, and continuing strong support for science, math and 
engineering education.
    Title II--National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was 
established as a result of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Act of 1958, as amended. NASA conducts research for the 
solution of problems of flight within and outside the Earth's 
atmosphere and develops, constructs, tests, and operates 
aeronautical and space vehicles. It conducts activities 
required for the exploration of space with manned and unmanned 
vehicles and arranges for the most effective utilization of the 
scientific and engineering resources of the United States with 
other nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities for 
peaceful purposes. Title II authorizes funding for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for FY97, focusing efforts 
on maintaining safety in the shuttle program, fully funding the 
International Space Station, increasing funding for space 
science and ending corporate welfare.
    Title III--United States Fire Administration--In 1974, 
Congress enacted the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act in 
response to a nationwide concern with the loss of life and 
property from fires. The Act established the United States Fire 
Administration (USFA) in an effort to prevent and reduce this 
loss of life and property. The USFA coordinates the nation's 
fire safety and emergency medical service activities. The USFA 
works with state and local units of government to educate the 
public on fire prevention and control, collect, and analyze 
data related to fire, promote the use of sprinkler systems in 
residential and commercial buildings, conduct research and 
development on fire suppression, promote firefighter health and 
safety, and coordinate with other federal agencies charged with 
emergency response activities. The USFA also administers the 
National Fire Academy (NFA), which provides training to fire 
and emergency service personnel in fire protection and control 
activities.
    During the first session of the 104th Congress, the House 
passed H.R. 1851, which was a two-year authorization for the 
USFA. Except for a change in the authorization funding level 
for FY 1997 from $28 million to $27.56 million, to conform to 
the Administration's FY 1997 request, this title includes the 
text of H.R. 1851.
    Title IV--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
(Section 453 became Public Law 104-201/ see H.R. 3303). The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was 
formed on October 3, 1970, by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 
(5 U.S.C. app.) under the Nixon Administration. NOAA's mission 
is to explore, map, and chart the global ocean and its living 
resources and to manage, use, and conserve those resources; to 
describe, monitor, and predict conditions in the atmosphere, 
ocean, sun, and space environment; to issue warnings against 
impending destructive natural events; to assess the 
consequences of inadvertent environmental modification over 
several scales of time; and to manage and disseminate long-term 
environmental information. NOAA has obtained most of the 
funding for its programs over the past twenty years through 
direct appropriation without annual legislative authorization.
    NOAA programs under the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee include all of the National Weather Service, the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Services 
(NESDIS), and portions of the National Oceans Service (NOS).
    In the 98th Congress, legislation authorizing NOAA 
activities for FY 1984, S. 1097, was vetoed on October 19, 
1984. In the 99th Congress, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-272) authorized 
various NOAA activities, including nautical and aeronautical 
chart programs, marine research and monitoring, ocean pollution 
research, and weather modification research. During the 100th 
Congress, provisions authorizing Fiscal Year 1989 
appropriations for NOAA's satellite, atmospheric, and weather 
programs (previously approved by the House of Representatives 
and the Senate as S. 1667) were included in Title IV of S. 
2209, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act for FY 1989, which was signed into law on 
November 17, 1988 (Public Law 100-685).
    During the 102nd Congress, the first comprehensive NOAA 
authorization bill was approved and signed into law, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567). With three exceptions, Public 
Law 102-567 only authorized funding for Fiscal Years 1992 and 
1993. The exceptions are portions of the Next Generation 
Weather Radar (NEXRAD) program and the Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program which are 
authorized to completion, and NOAA Fleet Modernization which is 
authorized through FY 1997. No comprehensive NOAA authorization 
bills have been signed into law since the 102nd Congress. Title 
IV funds those activities of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for FY97 that are under the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee, privatizes NOAA's fleet, 
phases out the NOAA Corps, reforms the National Weather Service 
Organic Act and streamlines NOAA operations.
    Title V--Environmental Protection Agency--(Drinking water 
provisions became Public Law 104-182/see H.R. 3604/S. 1316). 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 
the executive branch as an independent agency pursuant to 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.), effective 
December 2, 1970, by President Nixon. It was created to permit 
coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the 
environment, and was designed to serve as the public's advocate 
for a livable environment. The Agency's mission is to control 
and abate pollution in the areas of air, water, solid waste, 
pesticides, radiation, and toxic substances. Its mandate is to 
mount an integrated, coordinated attack on environmental 
pollution in cooperation with State and local governments.
    EPA's Office of Research and Development is responsible for 
EPA's in-house and extramural research programs. The Office of 
Research and Development's budget represents the majority of 
the new Science & Technology (S&T) Appropriations account.
    The Office of Research and Development controls twelve 
research laboratories and four assessment offices. These assets 
have been reorganized to fall under the management of three 
national laboratories and two national centers. They are the 
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 
(NHEERL) in Triangle Park, NC, the National Exposure Research 
Laboratory (NERL) in Triangle Park, NC, the National Risk 
Management Laboratory (NRML) in Cincinnati, OH, the National 
Center for Environmental Research Quality Assurance (NCERQA) 
and the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), 
both of which are located in Washington, DC.
    The Science and Technology Appropriations account also 
includes appropriations for the following non-Office of 
Research and Development Laboratories: National Vehicles and 
Fuels Emission Laboratory, National Radiation Laboratories, 
Analytical and Environmental Chemistry Laboratories, Drinking 
Water Program Laboratory, and National Enforcement 
Investigations Center.
    Currently the programs of the Office of Research and 
Development are unauthorized. The last authorization for the 
Office of Research and Development, the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration Act of 1981 (P.L. 96-569), 
expired on September 30, 1981. Title V authorizes funding for 
the Environmental Protection Agency for FY97, and emphasizes 
refocusing EPA's core mission of conducting research in support 
of EPA's regulatory functions.
    Title VI--National Institute of Standards and Technology--
Title VI of H.R. 3322 provides an authorization for FY 1997 
appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology's (NIST) Scientific and Technical Research Services 
(STRS), as well as for Construction of Research Facilities.
    NIST's mission is to promote economic growth by working 
with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, 
and standards. This mission is integral to our nation's 
competitiveness in the global marketplace. Established by 
Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, NIST is 
the nation's oldest federal laboratory. The Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-48) renamed the 
laboratories to NIST, and added new responsibilities to NIST's 
mission. NIST, which is part of the Department Commerce, 
supplements its appropriated funds with contributions from 
industry, and payments for contracts from other government 
agencies. Title VI authorizes funds for the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology for FY97 focusing on eliminating 
corporate welfare and returning NIST to its core mission of 
working with industry to enhance competitiveness through 
technology.
    Title VII--Federal Aviation Administration, R,E&D--(Became 
Public Law 104-264/ see H.R. 3484). Title VII of H.R. 3322 
authorizes Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations for the activities 
for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) research, 
engineering and development programs; and mandates the guiding 
principles for the conduct of research, engineering and 
development activities.
    The FAA was created in 1958 to develop air commerce and 
promote safety in the air. As part of the Airport Development 
and Airway Trust fund established by Congress in 1982, it was 
decided that a comprehensive research and development program 
was necessary at FAA to maintain a safe, efficient air traffic 
system. In order to fund both these research and development 
programs and improve airport and airways capital improvements, 
a series of user fees and taxes were established.
    The 100th Congress, seeking to strengthen the FAA research 
and development programs, enacted the 1988 Aviation Safety 
Research Act P.L. 100-591. This bill created the FAA Research, 
Engineering and Development Advisory Board. The terrorist 
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 demonstrated the need for new 
technology to detect explosives; and, Congress subsequently 
passed the Aviation Safety Improvement Act of 1990 which 
required FAA to support activities to accelerate the research 
and development of new technologies to protect against 
terrorism.
    As directed by P.L. 104-50, the FAA recently began phasing 
in a new acquisition management system. FAA programs have 
experienced significant problems in costs, schedules, and 
performance. Title VII authorizes funds for the Federal 
Aviation Administration's research and development functions 
for FY97 under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee and 
emphasizes the importance of R&D in technology, and 
implementation, to reduce hazards connected to airports and air 
travel.
    Title VIII--National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program--
Earthquakes kill more people and destroy more property than any 
other natural disaster. Over the past fifteen years, 
earthquakes have caused over 100,000 deaths and hundreds of 
billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide. Because much 
of these losses can be prevented or reduced through 
promulgation of adequate zoning and building codes, emergency 
planning, public education and prompt response, Congress 
established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
(NEHRP).
    Since its inception in 1977, NEHRP endeavors to reduce 
earthquake hazards and risk through research, development, and 
implementation. The program combines the efforts of four 
federal agencies--the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
United States Geological Survey, the National Science 
Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology.
    The NEHRP has been reauthorized eight times since the 
originating legislation, P.L. 95-124. Two of these 
reauthorizations made significant policy changes. Title VIII 
authorizes funds for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program for FY97, focusing on earthquake hazards mitigation.
Legislative history
    H.R. 3322 was introduced by Chairman Walker, along with 
Subcommittee Chairs Sensenbrenner, Morella, Rohrabacher and 
Schiff, on April 25, 1996. It was referred to the Committee on 
Science and, in addition, to the Committees on National 
Security, Resources, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
those provisions under their jurisdiction. Each Subcommittee 
held its own authorization hearings for those programs under 
its purview.
Subcommittee on Basic Research
    On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing titled, ``National Science Foundation (NSF) FY97 
Authorization,'' and received testimony from Dr. Neal Lane, 
Director of NSF, on NSF's FY 1997 budget request. Dr. Lane 
emphasized that the budget request reflected a clear 
prioritization of NSF programs.
    On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the programs of the United States Fire 
Administration (USFA) under the Federal Fire Prevention and 
Control Act of 1974. Witnesses included: Representative Steny 
Hoyer, co-Chairman, Congressional Fire Caucus; Carrye Brown, 
Administrator, USFA; Gary Tokle, Assistant Vice President, 
National Fire Protection Association; Francis McGarry, 
President, National Association of State Fire Marshals, Bill 
Jenaway, GIGNA Corporation; and Dan Shaw, Chief of the 
Placitis, New Mexico Fire Department. All witnesses testified 
to the success and importance of the United States Fire 
Administration.
    On October 24, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
(NEHRP). Witnesses included: Dr. Paul Komor, former project 
director and author of the report, ``Reducing Earthquake 
Losses,'' issued by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA); 
Dr. Daniel Abrams, Professor of Civil Engineering at the 
University of Illinois; Richard Moore, Associate Director for 
Mitigation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 
Dr. Robert Hamilton, Program Coordinator for Geological Hazards 
for the United States Geological Survey (USGS); Dr. Joseph 
Bordogna, Assistant Director for Engineering for the NSF; Dr. 
Richard Wright, Director of the Building and Fire Research 
Laboratory for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST); Dr. Paul Somerville, Seismologist at 
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services; Dr. Thomas Jordan, Professor 
of Earth Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
Dr. Thomas Anderson, Fluor Daniel; and Dr. Anne Kiremidjian, 
Professor of Civil Engineering at Stanford University. The 
witnesses were unanimous in their support for the NEHRP and all 
urged the Committee to reauthorize the program.
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
    On October 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing titled, ``Next Generation Weather 
Radar (NEXRAD): Are We Covered?,'' to examine the National 
Weather Service's (NWS) current plan for modernization focusing 
on NEXRAD coverage for the United States. Witnesses included: 
Representatives Steve Buyer; Phil English; George Gekas; Mark 
Souder; Wally Herger, and Mac Thornberry; Mr. Joe Friday, Jr., 
Assistant Administrator for Weather Services at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Dr. William E. 
Gordon, Chairman of the NEXRAD Panel, and Floyd Hauth, Study 
Director for the Committee on the Modernization of the NWS; 
and, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director of the Defense Information 
and Financial Management Systems for the Accounting and 
Information Management Division of the United States General 
Accounting Office (GAO). Witnesses commented on recommendations 
made by the NEXRAD Panel and the National Research Council 
(NRC).
    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
titled, ``National Weather Service Modernization Program 
Status.'' The focus of the hearing was on the GAO and 
Department of Commerce Inspector General (IG) reports which 
raised concern about the lack of quality assurance and the 
unrealistic timetable associated with the cornerstone of the 
NWS modernization program, the Advanced Weather Prediction 
System (AWIPS). Witnesses included: the Honorable Dr. D. James 
Baker, Administrator of NOAA and Under Secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, Department of Commerce; Mr. Frank DeGeorge, 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Arthur 
Zygielbaum, Senior Member of the Technical Staff in the 
Observational Systems Division, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
California Institute of Technology; and Mr. Jack L. Brock, Jr., 
Director of Information Resources Management/Resources 
Community and Economic Development, GAO. According the panel, 
the NWS believes that a minimal amount of risk is associated 
with the aggressive deployment schedule, but acknowledges that 
there is some technical risk of schedule slip due to the 
overlap of certain development steps.
    On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled, 
``Budget Hearing on FY 1997 Request of DOE, NOAA, EPA and Safe 
Drinking Water R&D.'' Testimony was received from the Honorable 
Dr. D. James Baker, Administrator of NOAA and Under Secretary 
of Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce on the 
Administration's FY 1997 budget request for NOAA. Dr. Baker 
testified that NOAA's budget request increase is primarily 
driven by systems costs. Testifying on behalf of the 
Administration's FY 1997 budget request for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) was the Honorable Dr. Robert J. 
Huggett, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, 
EPA. Dr. Huggett testified on the reorganizations that have 
been taking place within EPA and the areas of primary concern 
for the Office of Research and Development.
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held two formal 
authorization hearings on the Administration's Fiscal Year 1997 
budget request. On March 28, 1996, NASA Administrator Daniel S. 
Goldin testified about the agency's programs. Mr. Goldin said 
NASA asked for stable funding through Fiscal Year 1997 and that 
the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1997 was essentially the 
same level as Fiscal Year 1996, $13.8 billion. He noted, 
however, that he was not ready to accept the outyear numbers in 
the proposed budget.
    On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Fiscal Year 1997 NASA Authorization. The hearing consisted of 
six panels of witnesses with detailed testimony regarding 
various NASA enterprises including: (1) zero base review; (2) 
space technology; (3) space science; (4) aeronautics; (5) human 
exploration and development of space; (6) and outreach and 
education. Witnesses included: Mr. Richard Wisniewski, Deputy 
Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Flight, NASA; 
Dr. Anthony England, Space Studies Board, National Research 
Council; Dr. W.D. Kay, Associate Professor for the Department 
of Political Science at Northeastern University; Col. Gary 
Payton, Director of the Space Transportation Division, NASA; 
Maj. Gen. Lance Lord, Director of Plans, Air Force Space 
Command; Mr. Rick Fleeter, President of AeroAstro; Mr. Ray 
Morgan, Vice President for Aerovironment; Mr. Louis J. 
Lanzerotti, Distinguished Member Technical Staff of Lucent 
Technologies; Dr. John Hester, Assistant Professor of Physics 
and Astronomy, Arizona State University; Dr. Holland Ford, 
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University; 
Dr. Anneila Sargent, Chair of the Department of Astronomy, 
California Institute of Technology and Chair of the NASA Space 
Science Advisory Committee; Dr. Louis Friedman, Executive 
Director for The Planetary Society; Dr. Jerry Grey, American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Col. Michael S. 
Francis, Tactical Technology Office, Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency; Dr. Fred Billig, Applied Physics Lab, Johns 
Hopkins University; Mr. Wilbur C. Trafton, Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Kent 
Black, Chief Executive Officer, United Space Alliance; Mr. Dan 
Tam, Space Station Business Manager, NASA; VADM Robert F. Dunn, 
Aerospace Safety and Advisory Panel; Mr. Jim Pagliasotti, 
Executive Director, Aerospace States Association; and, Dr. Joel 
Snow, Director for the Institute for Physical Research & 
Technology, Iowa State University.
Subcommittee on Technology
    On April 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on the Fiscal Year 1997 budget request for the 
Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). Testimony was received from 
Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST, who was accompanied by 
Mr. Gary Buchula, Deputy Undersecretary of the TA. Dr. 
Prabhakar testified in favor of the FY97 budget request.
    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
to examine the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) research 
and acquisition management. Witnesses included: Dr. Gerald L. 
Dillingham; Associate Director, Transportation and 
Telecommunications issues, GAO; Mr. Kevin P. Dopart, Senior 
Analyst, Energy, Transportation and Infrastructure Program, 
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA); and, Dr. George L. 
Donohue, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisition, 
FAA. Witnesses discussed FAA's problems in developing and 
deploying systems in the R&D area, bridging cultural gaps, and 
transforming its acquisition process.
    On December 7, 1995, the Subcommittee held a second 
oversight hearing regarding the FAA's acquisition management. 
Witnesses included: Dr. John J. Fearnsides, Senior Vice 
President and General Manager, MITRE Corporation; Mr. Robert J. 
Stevens, Loral Federal Systems; Mr. J. Roger Fleming, Senior 
Vice President, Air Transport Association; Mr. Sigbert B. 
Poritzky, former member of the FAA R&D Advisory Committee; Dr. 
Robert E. Whitehead, Office of Aeronautics, NASA; Dr. Alan R. 
Thomas, NOAA; and, Mr. William ``Bud'' Laynor, National 
Transportation Safety Board. According to testimony, major 
issues are FAA's long-standing internal management problems and 
cultural impediments to improving the acquisition process.
    On April 18, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
receive testimony regarding the President's FY 1997 budget 
request for FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D), 
and to review the management reform initiatives directed toward 
improving FAA's R,E&D activities. Witnesses included: the 
Honorable David R. Hinson, Administrator, FAA; and Dr. George 
L. Donohue, Associate Administrator for Research and 
Acquisitions, FAA. Witnesses testified that management and 
organizational changes made over the past year, combined with 
the new acquisitions management system that went into effect on 
April 1st, fully address the Committee's concerns.
    The Full Committee met to mark up a Committee print on 
April 24, 1996. After adopting five amendments, a quorum being 
present, the Full Committee approved the Committee print, as 
amended, by a recorded vote of Yeas--24 to Nays--19, and 
ordered it reported. A motion was then adopted to prepare a 
clean bill for introduction in the House, and that the measure 
be deemed reported by the Committee. The Committee filed House 
Report 104-550, Part I, on May 1, 1996. On May 6, 1996, the 
Committees on Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
National Security discharged H.R. 3322 from further 
consideration.
    On May 7, 1996, the Committee on Rules granted an open 
rule, adopting H. Res. 427. On May 9, 1996, the House passed 
the rule. H.R. 3322 was called up by the House under an open 
rule on May 29, 1996, with the Committee Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment. It was considered on May 29 and 30, 1996, 
and passed the House, with amendments, by voice vote, on May 
30, 1996. H.R. 3322 was received in the Senate on June 3, 1996, 
and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. The Senate took no formal action on this 
legislation.

Background and summary of legislation
    In 1994, commercial space activity in the United States 
generated $6.2 billion in revenue. Current estimates indicate 
that this area of activity generated revenue of some $7.5 
billion in 1995. For most of this decade, commercial space 
activity has proven recession-proof, providing thousands of 
high-skilled, well-paying jobs in the nation's aerospace 
industry, which has borne the burden of cutbacks in federal 
defense spending since 1986. Besides improving the U.S. 
industrial base, commercial space business creates new 
capabilities for using space to enhance the lives of millions 
of Americans and provides tax revenue that will help balance 
the federal budget.
    Commercial space activity has received bipartisan support 
for years, resulting in the passage of landmark legislation, 
such as the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, the Launch 
Services Purchase Act of 1990, and the Land Remote Sensing 
Policy Act of 1992. While those laws have enabled the U.S. 
commercial space industry to lead the world in the private 
development of space, experience and the pace of technological 
change have demonstrated that the regulatory framework 
governing commercial space activity needs to be updated and 
improved. The Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996 
begins this process.
    The purpose of the bill is to encourage the development of 
a commercial space industry in the United States by 
streamlining government regulatory procedures and unleashing 
the creativity and industry of American entrepreneurialism.
Legislative history
    On March 5, 1996, the Science Committee introduced a new 
concept for legislative information gathering and held a 
roundtable on a draft bill entitled, ``Omnibus Space 
Commercialization Act of 1996,'' and on H.R. 1953, the ``Space 
Business Incentives Act of 1996.'' The roundtable, co-sponsored 
by a Washington-based grassroots space advocacy group, the 
National Space Society, welcomed current and former government 
officials; industry executives from small, entrepreneurial 
companies and larger government contractors; policy analysts 
from various think tanks; and representatives from advocacy 
groups. Because the forum was unofficial and not highly 
structured, participants were free to speak more candidly than 
hearings usually allow. Based on that roundtable and additional 
comments from other interested parties, the Omnibus Space 
Commercialization Bill was redrafted, streamlined, renamed the 
``Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996,'' and 
introduced by twelve members of the Science Committee on August 
1, 1996.
    In addition to the roundtable, the Committee held several 
hearings on commercial space development that were instrumental 
in developing and finalizing the legislation. On November 8, 
1995, the Science Committee held a hearing entitled, ``NASA 
Procurement in the Earth-Space Economy,'' which examined 
methods by which NASA could fulfill its missions while 
stimulating the commercial space industry. Witnesses included: 
Ms. Deirdre Lee, NASA's Associate Administrator for 
Procurement; Mr. Rick Dunn, who served in the office of NASA's 
General Counsel and is currently General Counsel of the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency; Mr. John Muratore, of the 
Johnson Space Center; Mr. Dennis Burnett, representing 
Instrumentation Technology Associates, Inc.; Mr. David Rossi, 
Senior Vice President of Spacehab, Inc.; Mr. James Frelk, Vice 
President of Earthwatch Inc.; and Mr. Tom Rogers, President of 
the Sophron Foundation and President of the Space 
Transportation Association.
    On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing, ``U.S. Space Launch Strategy,'' which examined 
the health of the U.S. space launch industry and the impact of 
various trade agreements. Witnesses included: the Honorable Dan 
Goldin, NASA Administrator; Mr. Robert Davis, Deputy 
Undersecretary of Defense for Space; Mr. Don Eiss, Deputy 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Industry and Labor; Ms. 
Catherine Novelli, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative 
for Eastern/Central Europe and Eurasia; Mr. Frank Weaver, FAA 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation; 
Dr. Brian Dailey, Vice President for Business Development of 
Lockheed Martin Corporation's Space and Strategic Missiles 
Sector; Mr. Stanley Ebner, Senior Vice President for Washington 
Operations of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace; Mr. Edward O'Connor, 
Executive Director of the Spaceport Florida Authority; Mr. Pat 
Ladner, Executive Director of the Alaska Aerospace Development 
Corporation; Mr. Donald Smith, Executive Director of the 
Western Commercial Space Center; and Mr. David Montanaro, Vice 
President of Teledesic Corporation. Written statements were 
accepted from Rockwell International Corporation and 
Arianespace.
    On July 31, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on the draft legislation entitled ``The Space 
Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996.'' Witnesses included: 
the Honorable Lionel S. Johns, Associate Director for 
Technology of the White House Office of Science and Technology 
Policy; Lt. Gen. Spence Armstrong (retired), NASA Associate 
Administrator for Human Resources and Education; Mr. Gil 
Klinger, Principal Assistant Undersecretary of Defense for 
Space; Dr. Brian Dailey, Vice President for Business 
Development of Lockheed Martin Corporation's Space and 
Strategic Missiles Sector; Dr. Scott Pace, the RAND 
Corporation; and Mr. Mark Brender, of ABC News, representing 
the National Radio and Television News Director's Association's 
Remote Sensing Task Force. The record was held open after the 
hearing to accept additional written statements from interested 
parties. The Subcommittee received statements from the U.S. GPS 
Industry Council, the United Space Alliance, the North American 
Remote Sensing Industries Association, and the law firm of Reed 
Smith Shaw & McClay.
    H.R. 3936 was introduced August 1, 1996, by Chairman Robert 
S. Walker and co-sponsored by Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Largent, 
Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. 
Stockman, Mr. Davis, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Baker of California, Mrs. 
Seastrand, and Mr. Tiahrt. The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Science and the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. Within the Science Committee, the bill was referred 
to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. On September 9, 
1996, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Hall signed a 
letter of discharge, releasing the bill from the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics to the Committee on Science for 
consideration.
    On September 11, 1996, the Committee on Science marked up 
H.R. 3936. A quorum being present, the bill was adopted, as 
amended, by a voice vote and ordered reported (H. Rept. 104-
801, Part I), by a voice vote, to the full House for 
consideration. One amendment, a manager's amendment jointly 
sponsored by Chairman Walker and Ranking Member Brown was 
adopted by a voice vote. The Committee also adopted by a voice 
vote motions to submit supplementary, Minority, or additional 
views for the legislative report.
    Science Committee staff met with representatives of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, whose concerns 
were, for the most part, addressed in the manager's amendment 
during the Science Committee markup of the bill. On September 
16, 1996, Chairman William F. Clinger Jr., signed a letter of 
discharge from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, releasing the bill for consideration by the House of 
Representatives. On September 17, 1996, H.R. 3936 was placed on 
the Union Calendar and called up by the House under suspension 
of the rules with an amendment (the amendment struck all 
language after the enacting clause and inserted new text). The 
amendment was intended to resolve outstanding issues that were 
raised in the Full Committee markup. H.R. 3936 passed the House 
by a voice vote on September 17, 1996. On September 18, 1996, 
H.R. 3936 was received in the Senate. The Senate took no formal 
action on this legislation.
   Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on Science

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 1514, the Propane Education and Research Act of 1995, 
was introduced on April 7, 1995, by Mr. Tauzin (R-LA). It was 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the 
Committee on Science. The measure was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on April 13, 1995.
    On April 16, 1996, the Committee on Commerce held a markup 
and ordered H.R. 1514 reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 
The Committee on Commerce filed H.Rept. 104-655, Part I, on 
July 8, 1996, and the Committee on Science received referral of 
the measure on that date. On July 10, 1996, the Committee on 
Science discharged the measure. The House voted to suspend the 
rules and pass H.R. 1514, as amended, on September 4, 1996.
    The Senate passed H.R. 1514 on September 28, 1996, clearing 
the measure for the President. On October 11, 1996, the 
President signed H.R. 1514, the Propane Education and Research 
Act of 1995, which became Public Law 104-284.

Background and summary of legislation
    The Water Desalination Act of 1996, S. 811, was introduced 
on May 17, 1995, by Senator Simon (D-IL) and was referred to 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. On March 
28, 1996, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
held a markup and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by 
a voice vote, and filed S. Rept. 104-254 on April 18, 1996. On 
May 3, 1996, the Senate passed S. 811 by a voice vote after 
agreeing to a Committee Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute. It was received in the House and held at the desk 
on May 6, 1996.
    On May 14, 1996, S. 811 was referred to the House Committee 
on Resources and in addition to the Committees on Science and 
Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on Science 
referred the measure to the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment on May 20, 1996.
    The Committee on Resources held a markup on August 1, 1996, 
and ordered S. 811 reported, as amended, by a voice vote and 
filed H.Rept. 104-790, Part I, on September 16, 1996. The 
Committees on Science and Transportation and Infrastructure 
discharged S. 811 on September 16, 1996, and on September 24, 
1996, the House voted to suspend the rules and pass the 
measure, as amended.
    On September 27, 1996, the Senate concurred in the 
amendments of the House to S. 811 clearing the measure for the 
President. On October 11, 1996, the President signed S. 811, 
the Water Desalination Act of 1996, which became P.L. 104-298.
   Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
   Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative 
                               Activities

     4.1(a)--Is Today's Science Policy Preparing Us For the Future?

                            January 6, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-1

Background
    On January 6, 1995, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``Is Today's Science Policy Preparing Us for the 
Future?'' This first hearing of the 104th Congress was aimed at 
hearing from the heads of the departments and agencies under 
the Committee's jurisdiction. Witnesses were asked to focus on 
the long-term and to explain how today's policies are taking 
their respective departments into the future.
    The hearing consisted of one panel of witnesses including: 
the Honorable Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce; the 
Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator; the Honorable 
Neal F. Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation; the 
Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency; and the Honorable Jack Gibbons, Director, 
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
    The Honorable Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, and the 
Honorable Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, submitted 
written statements for the record.
Summary of Hearing
    Secretary Brown spoke of the importance of the private 
sector in generating economic growth and cited actions of the 
Administration in working for job creation, worker training and 
export promotion. He expressed strong support for industry-
government partnerships and the Commerce Department's 
technology programs, such as the Advanced Technology Program 
and the Manufacturing Extension Program.
    Mr. Goldin discussed NASA's budget reductions and the 
agency's plans to privatize and commercialize infrastructure 
and operations, thereby freeing up resources to concentrate on 
``revolutionary R&D.'' He spoke of the technologies that will 
be needed in 2015: faster computers, robots, microelectronics, 
and advances in biotechnology. He believes that within 20 
years, we will have a new space transportation system, access 
to space at a lower cost, faster airplanes, and experimental 
spacecraft.
    Ms. Browner spoke in strong support of additional 
environmental research and expressed cautious support for 
limited risk assessment legislation.
    Dr. Lane stressed that science and fundamental engineering 
``is the future.'' He discussed the National Science 
Foundation's strategic plan and its three goals for science: 
world leadership, scientific knowledge, and service to promote 
a technologically literate society.
    Dr. Gibbons summarized the Administration's science and 
technology initiatives and outlined what he believes is the 
Federal Government's role in advancing technology: ensuring a 
strong base of fundamental science; providing a business 
environment that encourages innovation; and investing in 
research that cannot attract adequate private support.

     4.1(b)--Restructuring of the Federal Scientific Establishment

                             June 28, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-14

Background:
    On June 28, 1995, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``Restructuring of the Federal Scientific 
Establishment.'' The purpose of this hearing was to receive 
testimony from outside witnesses on restructuring the federal 
scientific establishment to include creating a Department of 
Science in order to house various science elements of the 
Federal Government. A proposal by Chairman Walker would combine 
the science programs of the existing Commerce and Energy 
Departments, along with NASA, NSF, EPA, the Patent and 
Trademark Office, and the United States Geological Survey. 
Advocates believe that science would benefit from having a 
cabinet-ranking science secretary, from a budget allocation 
dedicated to science and from administrative savings. Opponents 
argue U.S. science has benefited from the current plurality of 
funding sources.
    The hearing consisted of one panel of witnesses, including: 
the Honorable George A. Keyworth, Chairman, The Progress and 
Freedom Foundation; the Honorable Don Ritter, Chairman, 
National Environmental Policy Forum; the Honorable Henson 
Moore, President & CEO, The American Forest and Paper 
Association; and Dr. Joseph Spigai, Director, Engineering 
Management Program, The University of Maryland.
Summary of Hearing
    George A. Keyworth, a former White House science advisor 
for President Reagan, testified in support of a proposal by 
Chairman Walker for a Department of Science. He said that all 
nations have some form of science ministry at a cabinet level, 
and having a Department of Science would enhance American 
competitiveness and foundations internationally. He also said 
the science community has lost the American people's trust and 
we have to earn it back by refocusing science on excellence and 
reemphasizing basic research. Dr. Keyworth told the Committee 
that federally funded science today caters to spoiled 
scientists who spend half their time trying to win new grants 
instead of doing research or teaching. He said that the kind of 
restructuring implicit in the proposal for a Department of 
Science is the only way to restore coherent policies, research 
dedicated to excellence, and the public's trust.
    Don Ritter, a former Member of Congress, testified that 
science has not lived up to its potential to enhance the 
performance of a $6 trillion economy. He said a new department 
could give a higher profile to science and scientists and bring 
greater significance and influence of science to the national 
debate. He also said that it is possible that a Science 
Department could mean less politicization of science because of 
stronger priority setting. Mr. Ritter emphasized greater 
separation between science and the regulatory process. He said 
that scientific R&D has become too big and has developed its 
own momentum, and that change is necessary for those who have 
become dependent on federal funds.
    W. Henson Moore, former Deputy Energy Secretary under 
President Bush, testified that science is vital to our future 
and the Federal Government should be involved. However there 
are limited resources and science cannot afford a lack of 
direction, duplication or priorities being set for reasons 
other than the best interests of the nation. Mr. Moore tried to 
restructure the Department of Energy to combine a variety of 
science programs but ran into ``a buzz saw'' of complaints from 
people with special interests. He said some in Congress and in 
federal departments opposed it because they would lose some 
power and control, and researchers feared the reorganization 
because they thought they would lose federal grants. During his 
consideration of this concept Mr. Moore observed that we do not 
have a clear science spokesman and we are not satisfied with 
the visibility or emphasis our society places on science. Mr. 
Moore suggested a centralization of the Department of Energy's 
science programs and the possibility of a department of energy, 
science and technology.
    Dr. Joseph Spigai, director of the University of Maryland 
Graduate School of Management and Technology, testified that 
the nation needs a combined science policy and funding effort. 
Dr. Spigai endorsed the efforts of Chairman Walker's proposal 
to create a Department of Science and said the science 
community needs to speak with one voice rather than many. He 
also said we needed to be cautious in the organization of a new 
department. Dr. Spigai said the new department must be 
organized logically, that the infrastructure be in place to 
provide the Secretary of Science with nonpartisan objective 
science policy advice and that regulatory policy and research 
policy remain separate objectives. Dr. Spigai has a more 
expansive proposal which would create a department of science 
and technology. Along with the agencies in Chairman Walker's 
proposal, Dr. Spigai's proposal would include medical research 
from such agencies as NIH. This proposal is part of a larger 
effort on behalf of Dr. Spigai who eventually would like to 
streamline the entire Executive Branch from fourteen agencies 
to nine which would include Departments of: Commerce, Industry 
and Economic Development; Defense; Health, Education and Social 
Welfare; International Relations; Justice; Natural Resources; 
Science and Technology; Transportation and Communication; and 
Treasury.

4.1(c)--Educational Technology in the 21st Century--Joint Hearing with 
          the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee

                            October 12, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-23

Background
    On October 12, 1995, the Committee on Science and the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held a 
joint hearing entitled, ``Educational Technology in the 21st 
Century,'' to receive testimony on the use of educational 
technologies to support the educational system over the next 
twenty years.
    The hearing was structured into three panels. The first 
panel, which represented a futurists perspective, consisted of: 
Professor Seymour Papert, LEGO Professor of Learning Research, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; Dr. Alan 
C. Kay, Apple Fellow Learning Concepts, Apple Computer, Los 
Angeles, CA; Professor Chris Dede, Information Technology and 
Education, Graduate School of Education, George Mason 
University, Fairfax, VA; Dr. David E. Shaw, D.E. Shaw & Co., 
New York, NY.
    The second panel, which addressed industry's concerns, 
consisted of: Mr. Ed McCracken, Chairman and CEO, Silicon 
Graphics, Mountain View, CA; Mr. Pat Wright, Vice President, 
TCI Educational Technologies, Inc., Englewood, CO; Mr. Robert 
W. Mendenhall, Vice President and General Manager, K-12 
Industry Division, IBM, Atlanta, GA; Mr. Jeff Joseph, Vice 
President Domestic Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
Washington, DC.
    The third panel, which represented the education community, 
consisted of: Dr. Deborah McGriff, Senior Vice President, 
Public School Partnership, Edison Project, New York, NY; Ms. 
Cheryl L. Lemke, Associate Superintendent, Learning 
Technologies, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, 
IL; and Dr. Alan S. Brown, Superintendent of Waukegan Public 
Schools District 60, Waukegan, IL.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1: Futurists Perspective
    Professor Seymour Papert, LEGO Professor of Learning 
Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology doubts that we 
will see classrooms as we know them today in the future. 
Professor Papert envisions children learning in an environment 
radically different from today's classroom.
    Dr. Alan Kay, Apple Fellow Learning Concepts, Apple 
Computer, agreed with Professor Papert's vision of how 
education and computer technology will play itself out. He 
commented that we need to do more than to simply try to deal 
with vocational problems and institute training via computers 
in schools. He feels there is very little chance of change 
because of the ``enormous situated bureaucracy for running 
education in this country.''
    Professor Chris Dede, Information Technology and Education, 
Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, stated 
that High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) will 
enable K-12 schools to move toward collaborative learning 
through doing, known as distributed learning. He believes 
virtual communities will encourage and motivate learners. He 
outlined three reasons educational technology has made a 
limited impact to date: (1) models of presentational teaching 
have been implemented, rather than learning by doing; (2) 
teaching has been isolated in school settings, rather than 
empowering learning in homes, communities, work places and via 
the media; and (3) teachers and school administrators do not 
have a support system in place to reconceptualize their roles.
    Dr. David E. Shaw, D.E. Shaw & Co., stated that we can 
expect to see dramatic increases in computer power, speed and 
memory. Furthermore, personal computers will become much more 
affordable, enabling interactive communications including full 
motion video with high quality audio to become common. Dr. Shaw 
foresees the role of the teacher to transform into that of a 
coach, a monitor, helping students in a different way. Also, he 
believes it will be necessary to involve parents, the 
community, and the technology, particularly to the extent that 
we have access in the home.
Panel 2: Industry Perspective
    Mr. Ed McCracken, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 
Silicon Graphics, spoke of five points to prepare us for the 
21st Century: (1) we need to prepare our children for the 
information age; (2) we need a national initiative; (3) the 
technologies must be affordable and accessible; (4) teacher 
training is essential and the current programs need to be 
revamped; and (5) local community leadership can make a 
difference.
    Mr. Pat Wright, Vice President, TCI Educational 
Technologies, Inc., spoke of the Sparkman Center and the 
Showcase Schools program which were created to begin the 
transformation of our education system.
    Mr. Robert W. Mendenhall, Vice President and General 
Manager, K-12 Industry Division, IBM, made four 
recommendations: (1) direct funding towards technology; (2) 
match infrastructure funds with funds for applications and 
training; (3) tie funding to actual outcomes; and (4) we need 
to provide affordable access in schools and libraries.
    Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, Vice President Domestic Policy, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the need for a collaborative 
effort between federal, state and local leaders working 
together towards a common goal to make things work.
Panel 3: Education Perspective
    Dr. Deborah McGriff, Senior Vice President, The Edison 
Project, spoke of life-long learning devices which could be 
used any place, any time, anywhere.
    Ms. Cheryl L. Lemke, Associate Superintendent, Illinois 
State Board of Education, discussed empowering children to 
influence public policy, making education student-centered, 
providing access, finding education pioneers within communities 
and honoring them, providing incentives, and the critical role 
of infrastructure.
    Dr. Alan S. Brown, Superintendent of Schools, Waukegan 
Community Unit District No. 60, explained a school system 
without age grouping, students teaching each other. In 
addition, he recommended a National Technical Advisory Council 
(NATC) to recommend objectives for districts and educators and 
suggested pilot demonstration programs. Dr. Brown expressed the 
need for the Federal Government to provide guidance and 
incentives, not mandates.

         4.1(d)--U.S./Japanese Cooperation in Human Spaceflight

                            October 19, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-22

Background
    On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``U.S./Japanese Cooperation in Human 
Spaceflight.'' 1995 marked the 50th anniversary of the end of 
World War II. Nowhere has the emerging interdependence of U.S./
Japanese interests been more evident than in space exploration. 
Japan has been one of the most active nations in conducting 
cooperative missions with the United States. We have formed 
partnerships in the areas of space science, space applications, 
human spaceflight, and the International Space Station Alpha, 
where Japan has pledged over $2 billion for its contribution, 
the Japanese Experimental Module (JEM). The first Japanese 
Shuttle mission was flown in September 1992 with a crew that 
included Mamoru Mori. A second mission was flown in 1994 with 
Dr. Chiaki Mukai, the first Japanese woman to fly in space. 
Japan's space budget has been growing at a rate of between 7-9% 
per year for the past several years, while the space budgets 
for most potential international partners has been declining.
    One panel of witnesses represented the views of both Japan 
and the Administration with respect to U.S./Japanese 
cooperative efforts in space and consisted of: Ambassador 
Takakazu Kuriyama; Mr. Takashi Matsui, President of the 
National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA); Dr. Chiaki 
Mukai, astronaut; and Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Matsui noted that the Space Station has evolved into a 
truly international venture and that the Japanese component 
(JEM) is the largest investment in the history of Japanese 
space development. He also noted the many successes as a result 
of cooperative activities in the areas of microgravity 
experiments and earth observation. He concluded by stating that 
international cooperation has become an essential factor for 
many science and technology projects and future space 
development activities in particular, and that it will be 
NASDA's policy to be active in future international projects.
    Ambassador Kuriyama noted that U.S./Japanese cooperation in 
the area of science and technology is a major pillar of our 
partnership and that Japan has benefited greatly from this 
postwar cooperation. He expanded further to say that in recent 
years this cooperation has matured into a mutually beneficial, 
two-way relationship, with space demonstrating the highly 
positive development of our cooperative ties.
    Dr. Mukai noted that the U.S. Congress is one of the most 
important venues affecting global science and technological 
progress. She said further that space collaboration is one of 
the fruits of post-war cooperation. She spoke about the 
importance of zero gravity in scientific studies, especially 
those dealing with osteoporosis. She concluded by outlining 
four aspects of how the manned space program is understood in 
Japan today: (1) science and technology are integral driving 
forces for Japan to realize national development complementing 
its limited natural resources and space development. Advanced 
R&D, in particular, will be essential for the future of Japan; 
(2) international cooperation is essential for Japan in order 
to realize a manned space program; (3) the manned space program 
contributes to education; and (4) the space program makes us 
aware that this planet is the only place for humans to live and 
that we must cooperate with each other to share and protect it. 
She concluded by stating her hopes that the United States and 
Japan will continue to cooperate in order to advance global 
science and technology and for the betterment of human welfare 
into the 21st Century.
    NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin emphasized that Japan was 
a committed and trusted partner, and that this partnership has 
been tremendously beneficial to the United States. He said we 
have learned valuable lessons from Japan's expertise and 
quality. He noted further that Japan is one of our most 
steadfast partners in the International Space Station Alpha 
program (ISSA), and that its contribution to the ISSA, JEM, has 
not once been altered from its original commitment.

           4.1(e)--NASA Purchasing in the Earth-Space Economy

                            November 8, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-33

Background
    On November 8, 1995, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``NASA Purchasing in the Earth-Space 
Economy.'' This hearing explored various options NASA could 
take advantage of to acquire advanced technology coupled with 
cost savings, which under current practices are difficult to 
attain. NASA rarely uses market practices to acquire space 
hardware, technology, or services from the private sector to 
fulfill its mission needs. It normally purchases entire 
missions under cost-type contracts (NASA pays all the direct 
costs incurred by a company in performing to contract 
specifications, plus a fee, usually a fixed percent of the 
contractor's direct costs). These cost-type contracts are 
entered into with predominately large aerospace companies 
expert at dealing with the U.S. government and its complex 
procurement regulations. Therefore, NASA is not in the habit of 
availing itself of space hardware, technology, or services from 
outside this ``family'' of aerospace contractors. This practice 
not only does not serve to broaden the industrial base to the 
extent possible, it also results in a dependency on a shrinking 
base of suppliers for the things it needs. With true 
international commitment to the International Space Station 
Alpha (ISSA) even more secure as a result of the Toulouse, 
France meeting of the European Space Agency (ESA), ISSA not 
only holds the promise of a genuine international cooperative 
effort but, also, the promise of opening the ``final frontier'' 
to a truly commercial venture. This can only be accomplished if 
NASA changes its ``culture'' with respect to procurement 
practices.
    One panel of witnesses represented the views of both 
industry and the Administration and consisted of: Mr. Dennis 
Burnett, Counsel, Instrument Technology Associates, Inc.; Mr. 
Tom Rogers, Chairman, Board of Advisors, Space Frontier 
Foundation; Mr. James Frelk, Vice President, Earthwatch, Inc.; 
Mr. David Rossi, Vice President, Spacehab, Inc.; Mr. Richard 
Dunn, General Counsel, Advanced Research Projects Agency; Mr. 
John Muratore, Project Manager, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center; 
and Ms. Deirdre Lee, Associate Administrator for Procurement, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Summary of hearing
    Ms. Deirdre Lee said NASA recognizes the need for 
significant improvement in procurement practices and 
procedures. She stated that in order for NASA to fully invoke 
the talents of the commercial world, it has to continue 
implementing two fundamental changes: (1) Improve the 
definition of NASA needs in results-oriented rather than 
process-oriented terms; and (2) change NASA management and 
oversight structure to compliment the industry role. While Ms. 
Lee discussed the four basic tenants of government procurement, 
her overriding argument was that NASA does things ``different'' 
from the way a consumer would buy something. Although Ms. Lee 
noted that NASA management practices must change and that NASA 
must work more effectively with industry, she did not provide a 
concrete NASA plan to change the process.
    Mr. Richard Dunn noted that it is hard for the government 
to get past cold war practices when it comes to support of 
science and technology, and that it needs to radically reform 
the way it develops R&D to respond to the new realities. He 
stated that ARPA has statutory authority to enter into non-
procurement purchases through the NASA Space Act of 1958. These 
``other transactions'' allow ARPA to step out of the 
procurement arena and into commercial practices, allowing for 
greater flexibility. All ``other transactions'' are cost shared 
which, he said, is the rationale for getting out of traditional 
methods.
    Mr. John Muratore stated that by using commercial off-the-
shelf technology for the new Mission Control Center (MCC), 
costs have been significantly reduced (NASA has cut the 
contractual paper work by 75%). He stated further that the new 
MCC should be able to operate both the control center 
operations for the Space Shuttle and the Space Station in 1998 
for 2/3 of the yearly costs that it took to operate the old MCC 
for the Space Shuttle alone in 1993. He said NASA needs to 
become a ``smart buyer'' (understand requirements before 
purchasing). The goal is to be able to buy and use technology 
right out of the box without altering it. With respect to MCC, 
Mr. Muratore acknowledged during questioning that there was a 
reluctance on behalf of NASA to do things a whole new way, 
which he accounts to the ``accountability factor,'' but that 
they realize there is a challenge to change to fully realize 
the dreams of space.
    Mr. Dennis James Burnet explained a previous barter 
agreement between ITA and NASA. The arrangement called for ITA 
to fly its equipment aboard the shuttle, at no cost to ITA, 
while retaining 50% of its equipment for use by NASA. He noted 
that this arrangement proved very successful, but that NASA has 
balked at any new flight agreements. He said NASA wants to 
build functions ITA has already developed. He concluded that 
NASA needs incentives to foster commercial space and to 
leverage commercial space to achieve additional fiscal and 
scientific benefits.
    Mr. David Rossi stated that commercialization can be 
promoted by focusing on the potential for investors to earn 
returns commensurate with the risks of the space industry. No 
amount of support will encourage investment if the loss of 
principal is possible and the potential rate of return is not 
appropriate. Investments are made based on the rate of return, 
not on the potential for loss. He said that by modifying NASA 
procurement practices, not regulations, industry can be 
encouraged to offer proposals to NASA for commercial space 
products and services that NASA can lease or purchase as needed 
rather than develop, own, and operate. He further stated that 
the fair price for commercially offered products and services 
can be determined through competition or by comparison with 
prices paid by other, non-NASA users. If NASA becomes the sole 
user of a commercial service offered by a single provider, an 
independent ``should-cost'' analysis can be conducted 
contrasting the price to be paid with the cost of providing the 
desired services in-house at NASA.
    Mr. James Frelk said that creative approaches to 
structuring partnerships between industry and NASA offers 
advantages to both sectors in fiscally constrained times. 
Industry would benefit from innovative work done at NASA, and 
because industry has the resources and capability to 
incorporate these technologies into their commercial space 
systems, it allows government to generate maximum benefits with 
minimal public investment. He mentioned that NASA's Mission to 
Planet Earth Program offers opportunities for the commercial 
remote sensing industry and could be used as a test-bed for 
procurement reform.
    Mr. Thomas Rogers stated that there can be no 
commercialization of space until unit space infrastructure 
costs are reduced sharply and soon. Another problem he noted is 
that NASA builds space assets for government use, not for 
economic use. The Space Station program, he said, should be 
thought of as playing a vital role over a transitional interval 
to help move the manned space area from being one of a publicly 
funded planned economy to one in which competitive, profit-
seeking free enterprise activities flourish. This scenario 
would drop the cost of space-related goods to the point where 
true commercialization could commence. He said that the 
International Space Station Alpha should be seen as our first 
town in space as should be commercialized.

      4.1(f)--Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology

                           February 28, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-44

Background
    On February 28, 1996, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``Allocating Federal Funds for Science and 
Technology.'' The National Academy of Sciences in conjunction 
with the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of 
Medicine were asked, at the request of Congress, to study ``the 
criteria that should be used in judging the appropriate 
allocation of federal funds to research and development 
activities, the appropriate balance among different types of 
institutions that conduct such research, and the means of 
assuring continued objectivity in the allocation process.'' The 
National Research Council's Committee on Criteria for Federal 
Support of Research and Development recently released its 
report entitled Allocating Federal Funds for Science and 
Technology. For purposes of this study, the Committee focused 
on the $35- to $40 billion of the $70 billion spent annually on 
federal R&D in federal research and development on expanding 
fundamental knowledge and creating new technologies. The 
Committee termed this the Federal Science and Technology budget 
(FS&T). The Committee report made 13 recommendations. This 
hearing was held to examine the report and its recommendations.
    The hearing consisted of one panel of witnesses, including: 
Dr. Frank Press, President Emeritus National Academy of 
Sciences, Washington, DC; Mr. Richard Mahoney, Chairman and CEO 
(Retired) MONSANTO, St. Louis, MO; and Dr. Marye Anne Fox, Vice 
President for Research, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Frank Press, President Emeritus, National Academy of 
Sciences, explained that the heart of the report is the 
proposal for a budget process that provides a unitary view of 
the FS&T enterprise. In this way, Congress will be able to 
gauge the overall health of the enterprise, the adequacy of the 
overall funding, the manner in which it meets the nation's 
needs, and understand the interrelationships and complexities 
among the governmental programs. The Committee adopted several 
principles to assure the FS&T programs maintained their base 
within the federal departments, and excellence in responding to 
crisis, national needs and opportunities. Several of the 
principles mentioned were: (1) trade-offs within the budget; 
(2) favoring projects and people over institutions to free up 
resources; (3) use of merit review; (4) urging international 
cooperation to share costs; and (5) development of commercial 
technologies. When questioned about the erratic funding for the 
ATP since 1992, Dr. Press responded that funding for the 
program has actually increased 10 fold since 1992 and the 
program needs to be evaluated. He stated that overall the 
report has been well-received but critics have protested that 
the FS&T budget would give Congress a target for cost cutting 
with a unitary and coherent view of the entire enterprise. The 
FS&T budget is the same as the combined FS&T budgets of 
Germany, France, the UK and Japan.
    Dr. Richard Mahoney, Chairman and CEO (Retired), MONSANTO, 
commented that currently the private sector does not spend an 
awful lot on research. The universities are the ones to turn to 
for research. The private sector would begin doing basic 
research only if it were cut back to an unmanageable level.
    Dr. Marye Anne Fox, Vice President for Research, University 
of Texas, testified regarding the proper relationship between 
universities and national labs. The Committee's conclusion is 
that research should favor academic institutions in many cases 
because of their flexibility and because of the inherent 
quality control that results from projects and people which are 
typically supported at universities, and because they directly 
link research and training to education.

   4.1(g)--U.S. Global Change Research Programs: Data Collection and 
                         Scientific Priorities

                             March 6, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-49

Background
    On March 6, 1996, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``U.S. Global Change Research Programs: Data 
Collection and Scientific Priorities.'' The United States 
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was initiated in 1989 
to study the earth's environment. Its 1989 budget was $134 
million. Today the USGCRP budget is close to $2 billion per 
year and involves 18 federal departments and agencies. NASA's 
Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) is the largest component of the 
USGCRP and accounts for approximately 70% of the total program 
budget. The Administration requested $1.34 billion for MTPE in 
FY96 and it is estimated that this budget could grow to $1.58 
billion by FY00. A GAO study entitled NASA's Earth Observing 
System: Estimated Funding Requirements reported that MTPE's 
core program, the Earth Observing System (EOS), alone will cost 
taxpayers $33 billion through completion in 2022. Although NASA 
has indicated it can restructure MTPE after the year 2000, any 
savings realized from such an effort would not be seen until 
the 21st Century. This hearing was held to address the scope of 
the MTPE program, to assess its relationship to similar 
programs being carried out in other federal departments and 
agencies, and to review options for fulfilling MTPE.
    The hearing was structured in two panels. Witnesses on the 
first panel, which discussed industry and Administration views, 
included: Dr. Edward Frieman, Director, Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography; Dr. Charles Kennel, Associate Administrator, 
Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA; Mr. Brad Hathaway, 
U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Aram Mika, Hughes Aircraft 
Corporation; Dr. Peter Castruccio, Ecosystems International, 
Inc.; Dr. Arno Ledebuhr, Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory; and Dr. Eric Christensen, Earthwatch, Inc.
    The second panel, which addressed the views of academia, 
included: Dr. Robert T. Watson, Associate Director, 
Environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Dr. 
Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, 
University of Virginia; Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of 
Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, 
MIT; Dr. Robert Balling, Office of Climatology, Arizona State 
University; Dr. Michael MacCracken, Office of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program; Dr. Robert Davis, Department of 
Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; and Dr. John 
Christy, Earth Systems Science Laboratory, University of 
Alabama at Huntsville.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Frieman stated that the quality of science of the 
USGCRP is high, that it is a fundamentally sound program with 
immense importance to the future of our country, and that the 
researchers involved are committed to understanding earth's 
environment while recognizing budget constraints. The problem, 
he said, is that science doesn't recognize which agency is 
conducting the research, and that this program requires 
interagency links which need to be stronger. He stressed that 
the USGCRP needs to adopt advances in technology to improve 
performance and lower costs; ensure the program is open to all 
(acadamia, government and industry); and should seek additional 
international partners. He mentioned further that a major issue 
with NASA's MTPE program is the data and information system of 
EOS, which, he said, needs to be examined and opened to 
competition and industry.
    Mr. Hathaway noted that NASA's research community is small 
and that if not expanded there could be an imbalance between 
the number of funded investigations and the magnitude of the 
potential research opportunities created by data from EOS. He 
is concerned that scientists will only analyze data they are 
paid for.
    Dr. Kennel stressed that MTPE is a science driven program 
and can accomplish its fundamental scientific goals and cut 
out-year costs by 30%.
    Mr. Mika had four key messages which can be found in his 
testimony and he went on to say that MTPE needs to make a broad 
variety of measurements requiring a wide variety of 
instruments. Customized small spacecraft will cost money, he 
said, and recommended medium-sized spacecraft such as the 
Delta.
    Dr. Castruccio noted that science needs to be made 
affordable and that there are a considerable amount of ground 
stations that can handle the data being returned from EOS.
    Dr. Ledebuhr stressed that using miniaturized technology 
could reduce the cost of EOS by 75%.
    Dr. Christensen applauded the Chairman and the Committee 
for encouraging the government to purchase from the private 
sector when possible.
    Dr. Watson stated that the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that human activities are 
increasing greenhouse gases. He noted that the scope of a 
comprehensive research program should evaluate three questions, 
which are listed in his testimony. Also listed are IPCC's main 
conclusions for each of the three questions.
    Dr. Michaels centered his testimony on seven examples of 
how climate data have changed the paradigm on climate change 
from ``dangerous'' to ``moderate.''
    Dr. Lindzen emphasized that the fundamental question with 
respect to the global climate change issue is how much, where, 
and when did the human race contribute to climate changes?
    Dr. Balling centered his remarks around the fact that 
satellites are showing different results than the climate 
models with respect to warming trends.
    Dr. MacCracken emphasized that an important part of the 
global climate change issue is the need to understand how 
climate is changing, for example, the effects of CO2, sulfate 
aerosols, etc.
    Dr. Davis stressed that climate models are not always 
accurate and sometimes will show the opposite of what is 
actually occurring. He stated that not all events are 
attributable to global warming.
    Dr. Christy stated that he supports space-based atmospheric 
research, but noted that while it has been observed that there 
has been enough change in the global climate to cause concern, 
this situation should be studied thoroughly before prescribing 
a definitive course of action.

  4.1(h)--Civilian Science Agencies' Implementation of the Government 
                      Performance and Results Act

                             July 10, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-73

Background
    On July 10, 1996, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``Civilian Science Agencies' Implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act.'' The Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103-62 enacted 
on August 3, 1993, encourages greater efficiency, 
effectiveness, and accountability in federal spending by 
directing agencies to develop and use performance-based 
planning, reporting, and budgeting. In particular, it intends 
to improve program delivery by fundamentally shifting the focus 
of federal management from inputs, such as staffing and 
activities levels, to outputs and the outcomes of federal 
programs. Another purpose of the Act is to enhance 
Congressional decision making. GPRA requires the development 
and use of performance assessment and other information for 
agency management and, ultimately, over a seven-year period, 
the use of performance assessment for allocating budgets. The 
law is being implemented initially through 71 pilot projects 
during Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996 to provide agencies with 
experience in meeting the requirements of GPRA. This hearing 
was held to review the status of the civilian science agencies' 
progress and plans toward implementation of GPRA and to review 
public and private sector policies used in strategic planning 
and performance assessment for research and development 
activities. The first performance reports to Congress and the 
Administration are not due until the year 2000, but agencies 
are nonetheless required to have certain strategic planning and 
performance reporting systems in place for the FY97 federal 
budget.
    The hearing was structured in two panels. Witnesses on the 
first panel, which discussed industry views on implementation 
of GPRA, included: Professor Richard Zare, Department of 
Chemistry, Stanford University; Dr. James C. McGroddy, Senior 
Vice President and Special Advisor to the Chairman, IBM 
Corporation; and, Dr. Ernest Moniz, Associate Director for 
Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White 
House.
    The second panel, which addressed Administration views, 
consisted of: Dr. Anne Petersen, Deputy Director, National 
Science Foundation; Mr. Marc Chupka, Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy; Dr. 
Robert Hebner, Acting Deputy Director, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology; Ms. Diana Josephson, Deputy Under 
Secretary, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Henry Longest II, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for Management, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; and, Mr. Gary Steinberg, Director for 
Strategic Management, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
Summary of Hearing.
    Witnesses on both panels were generally supportive of 
Congressional efforts to hold civilian R&D agencies accountable 
for their appropriated funds, as well as their performance. 
They did, however, ask for flexibility in complying with the 
1993 law, since the results of many research projects are not 
apparent for many years. Witnesses also agreed that GPRA has 
forced their agencies to prioritize research projects and to 
keep close tabs on program progress.
    Professor Richard Zane of Stanford University noted that, 
``Quantitative measures may not be feasible for basic 
research.'' He arrived at four conclusions for applying GPRA to 
the activities of the scientific community: (1) assessment of 
performance is an important function and responsibility of 
government and science cannot be immune from this measurement; 
(2) such assessments are feasible for fundamental science, but 
must rely on the judgments of those who understand the field, 
complemented, where appropriate by quantitative measures; (3) 
dominant reliance on quantitative measures will at best distort 
assessments and more likely prove destructive as research 
proposals and funding decisions are optimized for the measures 
rather than the best and most exciting science; and (4) 
performance measurements must consider the needs of multiple 
customers, especially in the field of fundamental science.
    Dr. McGroddy of IBM stated that no research program can be 
effectively assessed unless researchers and sponsoring 
organizations agree on a set of basic principles. He outlined 
four principles for understanding performance assessment: (1) a 
research organization's goal must be to maximize the value it 
creates and delivers to its sponsor; (2) it is essential to 
couple the research effort to its immediate beneficiaries; (3) 
it is not possible to have too much contact between people in 
laboratories and the marketplace; and (4) the assessment 
process must drive change at a pace consistent with what is 
required. He emphasized that a major test of an assessment and 
priority-setting process is its ability to stop ``good'' things 
to start better things.
    Dr. Moniz of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at 
the White House stated that accountability to the public is 
essential, and that since the central purpose for basic 
research support is new knowledge, flexibility must be built 
into GPRA by the Congress to develop a meaningful system. He 
noted further that a combination of quantitative and 
qualitative measures are needed and should be phased in for 
evolving the system to meet Administration and Congressional 
needs; that agencies will tailor their GPRA assessment approach 
to their programs using these measures.
    Dr. Anne Petersen of the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
said that NSF has a long-standing tradition of assessing 
quality using the competitive process of merit review to make 
wise investments and that GPRA is consistent with this 
tradition. She noted further that NSF has made significant 
headway in implementing GPRA principles and practices into the 
NSF budget process. She said NSF's greatest challenge is 
setting annual quantitative performance targets for some 
programs, due to the long-term nature of research outcomes and 
the danger of numeric targets perversely driving research. As a 
result, NSF is proposing use of an alternative format 
emphasizing descriptive goals.
    Mr. Mark Chupka of the Department of Energy (DOE) said that 
DOE has been living with the GPRA philosophy for the past three 
years, and that implementation of a strategic management system 
that incorporates strategic planning, budget formulation and 
execution and program evaluation have produced important 
benefits over this time. He noted that strategic planning 
efforts reshaped DOE's mission and vision and focused business 
priorities. He noted further that identification of goals, 
strategies and measures facilitated the budget formulation and 
decision-making processes.
    Dr. Robert Hebner of the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) stated that in running various programs 
within NIST, a management team has been developed that requires 
a strategic plan. He said that because they are technology 
intensive they assess the technological progress occurring in 
this country as well as the world and also must understand 
industry's plans and expectations. Within this framework, GPRA 
fits well and NIST is comfortable with it.
    Ms. Diana Josephson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) said that through participating as a GPRA 
pilot project, NOAA has gained experience in goal-setting 
measurement and reporting and in learning how to 
institutionalize the principles of GPRA. She said that goal-
based budgeting is practical and is an important mechanism for 
communicating with the Congress NOAA's GPRA efforts. She also 
noted that one way NOAA intends to proceed with the 
implementation of the GPRA is through the use of performance 
partnerships with other agencies or entities.
    Mr. Henry Longest II of the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) said that GPRA brings together strategic planning and 
management, and links performance and results, and that EPA has 
``embraced the concept.'' He said GPRA principles of improving 
public confidence, holding agencies accountable and improving 
government effectiveness are being ``incorporated into every 
facet of the way we do business'' at the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD). He concluded by saying that GPRA presents an 
opportunity to move beyond a planning cycle that is confined to 
a yearly budget cycle in order to better plan for the future.
    Mr. Gary Steinberg of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) said NASA believes the cornerstone of 
GPRA is the requirement that Departments and Agencies develop 
forward-looking strategic plans. He said that NASA's strategic 
plan improves with each update, the 1996 plan being the second 
update. The strategic plan, among other things, contains road 
maps which identify specific short-term and mid-term goals that 
must be accomplished to achieve long-term goals. He noted that 
NASA is still assessing the costs to implement GPRA, but that 
any costs incurred are necessary for the agency to continue to 
improve in strategic management.

4.1(i)--The Effects of a Six-Year Balanced Budget on Civilian Research 
                            and Development

                          July 23 and 24, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-74

Background
    On July 23 and 24, 1996, the Committee on Science held a 
two-part hearing titled, ``The Effects of a Six-Year Balanced 
Budget on Civilian Research and Development.'' The hearings 
examined the projected funding levels for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), and the Office of Energy Research 
within the Department of Energy (DOE) for the Fiscal Years (FY) 
1998 to 2002. The funding levels proposed by President Clinton 
in his FY 1997 Budget request, and Congress in its FY 1997 
Budget Resolution were evaluated to determine the effects on 
research and development (R&D) activities in the future. The 
hearing also offered the Members an opportunity to review 
President Clinton's initial rejection of a balanced budget, and 
to investigate the validity of outyear funding estimates for 
NASA, NSF, and DOE, in light of remarks made by Administration 
officials.
    When the 104th Congress began, President Clinton presented 
a budget that projected deficits of at least $200 billion for 
the foreseeable future. Congress, however, continued to 
vigorously pursue a balanced budget and developed a 
comprehensive seven-year balanced budget. The President then 
submitted his FY 1997 spending request.
    On March 19, 1996, he claimed that he had done what the 
Republican Congress had asked: developed a budget which 
achieves balance in 2002, as scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO). In April, however, CBO determined that the only 
way the President's plan will balance is by enactment of 
``contingent'' budget proposals. These contingencies include 
$67 billion in additional unspecified cuts ($22 billion in 2001 
and $46 billion in 2002). On April 17, 1996, in response to 
questions at a House Budget Committee hearing, CBO Director 
June O'Neill indicated that these supplementary reductions 
could potentially fall on science programs.
    When the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) testified before the House Budget Committee in March 
1996, she reiterated the President's vow to preserve vital 
investments in science and technology. But individual agencies 
under the Science Committee's jurisdiction have expressed a 
lack of confidence in the legitimacy of the President's outyear 
projections, and OMB has admitted that some outyear numbers 
will be ``refined further.'' For example, in a letter to 
Chairman Walker on May 29, 1996, NSF Director Neal Lane stated 
that, ``The Administration has acknowledged in other forums 
that it is not realistic to make program-by-program decisions 
now for the year 2000 and beyond.'' Similarly, Administrator 
Dan Goldin testified before Senator Christopher Bond's 
Appropriations Subcommittee that, ``The White House has 
instructed us to take no precipitous action on outyear budgets, 
and we are taking them at their word.'' And Dr. Krebs testified 
before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Science 
Committee that the President's proposed reductions in energy 
research programs ``were applied in a mechanical way and that 
they do not represent policy.'' Such inconsistency within the 
Administration resulted in confusion about the plan submitted 
to CBO, and led Chairman Walker to call these hearings to 
discuss the President's outyear estimates, to evaluate their 
validity, and to examine the potential effects on R&D programs, 
especially in 2001 and 2002.
Summary of Hearing
    On July 23, the first day of the two-part hearing, one 
panel appeared before the Committee. Mr. James L. Blum, Deputy 
Director of the CBO, summarized CBO's evaluation of the 
budgets, and Dr. Albert H. Teich testified on behalf of the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
    On the second day, July 24, Senator Christopher S. Bond was 
the sole witness on the first panel. The second panel, which 
represented the Administration, included: Dr. Neal Lane, 
Director of NSF; Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator of NASA; 
and Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the Office of Energy Research 
of DOE. Mr. Jack Lew, the Acting Director of OMB, informed the 
Committee that he would not attend and would not send a 
designee in his place.
July 23, 1996
    Mr. James Blum, Deputy Director of CBO, testified that CBO 
used ``more cautious economic assumptions'' in order to certify 
that the President's budget would reach balance by 2002. As Mr. 
Blum explained, the President's budget request, as presented by 
OMB, includes two options. Under one option, the budget would 
be balanced under OMB's technical and economic assumptions. But 
under the other option, the contingent policies, which consist 
of much lower levels of spending for discretionary programs 
than under OMB's economic assumptions, would have to be 
implemented. Mr. Blum also summarized CBO's evaluation of the 
FY 1997 Budget Resolution and mentioned that it also has 
declining nominal levels of discretionary spending in the 
outyears. He declined, however, to predict where such 
reductions would be made under either proposal.
    Dr. Albert Teich, AAAS Director of Science and Policy 
Programs, presented AAAS's outyear budget calculations for both 
the President's plan and the budget resolution approved by 
Congress. Under the AAAS estimates, projected federal spending 
on R&D for NASA, NSF, and DOE General Science would be higher 
under the Congressional Budget Resolution than under President 
Clinton's FY 1997 request. The AAAS analysis acknowledged the 
additional unspecified discretionary cuts that will be 
necessary in 2001 and 2002 to achieve a balanced budget. Also 
important in his testimony were Dr. Teich's recognition of the 
fact that outyear projections are more significant, and his 
personal plea for critically needed entitlement reform.
July 24, 1996: Panel 1
    In his statement, Senator Christopher Bond described what 
he calls the Administration's ``two sets of books.'' As 
Chairman of an Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond held 
hearings to ask Administration officials how they would handle 
the proposed outyear cuts in the President's budget. In his 
testimony, Senator Bond explains that Agency heads, including 
the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, Jesse Brown, and 
the Administrator of NASA, Dan Goldin, admitted that they had 
been assured that the President's numbers are not real. In 
fact, Administrator Goldin was instructed by the White House to 
take no action. The Senator explained that he fears the 
President has two sets of books: one that he touts when he is 
defending his commitment to a balanced budget, and another that 
he uses when he is assuring people that he is not causing any 
real pain in these programs. Senator Bond expressed his 
disappointment that then-Director of OMB, Alice Rivlin, did not 
answer his questions about the discrepancy between the budget 
presented by OMB and the statements of the Administration 
officials.
July 24, 1996: Panel 2
    Administrator Daniel Goldin assured the Committee that the 
President's budget numbers are real and that NASA is taking 
them very seriously. But he admitted he does not think it makes 
sense to cut programs back now ``based on anticipated 
problems'' and stated that the President will review spending 
priorities on a year-by-year basis. He noted, however, that the 
discretionary domestic spending cap would not change. He was 
unable to adequately explain how he can believe the President's 
numbers for NASA are real, and be so confident that they will 
increase after this year.
    Dr. Martha Krebs reiterated that the Administration is 
committed to achieving a balanced budget as outlined in the 
President's plan. Having said that, however, she went on to 
explain that the President must have the flexibility to shift 
priorities each year and that ``during each year's process, 
there will be opportunities to tie funding proposals to 
specific policies.''
    Dr. Neal Lane also repeated the Administration's mantra 
that future decisions must be made on a year-to-year basis, but 
insisted that NSF and the President have a long-range outlook 
for science. He also joined Administrator Goldin in arguing 
that all the agencies that support science be coordinated and 
interactive, and that the Administration and Congress must look 
at the entire R&D budget as a whole. Finally, Dr. Lane spoke 
about the need to maintain world leadership in science and 
engineering, and argued for a scale that would measure the 
ultimate outcomes of these programs, or how they benefit people 
and the economy.

      4.1(j)--Technological Solutions to Improve Aviation Security

                           September 19, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-78

Background
    On September 19, 1996, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technological Solutions to Improve Aviation 
Security.'' Earlier terrorist threats consisted mainly of 
hijackings and, as a result, walk-through metal detectors and 
conventional X-ray devices became the mainstay of the aviation 
community through the 1970's and 1980's. The escalation of 
terrorism in the 1990's, due in part to radical fundamentalist 
groups and the relative ease of access to lightweight and 
powerful explosive devices, has changed the face of terrorism 
and put airlines on U.S. soil at greater risk. The technology 
used by airports, however, has not changed since the 1970's. In 
1989, the FAA established regulations that would eventually 
require the use of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) to screen 
checked baggage at many U.S. airports. There are many technical 
issues that need to be resolved before a workable EDS system 
can be installed in the nation's airports. This hearing was 
held to address the current state, and the future direction of 
technology to lessen the risk of terrorist attacks on passenger 
planes; address the limitation of technological solutions; 
assess the costs of technological solutions; and discuss 
whether the Federal Government should be responsible for 
covering the cost of improved airline security.
    The hearing was structured in two panels. Witnesses on the 
first panel, which discussed Administration views, included: 
Mr. David Hinson, Administrator, FAA; Mr. Keith Fultz, 
Assistant Comptroller General, GAO; and, Mr. Brian Michael 
Jenkins, Deputy Chairman, President's Commission on Aviation 
Safety and Security.
    The second panel, which addressed industry concerns, 
consisted of: Dr. Lee Grodzins, Department of Physics, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Aaron Gellman, 
Director, Transportation Center, Northwestern University; Mr. 
James Chapek, Sandia National Laboratory; and Professor Jack 
Beauchamp, California Institute of Technology.
Summary of Hearing
Panel 1: Administration Views
    Mr. David Hinson commented that without the support of the 
Science Committee, FAA would not have been able to make the 
progress it has in research, engineering and development 
programs to develop the next generation of counterterrorism 
technology. He noted that terrorists are increasingly 
sophisticated which is constantly changing the threats we face, 
and security systems must be capable of meeting these new 
challenges. The President set up a commission to look at 
airline safety and security following the crash of TWA 800, and 
Mr. Hinson outlined steps the FAA is taking with respect to 
Commission recommendations. He said placing equipment in the 
field is important, but so is ensuring that personnel operating 
the equipment are properly trained and qualified.
    Mr. Keith Fultz stated that protection against terrorist 
attacks is an urgent national issue, and that most U.S. 
vulnerabilities are known by terrorists. He noted that since 
aviation is a target for terrorists we cannot afford to rely on 
small fixes and can no longer rely on the illusion that 
domestic aviation systems are being protected. He went on to 
outline inadequacies by FAA, other federal agencies, airlines, 
airports and freight forwarders. He stated that a mix of 
technology is needed to improve security. He stressed that for 
new technology to work, operators using them need to be capable 
and motivated. He noted that FAA has not conformed with a law 
passed in 1990 that required them to develop and deploy 
explosive detection systems by November, 1993. He said that 
only now since the most recent downing of TWA 800 has there 
been a flurry to fix security problems. GAO, he stated, has 
been calling on security improvements in reports dating back to 
1994. He said GAO believes recommendations of the President's 
commission are headed in the right direction, but injected GAO 
views on what could be added to strengthen the recommendations. 
He concluded by stating that our current security system has 
significant vulnerabilities.
    Mr. Brian Michael Jenkins noted that although hard to 
quantify, the terrorist threat to the United States is both 
real and high. He noted that Commissions under then-Vice 
President Bush following Pan Am 103 and now Vice President Gore 
following TWA 800 both concluded that airline security needs to 
be improved, and urged the development and deployment of 
effective explosive detection systems. He said that although 
there have been advances in explosives detection technology, we 
cannot afford to wait for further developments and the 
Commission recommends deployment of existing technology. The 
Commission also recommends doubling the number of dog sniffing 
teams the FAA currently has. He stated that technology is only 
part of the solution and the Commission recommends procedural 
and organizational changes as well. He said they further 
recommend the government fund initial measures. He noted that 
the commission also suggests that security improvements be 
achieved through an industry/government partnership.
Panel 2: Industry Concerns
    Dr. Lee Godzins stated that if we are to win the war 
against terrorism we must use the best available technology, 
constantly replacing technology when better systems become 
available. He outlined the role of technology in fighting 
terrorism, how to implement it and how to maintain security in 
the face of dedicated, patient terrorists. He stated that 
security systems in place today are the same as were in place 
before Pan Am flight 103 went down. Improved systems are 
available but have not been put in place, he said, because of a 
directive to wait for the perfect ``magic bullet.'' He said 
this ``magic bullet'' will never come and advanced systems 
should replace current systems as they become available. He 
noted that the Commission's suggested funding for deploying 
improved systems is a good beginning, and that passengers will 
willingly fund technology upgrades. He said the Commission's 
recommendation of $20 million a year for R&D is not enough and 
estimates that at least $50 million is needed. He also said the 
war against terrorists is the government's problem not simply 
the airline's.
    Mr. Aaron Gellman stated that aviation security needs cover 
a wide spectrum that include technologies as well as 
techniques. He said that what needs special attention is how to 
get relevant technology deployed. Desired results, he said, 
will most likely come through widespread publication of 
performance specification, rather than design specifications. 
He noted that a security program can only be maintained when 
the benefits equal or exceed the costs. He stated that the FAA 
is to be commended for not forcing impractical technology onto 
the market in crisis situations. He said that crisis and 
politically-driven investments and regulation need to be 
avoided. Mr. Gellman also stated that the greatest priority 
with respect to aviation security is explosives detection. He 
concluded by saying that we cannot wait for the best and must 
deploy what we have now.
    Mr. James Chapek explained a project he worked on at BWI 
International Airport with respect to aviation security and how 
it involved the airport security system as a whole; airport 
operations, security people, maintenance people, etc. He said 
the project showed the importance of understanding the threat 
in order to develop the appropriate systems, and he outlined 
lessons learned. He noted that his job was to apply technology 
developed for the nuclear industry to airport security. One of 
the concepts, he said, was equal protection throughout the 
airport. He stated that the goal of the BWI project was to 
detect the weakest link in the system.
    Professor Jack Beauchamp chairs the Committee on Commercial 
Aviation Security of the National Materials Advisory Board of 
the NRC under contract with the FAA to provide an assessment of 
their R&D programs in aviation security. He noted they are 
halfway through the study. He said the Committee has produced 
an interim report detailing the current state of technology 
with respect to research in advanced instrumentation for 
explosives detection. He stated that deployment of equipment 
has occurred mainly in Europe and hopes that the experience 
gained will lead to judgments about deployment in the United 
States. He said that although one would like to deploy only 
certified instruments for explosives detection, this is 
inappropriate and would inhibit the further development and 
improvement of advanced technology. He reviewed several types 
of explosives detection technologies. He stated that a 
combination of technologies and techniques would be most 
effective. He also stated that deterrence is probably one of 
the most effective tools to use in improving aviation security, 
as well as a flexible system that can change to reflect 
changing threats. Visible means of deterrence, like dogs, he 
said, are highly effective. He concluded by saying that 
airlines, airports and the FAA need to work together.

4.2(a)--The 1996 National Science Foundation Authorization, Parts I and 
                                   II

                     February 22 and March 2, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-6

Background
    On February 22, 1995, and March 2, 1995, the Subcommittee 
on Basic Research held hearings entitled, ``The 1996 National 
Science Foundation Authorization, Parts I and II'' to obtain an 
assessment of the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget 
request and to explore broader policy issues that may be 
addressed in the NSF authorization legislation.
    The NSF is an independent federal agency established in 
1950 to promote and advance scientific progress in the United 
States. NSF builds U.S. scientific strength by funding research 
and education activities in all fields of science and 
engineering. This is done at more than 2,000 colleges, 
universities and other research institutions throughout the 
United States. The NSF budget comprised only about 3% of the 
federal R&D budget of $73 billion in FY 1995. However, NSF 
provides about 25% of basic research funding at universities 
and over 50% of the federal funding for basic research in 
certain fields of science, including math and computer 
sciences, environmental sciences, and the social sciences. 
Moreover, NSF plays an important role in pre-college and 
undergraduate science and mathematics education through 
programs of model curriculum development, teacher preparation 
and enhancement, and informal science education. The five-year 
NSF authorization law (P.L. 100-570) expired at the end of FY 
1993.
Summary of hearings
February 22, 1995
    Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation, 
testified in support of the Administration's FY 1996 budget 
request of $3.36 billion (a three percent increase over 1995 
levels) for the Foundation and defended the NSF's mission. The 
Director stated that the NSF has played a ``critical'' role in 
establishing the Nation's scientific base and has a 
``responsibility'' to continue furthering U.S. scientific 
growth. He stated that NSF's budget request is guided by a 
strategic plan, entitled, ``NSF In a Changing World.'' The plan 
sets three long-range goals for the NSF: world leadership; 
knowledge and service to society; and excellence in education 
at all levels. Dr. Lane also described the diverse mechanisms 
through which NSF supports researchers and illuminated how 
distinctions between basic and applied research can overlap. He 
also discussed the NSF's two primary missions: to ensure the 
best research in science engineering; and to promote excellence 
in science, engineering, and math.
March 2, 1995
    Witnesses included: Dr. Julian Wolpert, Consortium of 
Social Science Association; Dr. Richard Herman, Chairman of the 
Joint Policy Board for Mathematics; Dr. Roland Schmitt, 
Chairman of the American Institute on Physics; Mr. James E. 
Sawyer, American Association of Engineering Societies; Dr. 
Cornelius J. Pings, President of the Association of American 
Universities; Dr. Rita Colwell, American Association for 
Advancement of Science; Dr. Pamela Ferguson, President of 
Grinnell College; and, Mr. Erich Bloch, former Director of NSF.
    Dr. Wolpert testified on the importance of funding for the 
social, behavioral, and economic sciences within the NSF. He 
stated that the role of the social sciences is vital to the 
seven strategic areas funded by the NSF, and the social 
sciences provided support for practical applications of 
projects developed by the NSF. Additionally, he stated that the 
NSF should continue encouraging minority and women involvement 
in the social sciences.
    Dr. Herman testified on the need for the NSF to continue 
its role in maintaining the leadership of the United States in 
science, mathematics, and engineering. Addressing the issue of 
balance in funding for discipline oriented research versus 
thematic programs, Dr. Herman stated that the NSF should 
concentrate and be evaluated on its aggregate effort in 
achieving its goals, rather than focus on a division of applied 
research and curiosity based research. Also, he suggested 
bolstering NSF involvement at the undergraduate level and for 
continued support of high performance computing, which has led 
to further research breakthroughs.
    Dr. Schmitt testified in support of the Administration's 
budget proposal. He urged the elimination of any distinction 
between ``applied research'' and ``curiosity-driven research'' 
in the funding process; stating that both areas are 
complimentary, he feels projects should be evaluated on a 
common basis of merit. He further stated his support for the 
pause in funding for education programs under NSF until some 
re-evaluation is done. Dr. Schmitt also called for increased 
money to go to research facilities.
    Mr. Sawyer stated that while recognizing the need to deal 
with the deficit, technology investment should not suffer in 
that process. Mr. Sawyer also noted concern for the lack of 
technology literacy among educators in grades K-12. He further 
elaborated on the amount of overlap between curiosity driven 
research and strategic research in applying technology.
    Dr. Pings testified that NSF funding for basic research is 
important, especially in support of other agencies which 
concentrate on applied areas of technology. Dr. Pings stressed 
a need for the NSF to play a larger role in undergraduate 
education and supports an increase in funds to upgrade and 
build new facilities at universities.
    Dr. Colwell noted that although she supports the 
Administration's FY 1996 budget proposal for the NSF, she is 
concerned about funding for R&D given the current fiscal 
climate. Dr. Colwell stated the importance of basic research in 
producing results which benefit the nation. Additionally, she 
advocated funding for academic facilities as part of the NSF's 
budget.
    Dr. Ferguson testified on the importance of the 
undergraduate community in supporting national interests by 
providing a competent and skilled workforce. She expressed the 
need for the NSF to be active in the area of education. Dr. 
Ferguson also recommended the Subcommittee take action to 
ensure the NSF's ability to sustain U.S. leadership in science 
and engineering.
    Mr. Bloch testified on the changing mission of the NSF over 
time and the danger of defining its objectives too narrowly. 
Mr. Bloch suggested that the NSF could better allocate its 
resources if certain outdated rules and regulations which 
affect the agency were reviewed for possible elimination. He 
also emphasized his desire to see more funding for education 
and human resources within the NSF.

   4.2(b)--Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National 
 Laboratories: ``The Galvin Report'' and ``National Laboratories Need 
 Clearer Missions and Better Management, a GAO Report to the Secretary 
                              of Energy.''

                             March 9, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-11

Background
    On March 9, 1995, the Subcommittees on Basic Research and 
Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National 
Laboratories: ``The Galvin Report'' and ``National Laboratories 
Need Clearer Missions and Better Management, a GAO Report to 
the Secretary of Energy.'' (See also page 131.)
    This hearing focused on alternative futures and clearer 
missions/management of the Department of Energy's National 
Laboratories, based on the recommendations of the Galvin Task 
Force and the GAO. When the Department of Energy was created in 
1977, it inherited the National Laboratories with a management 
structure that had evolved from the World War II ``Manhattan 
Project,'' whose mission was to design and build the world's 
first atomic bombs. From this national security mission, the 
laboratories generated expertise that initially developed 
nuclear power as an energy source. The laboratories' missions 
broadened in 1967, when the Congress recognized their role in 
conducting environmental as well as nuclear energy, public 
health and safety-related research and development. In 1971, 
the Congress again expanded the laboratories' role, permitting 
them to conduct non-nuclear energy research and development. 
During the 1980's, the Congress enacted laws to stimulate the 
transfer of technology from the laboratories to U.S. industry. 
The Department of Energy estimates that over the past 20 years, 
the Nation has invested more than $100 billion in the 
laboratories.
    The 1990's have accelerated the laboratories' 
diversification from defense and nuclear research to 
environmental issues and the development of commercial 
technologies.
    The purpose of this hearing was to identify and examine the 
principal issues affecting the laboratories' missions and the 
Department of Energy's approach to laboratory management. 
Witnesses were presented in three panels.
    Panel one consisted of: Mr. Robert Galvin, Chairman of the 
Task Force on Alternative Futures for the DOE National 
Laboratories (and Chairman of the Executive Committee of 
Motorola Inc.), and the Honorable Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of 
the U.S. Department of Energy.
    The second panel included: Dr. Siegfried Hecker, Director 
of Los Alamos National Laboratory; Dr. Bruce Tarter, Director 
of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and Dr. Albert 
Narath, President of Sandia National Laboratories.
    Panel three included: Dr. John Denson, Director of Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Charles Gay, Director of 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Dr. Nicholas Samios, 
Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory; Dr. Alan 
Schriesheim, Director of Argonne National Laboratory; Dr. 
William Madia, Director of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory; 
Dr. Charles Shank, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; 
and Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Galvin testified that a bold plan of action was needed 
to salvage and restructure DOE. He emphasized five primary 
missions of the National Laboratories: national security; 
energy; environmental cleanup; economic development with 
appropriate industry; and science and engineering. He also 
encouraged the labs to function as a single entity with a focus 
on core missions; DOE to streamline radically; and Congress to 
bear the brunt of the responsibility for a new system of 
governance for the labs. He recommended that the laboratories 
be corporatized, a major energy agenda be embraced, and 
Congress recommit support for national defense for a minimum of 
forty years.
    Secretary O'Leary discussed the Galvin report stating that 
she agreed with many of the recommendations but disagreed with 
the recommendation to corporatize the National Laboratories. 
She supported the concept of managing the laboratories like a 
corporate entity. Secretary O'Leary noted the realities DOE 
must face as the national security focus changes to accommodate 
dismantling weapons, non-proliferation, and maintaining a safe 
and reliable stockpile. She also presented the improved cleanup 
record of DOE and the role she envisions for DOE's 
environmental management team.
Panel 2
    Dr. Hecker stressed returning to GOCO management, rather 
than corporatizating, allowing for flexibility and independence 
within the labs. He emphasized that the labs must work with 
industry to maintain the high level of technology and to 
provide leverage to garner federal research investment, 
cautioning Congress to carefully consider any cutbacks in this 
area. According to Dr. Hecker, Congress must allow DOE to 
redefine its own missions, as well as those of the labs--then, 
make it a goal to downsize the labs in the right manner, for 
the best productivity and service to the nation.
    Dr. Narath urged Congress to proceed cautiously when 
considering DOE mission differentiation, so that multipurpose 
labs do not become single-purpose labs. He advises DOE to take 
advantage of the diversity, to create a ``system of 
laboratories,'' seeking more inter-lab cooperation. He also 
stressed the importance of the university and industry 
partnerships with the labs, which will be critical to DOE's 
success as it moves from a nuclear weapons mission to pursuing 
missions relating to energy, environment, and basic science.
    Dr. Tarter testified that strong leadership from DOE and 
reduced government management will make the labs both more 
efficient and cost-effective. He expressed concern about 
downsizing the labs and believes that as the missions and the 
leadership of DOE are improved and defined, the question of 
size will take care of itself. Dr. Tarter stated that adhering 
as closely as possible to the original GOCO format would 
maintain the strength of excellence and the missions of the 
labs.
Panel 3
    Dr. Denson endorsed a ``system of laboratories,'' where the 
National Laboratories act as one entity. He noted that the 
primary missions of DOE will be strengthened by a well directed 
technology transfer program.
    Dr. Gay discussed a performance-based award fee ``report 
card'' from DOE and ``sunset clauses'' which provide criteria 
for technology development projects. He spoke against 
corporatizing the labs but recommended the ``privatization of 
technologies'' for spin-off technology. He also approved of 
DOE's strategic realignment.
    Dr. Samios testified that the problems of the labs have 
ensued because of short-term goals and the governance imposed 
by Congress and the Administration (i.e., too much regulation 
and red-tape). He stated that a long-term plan is definitely 
needed to address these issues. He spoke in support of 
government investment in large-scale scientific user facilities 
to ``push the frontier of science'' and to close older 
facilities which are no longer cutting edge, while creating 
state of the art facilities to comply with DOE/laboratory 
missions.
    Dr. Schriesheim stressed the importance of the ties between 
energy and environmental technologies and the global impact of 
how to achieve effective environmental growth and balance. He 
backed DOE's Scientific Facilities Initiative, which increased 
the availability of facilities for industry and university 
users. Dr. Schriesheim endorsed external regulation by EPA, 
OSHA, and NRC, rather than DOE regulation, to improve the GOCO 
system.
    Dr. Madia testified that when encouraging a stronger 
missions focus a model must address ``cross-fertilization'' of 
technologies and application of the unique laboratory system. 
He stated that forces of supply and demand will naturally 
determine laboratory capacity and a business approach is 
necessary in assignment and flexibility of R&D. He also stated 
that environmental technology and energy research are the best 
solution to pursue in order to ensure economic energy and 
environmental security.
    Dr. Shank affirmed that national security depends on a 
scientific foundation enhancing and paralleling national 
interests. The National Laboratories are a cornerstone of 
enduring U.S. leadership. He cited that the ``most exciting 
scientific advances are occurring at the boundaries between the 
fields.'' Each area plays off the other in terms of technology, 
innovation, and application of disciplines.
    Dr. Trivelpiece underscored that the GOCO concept of 
governance has been severely neglected and that it must be 
given a chance to improve and revitalize itself before it is 
abandoned altogether.

        4.2(c)--U.S. Fire Administration FY 1996 Budget Request

                             March 16, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-7

Background
    On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Fire Administration FY 1996 Budget 
Request,'' to assess the USFA's budget request and to examine 
long range budget and policy issues that may be addressed in 
authorization legislation to be developed by the Subcommittee. 
The USFA coordinates the nation's fire safety and emergency 
medical service activities. The USFA's budget request for 1996 
is $28.9 million, a decrease of over $5 million from FY 95's 
current estimate. The 1995 estimates reflect a net increase of 
$3.2 million appropriated to the USFA for the Arson Control 
Program, testing fire suppression agents, and the Vermont Fire 
Service Training Center.
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Steny Hoyer (MD-5); the 
Honorable Carrye Brown, Administrator of the United States Fire 
Administration (USFA); Mr. Gary Tokle, representing the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); Mr. Francis 
McGarry, President of the National Association of State Fire 
Marshals; Bill Jenaway, Congressional Fire Services Institute's 
Executive Board; and Mr. Dan Shaw, New Mexico Fire Department.
Summary of hearing
    Congressman Hoyer testified on the importance of the USFA 
in training career and volunteer firefighters and its role in 
helping to reduce fire related casualty and injury rates in the 
United States. Mr. Hoyer raised the issue that agencies should 
have incentives to save money and not feel the need to spend 
surpluses to avoid cuts in the next fiscal year. Also, he 
cautioned that Congress should carefully consider any cuts in 
the USFA's authorization request.
    Administrator Brown emphasized four areas which the USFA 
considers priorities and is concentrating its efforts: (1) 
public education; (2) fire data collection and analysis; (3) 
fire services training; and (4) fire technology and research. 
She stated that she is reviewing agency programs to eliminate 
duplication and find areas for privatization. In addition, Mrs. 
Brown reaffirmed the commitment of the FEMA and the USFA to 
public safety.
    Mr. Tokle emphasized USFA and NFPA support of state 
governments, localities, and the private sector in their 
efforts with regards to the four areas previously mentioned by 
Admin. Brown. Mr. Tokle feels there should be a federal role in 
fire safety, but that role should not duplicate or conflict 
with private sector initiatives. As an example of public 
private cooperation he pointed out the National Fire Incident 
Reporting System which has contributed to the reduction of fire 
fatalities and injuries.
    Mr. McGarry urged the Subcommittee to carefully consider 
all cuts to USFA funding and apply a standard of fairness in 
that process. He stated support for the USFA's current mission 
in assisting firefighters and feels it is appropriate federal 
involvement. Citing a recent survey of State Fire Marshals, Mr. 
McGarry stated that the two most important USFA programs were 
the National Fire Academy and the National Fire Incident 
Reporting Service.
    Mr. Jenaway testified that CFSI supports funding for the 
USFA and discourages any cuts in its budget. Mr. Jenaway 
reiterated a point made previously that the United States is 
behind other industrialized nations in terms of fire safety. 
Also, he stated that the CFSI advocates a federal role in 
guiding States and localities efforts at fire protection and 
feels more opportunities and training should exist at the local 
level.
    Mr. Shaw testified on the cost effective role of the 
Federal Government in providing essential services to local 
fire departments. He told the Subcommittee about the benefits 
his department and community, with their limited resources, 
have received from the USFA programs. He suggested the use of 
on-line technology to bring information and resources to local 
fire departments more efficiently and cost effective.

   4.2(d)--Science, Environment, and Technology Summit: A Long-Term 
                       National Science Strategy

                              June 1, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-17

Background
    On June 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held a 
hearing entitled, ``Science, Environment, and Technology 
Summit: A Long-Term National Science Strategy,'' in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee (as part of the Oak Ridge Summit on Science, 
Environment, and Technology) to hear testimony on the roles of 
public and private interests in a long-term science strategy 
for the United States. The discussion focused on the future of 
university-government-industry research and development (R&D) 
relationships and the reorganization of the federal research 
infrastructure.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National 
Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. Martha Krebs, Director, Office of 
Energy Research, Department of Energy (DOE); Dr. John McTague, 
VP of Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company; Dr. Alvin 
Trivelpiece, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Dr. 
Joseph H. Hamilton, Chairman, Department of Physics and 
Astronomy, Vanderbilt University.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Lane highlighted NSF's contribution to maintaining a 
strong national science establishment. He explained NSF's 
responsibility to safeguard and enhance the nation's scientific 
future by supporting excellent research in every area of 
science and engineering. Dr. Lane emphasized that natural 
connections exist between fields of science and the most 
exciting breakthroughs come at points where disciplines 
overlap. According to Dr. Lane, benefits from the discovery of 
new knowledge require a healthy science enterprise resulting 
from partnerships between research universities, the national 
laboratories, the technology centers, and various industry 
consortia. He indicated that through these partnerships, new 
knowledge can reach those who seek to use and apply it. In 
addition, Dr. Lane highlighted the practice of research and 
teaching together in U.S. institutions of higher education 
which capitalizes on the natural and complementary connections 
between the process of education and that of discovery. He 
emphasized NSF's commitment to helping universities foster 
those natural connections through a number of innovative 
programs designed to increase the participation of 
undergraduates in research.
    Dr. Krebs addressed the DOE's role in the nation's long-
term science strategy as well as the science and technology 
assets of the DOE's national laboratories. She pointed out the 
high return on public and private science and technology 
investments during the last half century and noted the decline 
in corporate research since the end of the Cold War. Dr. Krebs 
emphasized that the DOE's energy mission requires marshaling of 
the science and technology that underlies future energy 
technologies while also achieving the appropriate balance and 
coordination of federal and private investment. In order to 
fulfill the DOE's missions and solve national problems, she 
highlighted the importance of the Department's collaborations 
with universities, industry, and other federal agencies. 
According to Dr. Krebs, the DOE national laboratories are a 
unique aspect of the Department's investment in fundamental 
science and a critical element of the Nation's science 
infrastructure which keeps the United States at the forefront 
of international science. She indicated that these facilities 
support more than 15,000 users and are the result of $100 
billion of federal investment during the past 50 years.
    Dr. McTague explained that in the spirit of eliminating the 
federal deficit, the United States must devise a set of 
principles and actions to maximize the leverage of science and 
technology for national goals. In order to establish a long-
term strategy, according to Mr. McTague, we must decide what 
the Federal Government should be doing; where our comparative 
advantages lay; what areas should be strengthened and how; what 
should be eliminated; and where the government should lead, 
where it should be a partner and where it should stay out of 
the way. Mr. McTague pointed to parallels between President 
Reagan's successful science and technology policy in the 1980's 
and the present emphasis on federal investment in basic 
research, avoidance of short-term commercial development and 
cooperation in technology development. He indicated that the 
Federal Government, just as the private sector, has realized 
that two-way, hands-on cooperation is by far the best way to 
transfer technology. Mr. McTague explained that as cooperative 
R&D interactions have evolved and matured, they have resulted 
in more effective commercial implementation and have also 
strengthened the capability of the federal laboratories to 
perform their traditional core missions.
    Dr. Trivelpiece addressed the role of the DOE national 
laboratories in U.S. research and development enterprise. 
According to Dr. Trivelpiece, new R&D management approaches are 
needed to sustain the technical integrity and excellence of the 
scientific programs at the national labs and to prepare the 
labs to respond to the challenges of the future. He explained 
that the national laboratories' ability to conduct large-scale, 
long-term, integrated research projects has produced a 
remarkable set of contributions in the past, ranging from 
fundamental scientific discoveries to commercial products which 
have improved national security, economic productivity, human 
health, and environmental conditions. Dr. Trivelpiece stated 
that the labs' success in applying science and technology to 
national challenges derives in part from a special 
organizational structure that supports long-term, high-risk, 
problem-focused R&D. In order for the labs to continue in the 
tradition of providing valuable science, Dr. Trivelpiece 
encouraged a balanced investment in the nation's science 
infrastructure that will contribute to the goal of sensible 
federal spending.
    Dr. Hamilton emphasized the critical role of university-
laboratory partnerships in ensuring the health and strength of 
basic research performed in the United States as well as the 
training of future scientists. According to Dr. Hamilton, 
expanding these partnerships encourages effective use of 
limited financial resources, sharing of scientific talent and 
ingenuity, and maximization of the strengths of both 
institutions. He particularly encouraged the development of 
partnerships between state governments and their universities 
to generate cooperative project investments which produce 
world-class scientific facilities.

     4.2(e)--Federal Technology Transfer Policies and Our Federal 
Laboratories: Methods For Improving Incentives For Technology Transfer 
                        at Federal Laboratories

                             June 27, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-13

Background
    On June 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology and the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Federal Technology Transfer Policies and Our Federal 
Laboratories: Methods For Improving Incentives For Technology 
Transfer at Federal Laboratories,'' to receive testimony 
regarding the transfer of technology from federal laboratories. 
(See also page 218.)
    The hearing explored the effectiveness of our federal 
technology transfer laws and methods in which they may be 
improved. Witnesses also provided comments on the circulated 
draft text of H.R. 2196, the ``The Technology Transfer 
Improvement Act of 1995,'' proposed by Mrs. Morella.
    The hearing was structured in three panels. Witnesses on 
the first panel, which gave a historical overview of federal 
technology transfer policies and discussed the methods of 
technology transfer, included: Mr. Joe Allen, Director of 
Training, Marketing and Economic Development at the National 
Technology Transfer Center; Dr. Robert Templin, President of 
Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology; Ms. Tina McKinley, 
Chair of the Federal Laboratory Consortium at Oak Ridge 
Institute for Science and Education; and Mr. John Preston, 
Director of the Technology Development of MIT, representing the 
Association of University Technology Managers.
    Panel two, which featured representatives of the Department 
of Energy laboratories which have engaged in technology 
transfer activities, included: Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, 
Vice President, Laboratory Development, Sandia National 
Laboratory; Dr. Ronald W. Cochran, Laboratory Executive 
Officer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Mr. Richard 
Marczewski, Manager, Technology Transfer Office, National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory; Dr. Peter Lyons, Director, 
Industrial Partnership Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory; 
and Mr. William Martin, Vice President, Office of Technology 
Transfer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    Panel three, which included representatives of companies 
which have developed new products and applications with federal 
laboratories, consisted of: Mr. Michael Ury, Vice-President of 
Fusion Lighting; Mr. Tom Fortin, Vice-President and CFO of Rio 
Grande Medical Technologies, Inc.; and Mr. William Elkins, 
Chairman of Life Enhancement Technologies.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Allen commended Mrs. Morella on her legislation. He 
identified three key components of the legislation: (1) it is 
market-driven; (2) there are incentives for laboratories and 
scientists; and (3) intellectual property is given to companies 
who commercialize the technology. He stated our ultimate goal 
should be linking federal laboratories, universities, and state 
and local business assistance programs strategically with U.S. 
industry in locally led initiatives.
    Dr. Templin stated that assessing the return on investment 
from technology transfer is difficult, but crucial. He said we 
must look at jobs, companies, and competitiveness to determine 
its value. Dr. Templin also commented on the need to get 
authority to the local laboratories so the labs can enter into 
agreements, allowing them to be more responsive to market-
driven needs.
    Ms. McKinley testified to her support for the legislation, 
and indicated it will contribute to the speed and effectiveness 
of federal technology transfer. She explained that all 
technology is different and volatile. She said flexibility is 
necessary, laboratories have to be able to select from a range 
of mechanisms depending on the situation. She added, ``The fact 
is, technology transfer, like politics, is local.''
    Mr. Preston stated that we must use technology transfer to 
remain competitive internationally. The net effect of our 
sluggishness to commercialize technology, he added, is American 
ideas and inventions are adopted by foreign competitors rather 
than U.S. companies. He said we should, ``level the playing 
field by creating industrial research competitiveness that 
rivals what our foreign competitors are doing.'' He stated that 
there is a critical need for new approaches to technology 
commercialization, and that we need to have the courage to 
lower the bureaucracy that stifles entrepreneurship.
Panel 2
    Ambassador Robinson testified on the uniqueness of the 
nation's DOE laboratories as ``multi-problem solvers'' for U.S. 
industry, which is what industry seeks and what the labs can 
best deliver. Ambassador Robinson feels the process by which 
technology partnerships are developed should be streamlined to 
improve efficiency. In response to criticism that technology 
partnerships were giveaways to individual companies, he stated 
that SNL is increasingly working with a consortia of U.S. 
companies. Also, SNL is now involved with medium and small size 
firms, an area Ambassador Robinson would like to see expanded. 
He stated that the national labs benefit by seeking ways their 
long-term goals can be leveraged by industry's aims.
    Dr. Cochran testified that industrial partnering is vital 
to the future success of LLNL's programs. He stressed that 
continued Congressional leadership is essential to further 
refine the technology transfer system and keep it viable. Dr. 
Cochran also expressed support for Rep. Morella's bill as a way 
to build on past experience with industrial partnering. He also 
stated the labs must have many options available when seeking 
out technology partnerships and to listen to industry as the 
best way to gauge the effectiveness of partnerships.
    Mr. Marczewski testified that CRADAs are only one mechanism 
used by NREL to transfer technology and that the labs should 
have a variety of mechanisms at their disposal to bring 
technology to the market. He further stated that NREL plans to 
increase their use of licensing in the future and will actively 
seek access to foreign markets by acquiring foreign patents. 
Although Mr. Marczewski feels NREL should aggressively pursue 
partnering opportunities, he feels the labs core competencies 
should not be compromised in the process.
    Dr. Lyons testified that reducing the global nuclear danger 
is LANL's central mission and LANL must utilize the best 
sources of domestic science and technology to meet such a 
multi-faceted goal. Therefore, Dr. Lyons feels alliances with 
industry are very important to sustain and to expand that base 
of domestic science and technology. He feels partnerships with 
industry help LANL's core competencies and agrees with the need 
for flexibility in finding ways to work with industry. He 
voiced support for provisions within Rep. Morella's bill which 
strengthen the CRADA mechanism. Dr. Lyons also urged for the 
continued funding of the Technology Transfer Initiative as, he 
feels, it is vital for future partnerships LANL enters.
    Mr. Martin testified that Rep. Morella's bill is a ``win-
win'' situation for government and the private sector. Mr. 
Martin stated that federal agencies must fulfill their missions 
as assigned by Congress and what should be addressed at this 
time is how to improve the process of technology transfer. One 
improvement which should be made, according to Mr. Martin, is 
to make industry better aware of the applicability of 
government developed technology. Further, he expressed a need 
to get industry involved earlier in the R&D process and reduce 
bureaucratic barriers to technology transfer.
Panel 3
    Mr. Ury asserted that without the help from the DOE and 
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, successful of development of 
sulfur lights would be too risky to embark on and not as 
timely. He said the government should have a role in developing 
high energy lighting. Currently, he stated, only one major lamp 
company is U.S.-owned. He said one of the benefits from DOE's 
involvement in lighting has been to stimulate a higher level of 
investment by the lighting companies in new technology.
    Mr. Fortin testified that without the technology transfer 
link to Sandia National Laboratory his company would not have 
had the opportunity to produce the noninvasive glucose monitor 
for diabetics. He stated that this small collaboration has 
shown that technology transfer from federal laboratories can 
make contributions toward solving real world problems.
    Mr. Elkins stated that government labs need to have 
incentives to get the job done. Labs need to recognize who they 
serve, he argued, and increasing incentives for labs is 
essential.

        4.2(f)--Graduate Level Science and Engineering Education

                             July 13, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-19

Background
    On July 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held a 
hearing entitled, ``Graduate Level Science and Engineering 
Education,'' to discuss the graduate education of America's 
scientists and engineers and how best to prepare them for 
future success. The Ph.D. educated scientist and engineer play 
a central role in the prosperity, security, and competitiveness 
of our nation. According to the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) 
report, modifications must be made to America's system of 
graduate education in order to ensure the success of our next 
generation of scientists.
    The COSEPUP report examines graduate education in the 
context of the end of the Cold War era, as the traditional 
places of employment for Ph.D. scientists and engineers are 
experiencing pressure to downsize in response to a reduction in 
defense spending and other federal and corporate downsizing. 
The report predicts continued decline in traditional employment 
opportunities in academia and makes several recommendations for 
helping students meet this reality.
    Among the Committee's recommendations is that U.S. 
universities do a better job in preparing students for 
alternative careers by increasing flexibility and versatility 
in the degree program and by providing more relevant career 
counseling. The report recommends limiting the time it takes to 
receive a degree and changing the amount of assistantships 
versus fellowships.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Phillip Griffiths, the Committee on 
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Dr. Neal Lane, 
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. Harold 
Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); 
Dr. Kevin Aylesworth, founder of the Young Scientists Network; 
Dr. Mark Wrighton, Chancellor of Washington University; Dr. 
George Walker, Chair of the Council of Graduate Schools and 
Vice President for Research and Dean of Graduate School at 
Indiana University; Dr. Ned Heindel, Department of Chemistry at 
Lehigh University; and Dr. Joseph Miller, Senior Vice President 
of Central Research and Development, DuPont Corporation.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Griffiths discussed the myths and realities related to 
the education of the nation's graduate students. Dr. Griffiths 
dispelled the following myths: that most Ph.D.s pursue careers 
in academia; and that there is a high rate of unemployment 
among Ph.D.s. He also noted that the number of Ph.D.s employed 
in business and industry is increasing; the time required to 
secure employment and complete Ph.D. study has also increased; 
and more Ph.D.s are working in temporary positions in order to 
put themselves in line for tenure track jobs. Dr. Griffiths 
stated that increased versatility on the part of students and 
universities are important steps for the future. Dr. Griffiths 
also suggested that students need better career information and 
guidance, that time to degree be restricted, and that the grant 
structure be modified.
    Dr. Lane noted that the NSF has several programs in place 
which are helping to improve the overall prospects for the 
future scientists in this nation. He also added that the NSF 
recognized the need to work with universities before enacting 
any change in policy. Dr. Lane endorsed much of the COSEPUP 
report's analysis of the current state of graduate education as 
well as its recommendations for improvement.
    Dr. Varmus testified that the field of biomedical research 
is in transition, and while the transition has increased 
anxiety among graduate students, there is growth in non-
traditional occupations. He further stated that the NIH is 
currently in the process of expanding its training program to 
the areas put forth in the COSEPUP report.
    Dr. Aylesworth discussed the shift following World War II 
in which foreign graduate students moved into positions vacated 
by American graduate students. He also pointed out that 
graduate students are often seen as little more than a source 
of cheap labor in pursuit of research goals. Dr. Aylesworth 
concluded that the education system should be more open to 
diversification and the United States should do more to limit 
the influx of foreign graduate students.
    Dr. Wrighton testified that the real challenge to Ph.D. 
employment lies in creating a partnership between business and 
industry. He also emphasized the need to broaden the graduate 
experience. Dr. Wrighton stated that university faculties need 
to play a more active and supportive role in the graduate 
experience.
    Dr. Walker reaffirmed the findings of the COSEPUP report. 
He agreed with Dr. Wrighton that the graduate experience needs 
to be broadened.
    Dr. Heindel testified to his support for programs that 
would increase the breadth of graduate education to keep pace 
with the increasingly competitive workplace. Dr. Heindel also 
stated that the time needed to complete a graduate education 
had become unnecessarily long.
    Dr. Miller discussed industry's need for graduates with a 
broad educational background. He agreed with the COSEPUP report 
and recognized the need for increased participation by women 
and minorities at the Ph.D. level.

4.2(g)--Cyberporn: Protecting Our Children from the Back Alleys of the 
                                Internet

                             July 26, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-16

Background
    On July 26, 1995, the Subcommittees on Basic Research and 
Technology met jointly to explore the ramifications of 
cyberporn in our society. This hearing, entitled, ``Cyberporn: 
Protecting Our Children from the Back Alleys of the Internet,'' 
began as the first in a series of hearings focusing on the 
Internet and issues affecting high performance computing and 
communications, and the information highway. (See also page 
223.)
    The Internet has become the gateway for information, 
education, and entertainment. As more and more users 
participate on the Internet, it is also becoming a forum where 
children have been exposed to obscene and pornographic 
material. This access to pornography has greatly disturbed 
parents, Congress, and the American public. This proliferation 
of pornographic and obscene materials available on the Internet 
is one of most difficult issues confronting Internet use. 
Before identifying a new role for government, the hearing 
provided for a discussion of methods already available in the 
private-sector marketplace to allow users and on-line service 
providers to control the types of materials coming into homes, 
schools, and businesses. The hearing also provided Members with 
a full understanding of solutions already available before 
upcoming Congressional consideration of new government 
regulation or new criminal laws regarding pornography and the 
Internet.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Tony Rutkowski, Executive Director, 
Internet Society; Ms. Ann Duvall, President, SurfWatch 
Software, Inc., Mr. Steven Heaton, General Counsel and 
Secretary, CompuServe; Mr. Kevin Manson, Legal Division of the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); Mr. Mike 
Geraghty, Trooper, New Jersey State Police; and, Mr. Lee 
Hollander, Assistant States Attorney, Naples, FL.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Rutkowski testified that the Internet has grown from an 
enormous, creative grassroots environment. Legislation already 
in place is sufficient, according to Mr. Rutkowski, because 
only a small percentage of the overall traffic flow on the 
Internet is of an objectionable nature. Because of its very 
size and scope, he stated that the Internet would be almost 
impossible to police--that such traditional regulation would 
invariably create more damage, especially in terms of 
international involvement and the complexities of multiple 
jurisdictions at that level. He emphasized an important fact 
which cannot be ignored--the Internet is ``poised to emerge as 
a major backbone of the global economy.''
    Ms. Duvall describes the Internet as a ``pioneering 
community'' which serves as a social tool, as well as a 
technological tool and it was in this interest that SurfWatch 
was born. Though she feels that it is unusual for a 
technological product company to be involved as a solution to 
the societal hazards presented by the Internet, she recognizes 
that private industry will have a large role to play in the 
spectrum of troubleshooting techniques for the Internet, 
responding to the evolution generated by Internet's rapid 
development. She acknowledges the importance of parental 
control in choosing the information they deem appropriate for 
their children to view. Thus, the SurfWatch Manager database is 
ideal for unsophisticated users because of the frequent updates 
to the database and the simple design of the system. She 
reiterated Mr. Rutkowski's stance that government regulation 
might destroy the global opportunities afforded by the 
Internet, especially in light of the fact that 30% of the sites 
blocked by SurfWatch originated outside United States 
jurisdiction. She emphasized that parental guidance and 
education are the best tools with which to monitor the Internet 
and safeguard our children.
    Mr. Heaton stressed that the key to securing the Internet 
lies in customizing personal computers, because that is the 
primary point of convergence of all on-line activities. 
Compuserve is evaluating the use of several software 
technologies as solutions to be applied for this purpose, 
including SurfWatch, NetNanny, Cybersitter, and Internet-In-A-
Box. This allows freedom of choice for parents, educators, 
etc., to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable information 
to access. He states that Compuserve's goal is to empower 
users, specifically parents, through education and technology. 
He observed that existing obscenity laws are more than 
satisfactory in dealing with the criminal element whose 
specialty is concentrated in ``computer media'' and that the 
role of government should be in educating users to the risks 
and benefits of the online environment, to legislate the policy 
of individual responsibility in this arena, and to encourage 
development of new technologies in cyberspace.
    Mr. Manson testified regarding his operation of CYBERCOP, a 
non-governmental, not-for-profit Bulletin Board System, whose 
mission is ``networking and education on the electronic 
frontier.'' He stated that law enforcement is rapidly finding 
itself overtaken by technology of the future. He said the 
solution to problems associated with computer-porn will be 
found in new partnerships between business and law enforcement.
    Mr. Geraghty stated pedophiles are using the Internet as a 
new means to distribute information. He said the laws are 
already in place to assist in catching computer criminals, it 
is the training of law enforcement personnel that needs to be 
addressed. He explained that it is crucial for law enforcement 
to keep up with the technology.
    Mr. Hollander testified that the law is developing in this 
area. A lot of issues must be considered, he added, including 
the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, obscenity laws, and 
jurisdictional issues.

  4.2(h)--Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: Future 
  Missions and Governance for The Department of Energy (DOE) National 
 Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title II), and H.R. 2142

                           September 7, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-30

Background
    On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittees on Basic Research 
and Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: Future 
Missions and Governance for The Department of Energy (DOE) 
National Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title 
II), and H.R. 2142,'' on the restructuring of the DOE National 
Laboratories. (See also page 134.)
    During the 104th Congress, several legislative proposals 
have been introduced which would significantly restructure the 
DOE National Laboratories. Pending legislation includes 
proposals to: restructure and terminate some or all the labs; 
effect major reductions in personnel at the non-defense program 
labs; and review and assign narrower missions for the labs in 
conjunction with possible streamlining. Another issue addressed 
in some of the legislative proposals is governance of the labs, 
whether by DOE through a more traditional Government-owned, 
contractor-operated (GOCO) role, with or without DOE internal 
regulation, or through corporatization/privatization of the 
labs.
    This is the second in a series of hearings in which the 
Committee on Science is examining options for restructuring the 
federal scientific establishment. The goals of this legislative 
hearing will be to examine the role of the DOE laboratories 
within that broader context, and specifically, to receive 
testimony on four pieces of legislation pending before the two 
Subcommittees: H.R. 2142, the ``Department of Energy Laboratory 
Missions Act'' (Mr. Schiff); H.R. 87, the ``Department of 
Energy Laboratory Facilities Act of 1995'' (Mr. Bartlett); 
Title II of H.R. 1993, the ``Department of Energy Abolishment 
Act'' (Mr. Tiahart); and H.R. 1510, the ``Department of Energy 
Laboratories Efficiency Improvement Act'' (Mr. Roemer).
    Witnesses were presented in three panels following the 
testimony of the Honorable Charles B. Curtis, Acting Deputy 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.
    Panel one included: Mr. Robert W. Galvin, Chairman of the 
Executive Committee of Motorola Inc.; Mr. Erich Bloch, Acting 
President and Distinguished Fellow of the Council on 
Competitiveness; Dr. Charles M. Vest, President of the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Sherman McCorkle, 
President of Technology Ventures Corporation; and Dr. Bruce 
L.R. Smith, Senior Staff at the Brookings Institute.
    The second panel, which consisted of DOE contractors, 
included: Dr. Frederick M. Bernthal, President of the 
Universities Research Association; Dr. Albert Narath, President 
of the Energy and Environment sector at the Lockheed Martin 
Corporation; Dr. Douglas E. Olesen, President and CEO of 
Battelle Memorial Institute; and Dr. C. Judson King, Interim 
Provost at the University of California.
    Panel three included directors of national laboratories: 
Dr. Charles F. Gay, Director of the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory (NREL); Dr. Siegfried S. Hecker, Director of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory; Dr. Alan Schriesheim, Director of 
Argonne National Laboratory; Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, Director of 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece, 
Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Dr. John C. 
Crawford, Executive Vice President of Sandia National 
Laboratories.
Summary of hearing
    Deputy Secretary Curtis testified that DOE is actively 
trying to bring down costs while enhancing R&D efficiency and 
performance at the National Labs. He stated that the Department 
has not forced its nine multi-program laboratories into tightly 
defined missions so not to sacrifice their versatility. Mr. 
Curtis spoke in support of H.R. 2142, and its efforts aimed at 
creating a refined mission framework for the National 
Laboratories. He does not support H.R. 1510's mandated 
reduction of DOE laboratory personnel by one-third over 10 
years. He says the reduction would dictate how much work could 
be performed at the DOE labs through a steady constriction of 
their employment rolls. He also spoke against H.R. 87 and Title 
II of H.R. 1993 saying he opposed a broad closure effort for 
DOE's laboratories and the proposed method for addressing 
opportunities for consolidation and restructuring.
Panel 1
    Mr. Galvin testified against the closing of the labs and 
instead proposed corporatization of the labs. Under his plan 
the government would continue to own DOE's facilities, but the 
labs would be overseen by a board of trustees composed of 
industry and academic leaders. The government would retain 
title to the sophisticated, complex physical assets of the 
laboratories and would continue to fund the labs as well as 
university research at near-current levels. The labs would be 
operated by the private sector. DOE would remain the sponsor of 
the labs and the Federal Government would continue to be the 
labs' principle customer although they would also serve 
university and corporate clients. Mr. Galvin stated that the 
simplification would lead to a 75 percent reduction in DOE's 
lab personnel. He noted that the structure could include the 
following conditions: DOE will carry out a revised role; the 
corporation will be subject only to ``normal'' federal and 
state control of commercial companies; and the Federal 
Government will continue to bear preexisting liabilities 
associated with the labs. Annual reports must document the 
presence of internal accounting and control systems. Audit 
reports will be submitted to Congress. The corporation has the 
authority to make financial commitments without fiscal year 
limitations. The corporation will not have to hire people from 
within the civil service system. A transitional planning 
mechanism will be put into place.
    Mr. Bloch testified that the U.S. government spends too big 
a portion of the R&D budget on federal labs. He stated that the 
problem resides with DOE organization, its management style and 
oppressive controls. Mr. Bloch said the solution lies with 
reducing bureaucracy, regulations, micro-management from the 
top, and overhead costs, while focusing on the mission of the 
laboratories, their programs and projects. He spoke in support 
of H.R. 2142. In his testimony, Mr. Bloch listed some ground 
rules for streamlining: (1) DOE and its labs must be considered 
as a system; (2) DOE missions must be simplified; (3) Goals for 
downsizing must be clear and time frame mandated; and (4) 
Congress must refrain from becoming excessively involved in the 
downsizing effort and, instead, concentrate on policy, goal 
setting and progress assessment. Turning the DOE into an 
independent agency, transferring the four science labs to the 
NSF, and creating a closing commission to eliminate unnecessary 
and obsolete federal labs and regional offices will help reduce 
management inefficiencies, overhead, redundant activities, and 
regulations so that the DOE labs can focus on their core 
missions.
    Dr. Vest testified that the laboratories should pursue work 
in areas identified as having long term national importance 
relevant to the DOE mission, and should be allocated through a 
merit-based competitive process. He stated that the primary 
role of national laboratories should be to operate unique 
experimental facilities that are of too large scale, or are too 
costly to be maintained by individual research institutions 
outside the federal sector. When thought is given to 
downsizing, expanding, or changing the mission of existing 
laboratories, merit-based competition should be introduced. 
This is likely to lead to establishment of modest-scale 
laboratories or centers in universities or other performing 
organizations.
    Mr. McCorkle spoke in support of programs which facilitate 
the commercialization of dual-use technologies originated in 
the Department of Energy laboratory structure. He also spoke in 
support of H.R. 2142. He urged caution in the closure of DOE 
facilities and noted that they comprise the key element of our 
nation's scientific community, furthering basic research and 
playing a critical role in national security. He stated that 
commercialization doesn't replace the government-funded 
research in the laboratories, but rather enhances the value of 
the research by creating a ``dual benefit.'' Mr. McCorkle said 
DOE should continue to develop core competencies and technical 
capabilities that strategically position them to contribute to 
the scientific and technological well being of the nation. He 
stated that this should include a continuation of their current 
role in national security, and should expand to include a 
greater contribution to the private sector.
    Dr. Smith testified that the reduction of employment called 
for in H.R. 1510 and H.R. 2142 would have serious effects on 
the resources which support university scientists. He does not 
support H.R. 1993 language for directing cuts only toward 
civilian laboratories and activities in part because the 
defense labs also have non-defense functions which he says, by 
this logic, should also be cut. Dr. Smith criticizes H.R. 87 
for its ``unwieldy'' process for eventually reaching lab 
closure and/or reconfiguration. He noted that DOE labs are so 
diverse in mission and function that a common set of criteria 
for reviewing and assessing their activities will be difficult 
to achieve. He spoke against the language in H.R. 2142 calling 
for an extensive set of criteria to be used in deciding which 
labs or programs to close or to consolidate. He noted that the 
publication of criteria in the Federal Register in advance of 
the decisions may create opportunities for delay, stretching 
out the process, and legal challenge to the action taken. Dr. 
Smith criticized H.R. 1993 questioning if the gains are 
sufficient to outweigh the inevitable confusion, disarray, and 
wheel-spinning that accompanies a major organizational change.
Panel 2
    Dr. Bernthal discussed the importance of strengthening the 
partnership between the nation's distinguished research 
universities and its national laboratories. He spoke in favor 
of H.R. 2142 and he noted that the principles set forth in the 
bill reflect the conclusions of the Galvin Task Force. Dr. 
Bernthal testified that the research objectives of the national 
laboratories should be determined by the marketplace of ideas 
and the needs of the country. He suggests a corporate-style 
governing structure be created for DOE's major research 
laboratories and he said that if ``privatization'' means 
selling the laboratories to the highest bidder, then it is a 
non-starter. It is not clear who would buy the laboratories in 
an era when industry seems to be systematically reducing in-
house research. If, on the other hand, ``privatization'' means 
developing an augmented ``corporatized'' GOCO system, that kind 
of privatization is appropriate.
    Dr. Narath spoke in support of H.R. 2142 and discussed 
common weakness of H.R. 87 and H.R. 1993 creating a Facilities 
Commission to review and modify DOE's plan before the 
Department has demonstrated failure in aligning its laboratory 
system with its mission responsibilities. Dr. Narath stated 
that assigning laboratories specific missions may hinder their 
ability to progress toward becoming an effective system of 
laboratories. Dr. Narath testified against corporatization 
stating that it eliminates a linkage between the laboratories 
and the executive branch encouraging the Department to direct 
its funds elsewhere. He stated that a Board of Trustees is 
unlikely to be effective in resource allocation. He is 
supportive of the GOCO (Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated) 
model of laboratory management stating that it should be 
revitalized and restored. Any change to the laboratory system 
should preserve the joint agency responsibility and 
accountability for nuclear weapons.
    Dr. Olesen stated that increasing economic productivity and 
enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. industry should not be a 
core mission of either DOE or the national laboratories. He 
testified that primary research missions of the national 
laboratories should be those that are not more effectively 
conducted by universities or private industry. He also 
testified that a clear mission focus in each laboratory will 
improve the performance of the laboratories both individually 
and as a system. He stated that DOE's core missions of energy, 
environment, national security, and fundamental science should 
be the primary focus of the national laboratories. Dr. Olesen 
noted that rather than attempting to regulate the size of the 
work force, the government should hold laboratory management 
contractors accountable for achieving the scientific results 
and meeting the technology needs specified by the government. 
He also recommended revitalization of the GOCO model in 
contrast to the corporatization and privatization alternatives 
and stated that the GOCO model is highly effective in meeting 
government R&D needs.
    Dr. King spoke in support of the GOCO model that ensures a 
greater level of contractor responsibility, autonomy and 
accountability to enable the national laboratories to fulfill 
their roles as efficient and cost-effective vehicles in support 
of national missions. He stated that the role of the DOE 
national laboratories should be mission-driven, keyed to 
national needs and issues, and focused on problems whose 
solutions require multidisciplinary expertise. He spoke in 
support of HR. 2142 but not H.R. 1510 because of its proposed 
one-third reduction. He stated that any decisions about the 
size and scope of the national laboratories should be made only 
after their missions have been clearly defined.
Panel 3
    Dr. Gay fully supports DOE's national laboratory 
realignment activities. He stated that a comprehensive 
strategic plan is needed to define laboratory missions and to 
allocate resources to accomplish these missions. He spoke 
against privatizing facilities stating that they will not 
attract sufficient funding to effectively fulfill national 
missions. He also stated that improving the DOE national 
laboratory system involves the following steps: establish clear 
missions; prioritize research tasks and funding; assess core 
competencies of individual laboratories; assign specific 
missions; review and redefine governance structure; and define 
the best DOE oversight and laboratory management structure. 
NREL supports the ``basic thrust'' of H.R. 2142. Dr. Gay stated 
that H.R. 2142's core mission provisions could provide 
appropriate guidance to a commission which would review and 
evaluate all pertinent recent studies. In general, Dr. Gay 
supports H.R. 87 and H.R. 1993 and the formation of an 
independent commission to make recommendations on reconfiguring 
and streamlining the DOE laboratory system but he says both 
bills are too narrowly focused. He also suggested that the 
bills: seek to facilitate the clear definition of laboratory 
missions; evaluate prioritization of laboratory work; assess 
whether current missions are being effectively accomplished; 
identify unnecessary overlap and application; ascertain whether 
any laboratories should be consolidated, reduced in size or 
scope, reconfigured or closed; and determine appropriate 
staffing levels for individual laboratories. Regarding H.R. 
1510, the NREL supports elimination of self-regulation at DOE 
laboratories.
    Dr. Hecker spoke in support of the importance of defining 
missions for the DOE laboratories. He noted that in addition to 
a compelling mission, it is imperative that the laboratories 
demonstrate cost effective operations. He does not favor 
establishing additional commissions or conducting more studies 
of the laboratories, nor does he endorse arbitrary size 
reduction. He suggests the path outlined in H.R. 2142 to define 
the missions of the laboratories and then size them 
accordingly. He noted that three crucial research functions 
continue to be best performed by the DOE laboratories--nuclear 
weapons defined broadly, energy and environment, and a sharing 
of the fundamental research mission with other federal 
agencies. He noted that mission assignment for the individual 
laboratories should reflect their scientific and technical core 
competencies as well as the ability of the laboratory to 
satisfy specific customer requirements. Dr. Hecker spoke in 
support of the GOCO system of governance and noted that the 
system has eroded over time. He suggested the system be rebuilt 
based on the same fundamental principles.
    Dr. Schriesheim testified that the mission of the 
Department of Energy is clearly stated in its strategic plan. 
He noted that one of the most important missions for DOE 
laboratories is the design, construction, and operation of user 
research facilities. He agreed that DOE improve the 
coordination of its basic sciences program with its energy 
technology programs. Dr. Schriesheim spoke in support of 
greater DOE coordination of basic science programs with energy 
technology programs and more partnerships with industry. He 
also supports elimination of self regulation.
    Dr. Tarter stated the core mission areas of the DOE 
national laboratories: national security; energy; environmental 
science and technology; and underpinning fields of basic 
science. He testified that each major DOE laboratory needs to 
have a defining purpose which will cause the laboratories to 
appropriately ``size'' themselves as the mission and program 
definitions are refined, and as the management requirements are 
restructured. Dr. Tarter supports the GOCO laboratory 
arrangement and stated that every effort should be made to 
retain and improve it.
    Dr. Trivelpiece expressed concern about lab closures and 
the private sectors decreased investment in research. He also 
spoke in support of the GOCO concept.
    Dr. Crawford supports R&D partnerships with industry, 
universities, and other federal laboratories. He testified that 
realignment of the DOE laboratories is necessary, but should be 
driven by mission requirements and best business practices. He 
said that it is unwise to prescribe an explicit size and 
personnel limitation (as H.R. 1510 would mandate) and to make 
closure recommendations before missions have been mapped to 
resources and facilities. He is supportive of H.R. 2142 and 
concerned that as missions are defined for the laboratories, a 
trend toward finer and finer differentiation among missions 
might eventually move the multiprogram laboratory system in the 
direction of very narrowly defined, single-mission 
laboratories. Dr. Crawford spoke in support of the GOCO system.

       4.2(i)--The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

                            October 24, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-29

Background
    On October 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing entitled, ``The National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program,'' to evaluate the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program. Statistics show that earthquakes 
kill more people and destroy more property than any other 
natural disaster. Over the past fifteen years, earthquakes have 
caused over 100,000 deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars 
in economic losses worldwide. More catastrophic earthquakes are 
inevitable. In the United States there is high risk, not just 
in California, but also in the Pacific Northwest, the 
Mississippi valley, Alaska, Utah, and New England. Should major 
earthquakes (above magnitude 7) hit in these regions, projected 
losses are in the thousands of lives and multiple billions of 
dollars in damage. Most damage and loss of life from 
earthquakes results from buildings and other structures that 
fail during and after the shocks. Because much of the loss to 
life and economy can be prevented or reduced through 
promulgation of adequate zoning and building codes and prompt 
response, Congress established the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program (NEHRP) in 1977. Since its inception, NEHRP 
has focused on earthquake research (physical, seismic, 
structural, and social) as well as earthquake hazards 
mitigation. These programs are executed by four federal 
agencies: The National Science Foundation (NSF); the United 
States Geological Survey (USGS); the National Institutes of 
Standards and Technology (NIST); and the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of the hearing was to 
assess the current status of the Federal Government's 
earthquake research and earthquake hazards mitigation efforts 
prior to consideration of reauthorization of NEHRP which 
expires at the end of 1996.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Paul Komor, former Project Director 
of the report ``Reducing Earthquake Losses'' at the Office of 
Technology Assessment (OTA); Dr. Daniel P. Abrams, Professor of 
Civil Engineering, University of Illinois; Mr. Richard T. 
Moore, Associate Director for Mitigation for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Dr. Robert M. Hamilton, 
Program Coordinator for Geological Hazards for the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS); Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Assistant 
Director for Engineering for the National Science Foundation 
(NSF); Mr. Richard N. Wright, Director of the Building and Fire 
Research Laboratory for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST); Dr. Paul Somerville, Seismologist at 
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services; Dr. Thomas Jordan, Chair of 
the Department of Earth Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology (MIT); Dr. Thomas Anderson of the Fluor Daniel 
Corporation, representing the NEHRP Coalition; and, Dr. Anne 
Kiremidjian from the Department of Civil Engineering of 
Stanford University.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Komor testified that greater use of existing knowledge 
gained through NEHRP would reduce losses significantly. He 
expressed concern that NEHRP, in its current form, will not 
significantly reduce earthquake risks due to a failure to 
implement known practices and technologies. Dr. Komor discussed 
NEHRP's lack of clear and workable goals and strategies. During 
his testimony he noted OTA's identification of several policy 
changes NEHRP could make to yield major national reductions in 
earthquake losses. Such changes cited were: changes in the 
specific research activities NEHRP undertakes; changes in 
NEHRP's management and operations; and changes to federal 
disaster assistance and insurance, regulation, and financial 
incentives.
    Dr. Abrams testified that experimental research programs 
must be pursued at an accelerated rate to advance the state-of-
the-art in seismic engineering and construction practices, 
enhance public safety, and reduce economic losses in future 
earthquakes. He said that the highest priority at the 
earthquake engineering community is that existing laboratory 
engineering testing facilities be upgraded and modernized with 
new equipment. He noted that existing cooperative research 
programs with other countries should be continued, and new 
programs should be established where the sharing of testing 
facilities and the exchange of data and research results is 
mutually advantageous.
    Mr. Moore assured the Subcommittee that the Administration 
is addressing concerns raised in the past about NEHRP, 
including the lack of an overall strategic plan and 
insufficient coordination among the agencies. He also discussed 
FEMA's role in NEHRP, including the responsibility of training 
architects and engineers, efforts supporting hazards 
identification and loss estimation techniques, the adoption and 
enforcement of seismic codes, response and recovery planning, 
and education and public awareness.
    Dr. Hamilton stated that the role of the USGS is to assess 
earthquake hazards, including understanding the cause of 
earthquakes and the nature of their effects. Dr. Hamilton 
remarked that some of USGS's research is being brought to bear 
on local mitigation decisions, however he conceded 
dissatisfaction with the pace of implementation with in NEHRP.
    Dr. Bordogna discussed NSF's contribution to NEHRP through 
the funding of research in the disciplines of earth science, 
earthquake engineering, and social sciences and integrated 
multidisciplinary research. He also discussed the fundamental 
research supported by NSF and performed by non-government 
persons and groups. He noted that NSF enables researchers to 
advance knowledge through both individual investigator awards 
as well as group awards such as those the National Center for 
Earthquake Engineering Research at the State University of New 
York at Buffalo.
    Mr. Wright described NIST's responsibility in NEHRP to 
conduct problem-focused research and development to improve 
standards and codes and practices for buildings and lifelines. 
He also noted NEHRP's effectiveness in reducing losses through 
the improved performance of buildings and bridges built using 
up-to-date design and construction practices. Mr. Wright agreed 
with Dr. Hamilton that there is a knowledge gap as well as an 
implementation gap within NEHRP. He also noted that reducing 
structural damages requires that the owner of the facility be 
willing to invest additional money, not required by the state 
or local building codes.
    Dr. Somerville disagrees that the resources committed to 
earthquake risk reduction in the United States are commensurate 
with the high risk to life and economic health. He stated that 
the best way to achieve results is to introduce legislation 
that mandates or provides financial incentives for the adoption 
of codes and the implementation of mitigation measures.
    Dr. Jordan stated that the most effective foundation for 
continued national efforts in earthquake hazard reduction is a 
vigorous federally-funded and coordinated program of basic and 
applied research directed towards a better understanding of 
earthquakes and earthquake related damage. He also expressed 
the need for more centers like the Southern California 
Earthquake Center (SCEC), which undertakes the construction of 
regional seismic hazard maps, formulation of realistic 
earthquake scenarios, and processing of real time earthquake 
information. Dr. Jordan also highlighted the present and future 
importance of the global positioning system to earthquake 
hazard mitigation.
    Dr. Anderson testified that incentives are required to 
implement new mitigation technology. He assured the 
Subcommittee that the priorities for action for the future of 
revitalized NEHRP are incentives, program management, and 
technical issues. He noted that because NEHRP and its four 
program agencies do not have the authority to establish and 
enforce implementation regulations, it becomes the 
responsibility of Congress either to establish federal 
implementation regulations or financial incentives or both.
    Dr. Kiremidjian testified that NEHRP has made some very 
significant and very important advances in the effort toward 
earthquake hazards reduction. She stated that the advances have 
been both in research and implementation. She also criticized 
the deterioration of the laboratories and note that much of the 
laboratory equipment is outdated and obsolete.

   4.2(j)--The High Performance Computing and Communications Program

                            October 31, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-32

Background
    On October 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing entitled, ``The High Performance Computing and 
Communications Program,'' to examine the High Performance 
Computing and Communications Program (HPCC). The High 
Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991 authorizes 
a multi-agency R&D program to: (1) develop technologies needed 
for high speed data networking and to provide network access 
for the research and education communities; (2) support 
development of advanced software technology for application to 
important problems in science and engineering (Grand 
Challenges); (3) stimulate development of a new generation of 
high performance computing systems; and (4) support basic 
research and human resources development in computer and 
computational sciences. The HPCC Program plan was expanded in 
FY 1995 to include an additional component to develop the 
technology base underlying and advanced information 
infrastructure and use this technology to develop and 
demonstrate applications of national importance, such as 
education and health care delivery.
    Witnesses included: Mr. John Toole, Director of the 
National Coordination Office for High Performance Computing and 
Communications; Dr. Anita Jones, Chair, Committee on 
Information and Communications (CIC), National Science and 
Technology Council; Dr. Ivan Sutherland, Co-Chair of the 
National Research Council's (NRC) Committee to Study High 
Performance Computing and Communications; Dr. John D. Ingram, 
Research Fellow, Schlumberger; Dr. Edward Lazowska, Chair, 
Government Affairs Committee, Computing Research Association 
(CRA); Dr. Forest Baskett, representing the Computer Systems 
Policy Project; and, Dr. Jermiah Ostriker, Provost, Princeton 
University.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Toole testified that the HPCC Program has been a model 
``virtual agency'' and is responsible for maintaining long term 
computer science research and supporting the mission needs of 
the agencies involved in the program. Mr. Toole gave examples 
of advancements in computational modeling which have been 
beneficial to fields such as aerospace, astronomy, meteorology, 
medicine, and education. He believes that sustained long term 
government investment is essential for the nation. Mr. Toole 
feels that the HPCC Program does not necessarily need to be 
reauthorized, but would rather see Congress support and fund 
HPCC activities through the respective agencies.
    Dr. Jones testified that in order for the United States to 
maintain its dominance in high performance information 
technology, the Federal Government must make the early long-
term investment in research, not industry--which is interested 
in profit. Further, she stated that long-term research has 
become more competitive, citing Japan's emergence in high 
performance computing. She then testified that the CIC outlined 
broad areas for future investment. Dr. Jones cited many 
examples of how the HPCC Program assists the mission 
responsibilities of participating federal agencies, primarily 
through software tools and techniques developed from HPCC 
research. Dr. Jones advocated authorization of HPCC programs 
through the participating federal agencies and not a 
reauthorization of the HPCC Program as a whole, emphasizing the 
need for continued federal investment.
    Dr. Sutherland emphasized two recommendations of the NRC 
report: (1) to continue support for research in information 
technology, especially through agencies such as the National 
Science Foundation and the Advanced Research Projects Agency; 
and (2) to continue the HPCCI to meet challenges posed by the 
nation's evolving information infrastructure. Dr. Sutherland 
stated that the United States must have the knowledge to best 
utilize information technology to achieve maximum advantage and 
that effort is greatly assisted by federal support for long 
term research. He also pointed out that many ``unanticipated 
benefits'' have come from HPCCI research and that other nations 
realize the advantages in investing in long term technology 
research. Dr. Sutherland feels that the HPCC Program is best 
served by having a coordinator, like Mr. Toole, rather than an 
administrator dictating direction.
    Dr. Ingram testified to the Subcommittee that industry 
views research investment in terms of ``risk vs. return,'' 
stating that each industry has its own agenda, and only a 
program like the HPCC Program can insure quality research in 
key areas and that cooperative programs including government, 
academia, and industry are the most efficient way to achieve 
practical implementations of research. With limited funds, Dr. 
Ingram stressed the need in setting priorities for research and 
to leverage those funds with joint efforts with other 
countries.
    Dr. Lazowska testified that the United States has benefited 
immensely from its leadership in information technology and 
that the CRA supports an HPCC Program reauthorization which is 
flexible enough to allow the program to adapt quickly to new 
research opportunities. He emphasized the importance of 
university research in advancing basic research. Dr. Lazowska 
then reviewed HPCC Program accomplishments in parallel 
computing and the growth of the Internet.
    Dr. Baskett testified that the HPCC Program has helped the 
United States maintain its lead in information technology and 
without the program long range research would be neglected by 
industry due to the competitive nature of the market. He stated 
that industry is not looking for federal support of their 
internal R&D programs: the federal grants and contracts process 
is too slow for industry. Federal support of fundamental 
research has allowed U.S. industry to remain at the forefront 
of technology in a time of increasing global competition, 
according to Dr. Baskett, and the Federal Government can 
effectively stimulate work among government, industry, and 
academia.
    Dr. Ostriker briefed members on advances in supercomputing 
over the past three decades in 3-D simulation/problem solving 
and picture resolution. He detailed how high performance 
computing has allowed researchers to calculate the consequences 
of known laws and theories of science which was not previously 
possible.

  4.2(k)--Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratory Restructuring

                            November 9, 1995

                                 104-34

Background
    On November 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing entitled, ``Department of Energy (DOE) National 
Laboratory Restructuring,'' concerning the restructuring of the 
Department of Energy's National Laboratories. The hearing 
focused on H.R. 884, a bill to authorize federal funding of 
retirement incentives for certain lab employees, to match those 
offered by the labs' university contractor, within the broader 
context of DOE's overall workforce restructuring, strategic 
realignment and downsizing. The Subcommittee also considered 
H.R. 2301, a bill to designate an enclosed area of the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN as the ``Marilyn 
Lloyd Environmental, Life and Social Sciences Complex.''
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Bill Richardson (D, NM-
3); Mr. Robert R. Nordhaus, General Counsel, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Mr. James Phillips, Executive Director, Labor 
Relations, University of California; Mr. Charles Meier, 
Employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Mr. Thomas 
Sandford, Employee of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Congressman Richardson, author of H.R. 884, explained the 
rationale behind his legislation and outlined the series of 
changes to lab retirement programs that led him to draft the 
bill. He stated that prior to October 1, 1961, all employees of 
Los Alamos (LANL), Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) and Lawrence 
Berkeley (LBL) national labs were enrolled in the California 
Public Employees Retirement System (California PERS). On 
October 1, 1961, the University of California (UC), who 
administers the labs, established its own retirement program--
the University of California Retirement Program (UCRP)--all 
employees hired after the establishment of UCRP were part of 
the program. In 1993, simultaneous to new DOE downsizing/
restructuring initiatives, UC implemented the Voluntary Early 
Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) III, which offered 
benefits--including an added three years to retirement age, 
three years service credit, and three months pay--to its UCRP 
members. No such incentives were offered to California PERS 
members, even though they had worked for the labs for over 30 
years. Mr. Richardson stated that his bill ``is intended to 
offer a fair retirement incentive to . . . some 450 men and 
women . . . who were denied the opportunity to participate in a 
similar program.'' He also emphasized that ``. . . these 
employees were wrongly overlooked . . .'' and that UC's 
decision unfairly discriminated against some of the labs' most 
senior employees.
Panel 2
    Mr. Nordhaus prefaced his remarks about H.R. 884 with a 
general discussion of DOE's formal Department-wide 
restructuring plans, which began in 1993. He explained that 
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 established a framework for workforce 
restructuring, mandating that the Secretary of Energy develop 
restructuring plans which include mechanisms for working with 
collective bargaining and community groups, and state and local 
governments, and establish rehire networks to avert or minimize 
negative socio-economic effects at various defense nuclear 
sites, including the labs. To date, DOE has prepared 20 
restructuring plans at thirteen defense nuclear sites, 
including Los Alamos, with future plans for Lawrence Berkeley 
and various non-defense sites. Of the approximately 24,000 DOE 
and subcontracted employees who have been eliminated, over 75% 
have left voluntarily. Specific to H.R. 884, Mr. Nordhaus 
stated that VERIP III was the third UC workforce restructuring 
since 1991, and in 1991, UC offered similar retirement plans to 
lab employees in UCRP and PERS. He continued that although lab 
employees ``perceive an inequity,'' VERIP III had nothing to do 
with any DOE plan and explained that UCRP and PERS have nothing 
to do with each other--they are separately administered and 
financed. He maintained that not only would federally mandating 
and/or funding a program to match a private program set a bad 
precedent, but that California PERS members--along with the 
rest of the state's federal employees--are under the 
jurisdiction of the California Assembly, who has voted down 
such changes twice in the past. He concluded that if such 
legislation passed, DOE would support it. He also voiced the 
DOE's support for H.R. 2301.
    Mr. Phillips focused his testimony on the differences 
between PERS and UCRP, noting different, yet comparable benefit 
packages. He explained that PERS members had the opportunity to 
join UCRP when the program was initiated, but many did not 
because of various factors. He explained that VERIP III was 
initiated because of UC budget constraints. At an estimated 
cost of an additional $35 million, UC was precluded from 
funding such an offer to PERS lab employees; and PERS lab 
employees are part of the full, state employee pool, which 
cannot afford such adjustments either. Two funding options for 
H.R. 884 exist: additional federal appropriation; or payment 
from existing lab budgets, which would necessitate cuts in lab 
functions/workforce.
Panel 3
    Mr. Meier provided the view of the 438 California PERS 
members who were not offered the benefits of their UCRP 
counterparts. He stated that VERIP III ``is the first time the 
DOE and the University have departed'' from equal retirement 
incentives and emphasized that the employees' complaint is 
``parity in retirement incentives  . . . not in retirement 
benefits.'' Moreover, despite UC's and DOE's arguments to the 
contrary, a ``PERS VERIP'' is very doable. He explained that 
DOE exempted UC from formal restructuring review mandated by 
the FY93 Defense Authorization, at the insistence of UC, 
despite lack of exemption provisions. He asserted that had such 
a review been conducted, a wholly different early retirement 
plan might have been implemented. Although DOE and UC have 
privately admitted that PERS employees have been treated 
unfairly, they nonetheless maintain that a PERS VERIP is too 
costly. From a fiscal standpoint, however, Mr. Meier stated 
that the UCRP pension surplus saved DOE $140 million annually 
in its UCRP employer contributions; and, in FY94, DOE spent 
only $108 million of its $200 million allocated for lab 
restructuring--money that could have been spent to fund a PERS 
VERIP. Further, upfront incentive costs would be recovered 
within eighteen months and additional money saved through 
eventual employer contribution and salary savings. Mr. Meier 
concluded that, ``H.R. presents an opportunity to both right an 
injustice and implement a savings to the government.''
    Mr. Sandford repeated the concerns of Mr. Meier, 
reemphasizing the fact that had section 3161 been followed, as 
it has been at many other contracted-lab facilities, the 
current inequities might have been avoided. He stated that the 
lack of restructuring funds at the UC-contracted labs is ``a 
glaring omission.'' Further, PERS and UCRP employees had always 
been treated equally in the past. He stated that the only 
conclusion he and his colleagues can draw is since ``our 
numbers were so few . . . the University of California felt 
free to take the PERS employees' situation lightly.'' He called 
such a decision a ``bad business decision'' that was unfair and 
not cost-effective given the University's and DOE's ability to 
make up the cost in eighteen months.

 4.2(l)--Partnership For Advanced Computational Infrastructure Program

                             March 19, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-47

Background
    On March 19, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
an oversight hearing entitled, ``Partnership For Advanced 
Computational Infrastructure Program,'' to examine the 
accomplishments of the NSF's Supercomputing Centers Program 
over the last ten years and evaluate the solicitation of the 
National Science Foundation's (NSF) Partnership for Advanced 
Computational Infrastructure.
    Witnesses appeared in three panels. The first panel 
included: Dr. Paul Young, Assistant Director for Computational 
and Information Science and Engineering, National Science 
Foundation (NSF), and Dr. Edward Hayes, Chairman, Report on the 
Task Force on the Future of NSF Supercomputing Centers Program, 
and Vice President for Research, Ohio State University.
    The second panel consisted of NSF Supercomputing Center 
Directors: Dr. Malvin Kalos, Director, Cornell Theory Center, 
and Professor of Physics, Cornell University; Dr. Larry Smarr, 
Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, and 
Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign; Dr. Ralph Roskies, Scientific Director, 
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, and Professor of Physics, 
University of Pittsburgh; and Dr. Douglas Pewitt, Acting 
Director, San Diego Supercomputing Center.
    Panel three featured members of the user community and 
included: Dr. Mary Vernon, Department of Computer Sciences and 
Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle; Dr. Kelvin 
Droegemeier, School of Meteorology and Center for Analysis and 
Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma; and Dr. Douglas 
Gale, Assistant Vice President for Information Systems and 
Services, the George Washington University.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Dr. Young explained that NSF has considered the needs of 
the user community, as well as the scientific needs of the 
nation, in deciding to go forth with the Partnership for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure Program. The 
Supercomputing Centers Program was created in response to the 
research and education communities' need for high quality 
science and engineering and has already far exceeded the 
original goal during its first ten years. Dr. Young emphasized 
the program's new structure will capitalize on technical and 
budget realities with the ultimate aim being a more powerful 
and improved program with computational science and engineering 
ability distributed more broadly across the country. According 
to Dr. Young, the envisioned structure makes sense 
independently of the actual number of centers and partnerships. 
He explained that under the new structure, the program will 
operate fewer high-end leading centers, but overall will have 
more full partners and greater efficiency in the program.
    Dr. Young stated NSF believes that networking technology 
and the advent of scalable mid-level parallel machines that 
scale up to the high end, will yield a program which includes a 
broader distribution of the technology across the country, more 
participating centers, better integration of mid-level systems 
and better use of high-speed networking connections. He assured 
Members that NSF is not bound by the federal procurement 
process and has cooperative agreements with industry to test 
and develop software and machines. Dr. Young explained that the 
Supercomputer Centers Program has been successful as a result 
of the competing programs that have learned to work in a 
cooperative fashion. Dr. Young explained NSF's management 
intent is to continue that cooperation among leading-edge 
sites. Dr. Young pointed out that NSF's policy and procedure 
has been one of fair, open competition and peer review to bring 
out new ideas and utilization of the best expertise in 
industry, academia, and government to review proposals for 
better use of existing technologies through the competition. He 
promised NSF will make every effort to maintain quality service 
to the research community during transition to the new program.
    Dr. Hayes testified on the conclusions and recommendations 
of the Task Force report. Dr. Hayes explained the Task Force's 
approval of NSF's progress on setting future direction for the 
Supercomputing Centers Program. He stressed the Program's 
importance as a critical component of the strong U.S. position 
in science and technology and acknowledged the importance of 
partnerships between the Centers and the vendors as the key to 
its success. Dr. Hayes pointed out that although the Task Force 
began with the work of earlier reports, they did not accept the 
conclusions of the recommendations uncritically. They sought 
input from the community, including several key NSF advisory 
committees, on the benefits of the current program to develop 
their own analysis which focused on the merit review process 
for allocating resources at the current centers as well as the 
educational benefits of the Program.
    According to Dr. Hayes, recommendations of the Task Force 
are derived from their vision for the future which includes a 
strong coupling of selected research centers and university 
laboratories with the leading-edge sites that have the highest-
end computational systems and will provide future potential in 
terms of enhanced program flexibility, creativity and 
efficiency. In addition, Dr. Hayes explained the balanced 
program should include a number of mid-range centers that could 
be formally coupled into the program to provide increased 
efficiency and creativity. In addition, Dr. Hayes highlighted 
two recommendations central to the new Partnership Program: 
First, NSF should support a few leading edge sites which will 
have a balanced set of high-end hardware capabilities, coupled 
with appropriate staff and software. Second, partnership sites 
should provide better coupling to computer scientists 
developing new tools and software. Dr. Hayes explained that the 
Task Force considered the overall program, as well as advice 
from the Foundation and their own sense of the budget 
environment, in considering whether NSF may have to downsize 
the total number of partnership sites to achieve a balanced 
program. Dr. Hayes explained that NSF's challenge is to keep 
the playing field level to permit an appropriate level of 
competition, while bringing out creativity.
Panel 2
    Dr. Kalos stated computational science is now an essential 
tool in experimental science contributing to the design, study, 
optimization, and verification of the most advanced scientific 
instruments. According to Dr. Kalos, computation as an aid to 
understanding and the predesign of costly experiments, is an 
important way to use limited budgets in an optimum way. 
According to Dr. Kalos, the 512-processor SP at Cornell is one 
of the most powerful computing environments available today. He 
believes that the Cornell Center has also made a singularly 
important contribution to the national scientific effort by the 
depth and quality of their partnership with IBM. Dr. Kalos 
emphasized the Center has begun taking delivery of the new IBM 
machines that scale in size, memory and computing power so that 
some of the advance in technology does not require completely 
replacing the machine. Examples that illustrate the scope and 
influence of the Cornell program include analysis, simulations 
and modeling in areas of molecular biology, astrophysics and 
fusion energy. Although the Supercomputing Centers are 
presently focused on the recompetition, in the long term Dr. 
Kalos is certain that the inter-center cooperation will re-
establish itself. Dr. Kalos stated the allocation of access to 
the Cornell Supercomputer is governed by a national allocation 
policy and judgments are entirely on the basis of the 
scientific merit of the research and the balance of resources 
required to do the research.
    Dr. Smarr stated the Supercomputing Centers have evolved 
and their role within the national program has changed 
dramatically. He noted the solicitation is not new; it grew out 
of the successes and maturation of the original Center concept. 
In addition, Dr. Smarr indicated the notion that a Center being 
in one geographical location is becoming an anachronism. Dr. 
Smarr explained one of the major changes in supercomputer 
design is the transition from building a processor unique to 
each supercomputer, to installation of microprocessors ``sewn 
together'' to construct supercomputers. As a result, capitol 
costs have been cut significantly and additional spending is 
allocated for memory instead of processors. In terms of those 
Centers that will be phased-out as a result of the 
recompetition, Dr. Smarr believes that a process similar to 
that of five years ago will occur, and NSF will allow for an 
efficient phase-out where users are transferred to other 
centers and staff is easily transferred to other centers or 
industry. In addition, Dr. Smarr indicated that Supercomputing 
centers modeled on the NSF Supercomputing Centers Program are 
present in a dozen countries.
    Dr. Roskies highlighted a few examples of enhanced quality 
of life made possible by application of high performance 
computing at the Pittsburgh Center, including a better 
understanding of the generation of smog over Los Angeles, 
accurate predictions of the course of severe thunderstorms six 
hours ahead of time, simulation of a functioning heart, and 
improving and extending the reach of electronic networks. Dr. 
Roskies emphasized one of the great strengths of the NSF's 
Supercomputing Program has been the diversity of different 
Centers' approaches. Dr. Roskies explained the brief 
interruption in the cooperation among the centers during the 
recompetition will have to be viewed as a fact of life for the 
next eighteen months.
    Dr. Pewitt emphasized the NSF Supercomputing Centers 
Program continues to be a wise investment for the country. 
According to Dr. Pewitt, competition is the only way yet proven 
to ensure continuation of a vigorous U.S. supercomputing 
program. Dr. Pewitt stated, ``if you don't compete, you lose 
vigor'' and ``the only way to maintain vigor in the program is 
to have periodic competitions.'' He believes the solicitation 
should result in a program more inclusive of organizations with 
diverse and complementary strengths and provide a stronger 
infrastructure that can help the nation maintain scientific 
leadership and economic competitiveness. Dr. Pewitt urges 
assurance of a level playing field for private industry 
participation in the solicitation.
Panel 3
    Dr. Vernon testified in strong support of the restructuring 
of the NSF Supercomputers Program to create the Partnership for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure Program. According to Dr. 
Vernon, the program will be significantly strengthened by the 
proposed restructuring to include leading-edge sites partnered 
with experimental facilities and research centers at other 
universities, as well as other national and regional high-
performance computing centers. Dr. Vernon stated the planned 
NSF review process is the appropriate mechanism for determining 
the specific number and types of partnerships that will best 
meet the needs of computational science and engineering in the 
next decade. She indicated a reduction in the total number of 
leading-edge sites is possible and necessary given the 
requirement that leading edge centers provide balanced 
computing capabilities which are one to two orders of magnitude 
beyond what is available at leading research universities.
    Dr. Vernon believes recompeting the centers is the best 
approach to achieving the most effective leading-edge sites and 
partnerships. According to Dr. Vernon, members of the broad 
scientific and engineering community, following the merit 
review process and criteria outlined in the program 
solicitation, will make wise choices for the Nation. She 
stated, ``the review panel members will fully understand the 
intricacies of the new directions and will best be able to 
judge the number and combination of proposed partnership sites 
that will best serve computational science and engineering and 
the national interest in the next decade.''
    Dr. Droegemeier shared his thoughts regarding the 
recompetition of the NSF Supercomputer Centers and highlighted 
a successful four-year partnership between the Center for 
Analysis and Prediction of Storms and the Pittsburgh 
Supercomputing Center. According to Dr. Droegemeier, the 
ability of his science and technology center to accomplish its 
mission depends critically upon access to and the effective use 
of high-performance computing and telecommunications systems. 
By working with the Pittsburgh Center, the Center for Analysis 
and Prediction of Storms has been able to prototype various 
computational strategies and techniques for operational storm 
scale prediction that can be considered by the National Weather 
Service (NWS) for implementation early in the next century. Dr. 
Droegemeier believes the concept for the recompetition is good, 
but warned that care should be taken in evolving the new 
infrastructure to avoid a reduction in overall resources 
available to the national community and a potential elimination 
of diversity that exists among the current centers.
    Dr. Gale commended the accomplishments of NSF's 
Supercomputing Centers Program and offered his assessment of 
the recompetition solicitation. Dr. Gale cited the simulation 
of crash results at the National Crash Analysis Center at 
George Washington University to illustrate how NSF initiatives 
have contributed practical benefits. According to Dr. Gale, the 
National Crash Analysis Center, which simulates automobile 
crashes to improve the safety of vehicles and roadside objects, 
is supported and widely used by the automotive industry. 
According to Dr. Gale, while there are concerns within the user 
community about amounts available and possible changes in 
existing funding for individual projects, general widespread 
enthusiasm exists for the opportunity to explore new ideas, 
collaborations, and partnerships. Dr. Gale believes although 
there may be some consolidation of the leading-edge centers, 
the solicitation is worded in such a way that there will 
actually be more partnerships and a greater distribution of 
resources than currently exists. In addition, Dr. Gale believes 
the NSF peer review process is both fair and insightful and 
will be effective in distributing resources to those projects 
that offer the greatest potential.

   4.2(m)--National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization

                             March 22, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-45

Background
    On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 
1997 Authorization,'' to reauthorize funding for the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) for FY97. NSF is an independent 
federal agency founded in 1950 to promote and advance 
scientific progress in the United States. NSF builds U.S. 
scientific strength by funding research and education 
activities in all fields of science and engineering at more 
than 2,000 colleges, universities and research institutions 
across the country. The NSF budget comprised only about 3% of 
the federal R&D budget of $70 billion in FY95. This 
notwithstanding, NSF provides approximately 25% of basic 
research funding at universities and over 50% of the federal 
funding for basic research in certain fields of science, 
including math and computer sciences, environmental sciences, 
and the social sciences. Moreover, NSF plays an important role 
in pre-college and undergraduate science and mathematics 
education through programs of model curriculum development, 
teacher preparation and enhancement, and informal science 
education. NSF's five-year authorization (P.L. 100-570) expired 
at the end of FY93. Dr. Neal Lane, Administrator of the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), testified.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Lane testified that now is the ``golden age'' for 
breakthroughs across all fields of science which have direct, 
beneficial applications across the private sector. He defended 
the President's FY97 budget request of $3.325 billion, 4.6% 
above the 1996 conference level, as making a ``strong 
commitment to the NSF and to science.'' Dr. Lane emphasized 
that this budget reflects a clear prioritization of NSF 
programs and laid out NSF's strategic plan, which focuses on 
four major areas: (1) maintaining balanced support for programs 
across all fields of science and engineering; (2) maintaining 
NSF's long-term commitment to world-class projects such as 
optical and radio telescopes, particle accelerators, Antarctic 
research, LIGO, the Research Fleet, etc.; (3) promoting 
interdisciplinary work between pure research and education; and 
(4) promoting partnerships among individuals, colleges and 
universities, industry and government. He also stated that NSF 
has made tough choices required by a balanced budget, noting 
that the FY97 budget reduces and transfers the $100 million 
Academic Research Infrastructure Program to the Research and 
Related Activities Account, and that a mere 4% of NSF's budget 
is allotted for administration, overhead, etc.

  4.2(n)--Government-University-Industry Collaboration: The Future of 
                     U.S. Research and Development

                              June 7, 1996

Background
    On June 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held a 
site discussion in Albuquerque, NM, to review research and 
development collaborations among the Department of Energy (DOE) 
national laboratories, research universities, and industry. Due 
to increasing pressure from enormous budget deficits, the 
Federal Government has reduced annual research and development 
spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars), terminated programs, 
and downsized science and technology-related activities, 
forcing research and development to share the burden of 
balancing the budget. In response to increased competition from 
emerging, aggressive economies overseas, U.S. industry has also 
recently reduced its investment in basic research, shifting its 
emphasis to applied research and technology development. All of 
these trends potentially impact the nation's ability to 
maintain preeminence in science and technology. One strategy to 
maximize the impacts of federal dollars is to seek 
collaborative opportunities between the research and 
development community. A number of reports have been issued 
recently that discuss such collaboration including, the Galvin 
Task Force report on ``Alternative Futures for the Department 
of Energy National Laboratories;'' the National Academy of 
Science's report on ``Allocating Federal Funds for Science and 
Technology;'' and the private sector Council on 
Competitiveness' report entitled, ``Endless Frontier, Limited 
Resources.'' The Subcommittees on Basic Research and Energy and 
Environment have also held hearings on these and related 
subjects during the 104th Congress.
    Participants in the site discussion included: Dr. Danny 
Hartley, Vice President of Laboratory Development at Sandia 
National Laboratories; Dr. Edward Walter, Industry/Laboratory 
Liaison for the University of New Mexico; Mr. Sherman McCorkle, 
President of Technology Ventures Corporation; Mr. Joe Evans, 
President of Radiant Technologies; and Mr. Graham Alcott, 
External Programs Director for Intel Corporation.
Summary of discussion
    Dr. Danny Hartley stated that as R&D budgets in industry 
and government decrease, partnerships are essential to the 
national laboratories' ability to accomplish their missions. 
Dr. Hartley said that Cooperative Research and Development 
Agreements (CRADAs) have become the most common arrangement for 
cooperative research at the laboratories. He also said that 
such work is cost-shared with the partner, and intellectual 
property resulting from the collaborative work can be 
protected, which in turn can be economically beneficial for the 
labs.
    Dr. Edward Walters discussed the role of universities in 
research and development relationships between universities, 
industries and federal laboratories, as having the 
responsibility to lay the conceptual basis for intellectual 
advances and to conduct fundamental research. He spoke about 
the challenges in the development of collaborations and 
partnerships including the differences in missions and 
cultures, the way that information is disseminated, 
intellectual property ownership, yearly financial schedules, 
and management style. He also listed the benefits universities 
receive from partnerships including funding, exposure, 
equipment, and educational opportunities such as internships. 
Dr. Walters stated that the Federal Government can assist with 
these partnerships by ridding the process of excessive 
regulations.
    Mr. Sherman McCorkle said that in order for DOE to expand 
its efforts to commercialize laboratory activities as Congress 
has directed, it is vital for them to form partnerships. He 
stated that commercialization of such technologies will provide 
financial returns to the national laboratories by supporting 
activities that would otherwise have to be funded by the 
taxpayer. Mr. McCorkle complimented DOE's laboratories for 
increasing the patenting of their technologies and for 
transferring those technologies, through licenses, to the 
private sector. Mr. McCorkle criticized the licensing process 
as too costly and time-consuming. Mr. McCorkle suggested that 
in order to maximize the return on taxpayer investment by 
commercializing laboratory technologies, steps should be taken 
to reduce red tape and shorten procedures. These actions will 
encourage, not deter, the private sector to collaborate with 
the laboratories.
    Mr. Joe Evans described Radiant Technologies' CRADA with 
Sandia National Laboratories as one where the relationship has 
been beneficial to both parties. He also stated that Sandia 
will receive royalties if the technology is commercially 
successful. Mr. Evans noted that much of the work his company 
did with Sandia has been published and several key patents have 
been applied for jointly by Sandia and Radiant. Mr. Evans noted 
that collaborative efforts can work well, but not if they are 
used by the commercial partner to conduct basic research. He 
said there must be a market focus on the part of the commercial 
partner. Mr. Evans suggested that the role of the national 
laboratories in the partnership should be the use the of 
laboratories' unique talents to do what has not been done 
before.
    Mr. Graham Alcott discussed Intel's preferred approach to 
emphasize collaborations between government, universities and 
industry. He stated that the results of these collaborations 
have exceeded their expectations. Mr. Alcott said that to 
partially address the research gap issue, industry is proposing 
the formation of five ``Focus Centers'' to address applied 
research for the main thrusts outlined in the ``National 
Technology Roadmaps for Semiconductors.'' Each center would be 
integrated into the present university infrastructure and would 
exist synergistically with government sponsored basic research. 
Although Mr. Alcott complimented the current process of 
cooperation, he did list areas for improvement including the 
speed of DOE approvals and an increase in government spending 
for basic research with industry and university participation 
in setting the strategy.
    The record of this meeting will not be published.

 4.2(o)--The Use of Educational Technology and Human Resource Programs 
            to Enhance Science, Math and Technology Literacy

                              July 7, 1996

Background
    On July 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
conducted a site discussion at Calhoun Community College in 
Huntsville, Alabama concerning the use of educational 
technology and human resource programs to increase math, 
science and technology literacy, with an emphasis on such 
programs in Alabama. Members of the panel were drawn from 
fields and programs that have introduced kindergarten through 
college-level students and teachers to supercomputing, 
collaborative/interactive research projects, on-line resources, 
etc. in order to generate enthusiasm for science and technology 
in the classroom.
    Witnesses were divided into two panels. Panel one included: 
Ms. Edna Gentry, Alabama Supercomputing Authority (ASA)/Alabama 
Supercomputing Program to Inspire Computational Science and 
Research in Education (ASPIRE); Dr. Tommie Blackwell, Director 
of Education, U.S. Space and Rocket Center, GLOBE/Spacelink 
Programs; Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director of Education 
and Human Resources, NSF; and, Ms. Keri Kolumbus, ASPIRE 
College Student.
    Panel two included: Ms. Niki Daniel, Student, University of 
Alabama at Huntsville (UAH); Dr. Jerry Shipman, Professor and 
Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, Alabama Agricultural 
and Mechanical University; Mr. Paul Thomas, professor, Calhoun 
Community College and NASA Community College Enrichment 
Programs (CCEP) Fellow.
Summary of meeting
Panel 1
    Ms. Gentry described ASA, the first state-funded 
supercomputer network for use by universities and industry, and 
ASPIRE, ASA's program that introduces pre-college students to 
supercomputers and focuses on ``scientific exploration.'' Ms. 
Gentry stated that effectively utilizing and providing hands-on 
access to resources like the Internet is key to motivating 
students in math and science. Essential to teaching the 
student, however, is first training the teacher. ASPIRE, 
therefore, provides a ``total support environment for the 
teacher'' through: (1) intensive summer institutes which teach 
the scientific method and how to use computers/the Internet as 
tools; (2) providing specific curricula and teaching materials; 
and (3) supplying support through follow-up workshops and 
regional training centers. ASPIRE focuses on reaching students 
who are less-interested in math and science, as well as groups 
who are underrepresented in the scientific community--women, 
minorities and the economically disadvantaged.
    Dr. Blackwell explained that GLOBE is a program hosted by 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 
supported by NASA, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). The program offers students (K-12) in the United States 
and 36 other nations the opportunity to observe, collect, and 
report scientific environmental data through a central 
compilation center on the Internet. The data is subsequently 
interpreted by professional scientists in various climate 
studies. Participating schools have invested in computer 
equipment and tailored classes to incorporate the project. Dr. 
Blackwell stated that GLOBE is ``extremely exciting to young 
people and to teachers who now understand that hands-on, 
meaningful involvement is the best, most dynamic way to teach 
math and science.'' Similar to GLOBE, NASA Spacelink is a 
comprehensive information and support network which includes 
lesson plans, teacher aids, software, etc. related to space and 
aeronautics research.
    Dr. Williams stated that NSF is the federal agency 
responsible for maintaining excellence in science and 
engineering research and education. He remarked that ``support 
for our education and research system is vital to our economic 
and technological leadership, to our national security, and to 
our health and quality of life.'' He emphasized the importance 
of basic science and math as an educational component because 
of the pervasive nature of science in all aspects of modern 
life. To address this, Dr. Williams said, ``it is clear that we 
need a general rebuilding, starting at the bottom. We need 
better basic instruction in grade schools, more challenging 
undergraduate programs, and better support for graduate 
education as well.'' Therefore, NSF is promoting a set of 
systemic inquiry-based reform initiatives, establishing basic 
standards at all grade levels, and administering broad programs 
for local, urban, and rural school systems, as well as specific 
science and math initiatives at individual schools nationwide. 
Dr. Williams continued that NSF seeks to promote its mission in 
the most effective way possible by awarding grants on a merit-
based, external peer-review basis, designing programs to 
integrate education with advancing research, and leveraging 
proportionately large amounts of outside resources in cost-
sharing programs. Such programs reach millions of students and 
hundreds of teachers a year.
    Ms. Kolumbus outlined the role of the ASPIRE program in her 
high school and college career. Ms. Kolumbus stated that she 
entered high school as an ``average student with not much 
confidence in [her] scholastic abilities.'' A typing/beginning 
computer class piqued her interest in computers, and she 
enrolled in an upper-level, ASPIRE-sponsored class where she 
was introduced to the Internet, college computer facilities, 
and advanced research projects and competitions. Ms. Kolumbus 
emphasized that ASPIRE not only provided computer 
opportunities, but developed her public speaking, writing, 
research and presentation skills. She is an honors Computer 
Science major at the College of Engineering at the University 
of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, with minors in Public Speaking and 
Mathematics. She credits her success, as well as the 
scholarships which allowed her to attend college, to the unique 
and advanced experience gained through the ASPIRE program.
Panel 2
    Ms. Daniel works for the Consortium for Materials 
Development in Space (CMDS), a government-industry-university 
partnership which promotes commercial space-based materials 
development and transport. CMDS is one of twelve Centers for 
the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) programs which gives 
students (K-college) the opportunity to participate in actual 
space science projects through experiments on the Space 
Shuttle, sounding rockets, and other lab and simulation 
facilities. The Consortium provides opportunities for students 
to become directly involved with actual NASA projects. Ms. 
Daniel participated various projects which introduced her to 
the technical and administrative aspects of satellite and 
shuttle-based experiments. In her opinion, programs like CMDS 
not only provide students with invaluable experience, but 
provide enthusiastic and relatively inexpensive support to the 
employer. Ms. Daniel is now Asst. Operations Mgr. for another 
shuttle experiment and plans to earn her Ph.D in microgravity 
research after graduating this Spring.
    Dr. Shipman described The Outreach Program, a block of NSF-
funded programs at Alabama A&M that aims to reach fifth grade-
undergraduate students and increase their understanding and 
interest in science and math through: (1) enriching the 
education of minority students through science field trips, 
computer training, communication, study and testing skills 
development; (2) placing minority undergraduate students from 
Alabama A&M and other Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities directly into laboratories to work on research 
projects with mentor scientists; and (3) establishing a 
mentoring network of scientists, upper level students and 
teachers. Dr. Shipman stated that ``science intervention 
programs ... are important in an effort to help bridge the 
deficient gap in student proficiency and interest in the 
sciences'' and that they are essential because of the 
increasingly technical nature of society and the job market.
    Mr. Thomas described the major goals of the CCEP. They are: 
(1) teaching teachers to utilize technology and helping them to 
develop and increase math/science knowledge and interest in 
their students; (2) contributing to Marshall Space Flight 
Center (MSFC) research objectives; (3) developing program-
related aerospace curricula at the participants' home schools; 
and (4) developing communication networks among the 
participating teachers and schools. CCEP, like the 
aforementioned programs, provides its participants with hands-
on experience and participation in actual aerospace projects 
using state-of-the-art technology. As a participant in this 
summer's CCEP internship, Mr. Thomas gained experience that not 
only allowed him to apply his independent research with 
evolving real-world technology, but will enable him to 
``understand, apply and teach [his] students'' about such 
technology.
    The record of this meeting will not be published.

                4.2(p)--The Future of Antarctic Research

                             July 23, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-65

Background
    On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Future of Antarctic Research,'' on the 
future of U.S. scientific research in Antarctica. The National 
Science Foundation (NSF) administers $196 million annually for 
the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP), which includes 
infrastructure and operations of three research stations and 
two ships, as well as related research activities. In light of 
post-Cold War changes in the geopolitical map, restricted 
budgets and the needs of the aging South Pole Station, the 
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) recently issued 
a report which reaffirms U.S. Antarctic policy and makes 
recommendations for the future of the USAP. This hearing 
focused on the conclusions of the NSTC report, the importance 
of U.S. research, options for international cooperation, 
remedies for immediate and long-term health and safety issues, 
and transition of logistical support from the Navy to the Air 
National Guard.
    Testifying in Panel one were: The Honorable Ernest Moniz, 
Assistant Director for Science, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President; 
Dr. Neal Sullivan, Director, Office of Polar Programs, NSF; Mr. 
R. Tucker Scully, Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State; and The Honorable Robert Pirie, Assistant 
Secretary for Infrastructure and the Environment, Department of 
the Navy.
    Panel two featured: Dr. Robert Rutford, Professor of 
Geosciences, University of Texas at Dallas and past Chairman, 
Polar Research Board, National Research Council (NRC)/National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS); and Dr. David L. Clark, Chairman, 
Polar Research Board, NRC/NAS.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Dr. Moniz voiced the Administration's support of the NSTC 
report and discussed its findings and recommendations. The 
report makes six major points: (1) Scientifically, the USAP is 
key because it provides a unique, pristine laboratory for 
astronomy, particle physics, and large scale earth and eco-
sciences; and it serves as a base for exploration of the 
largely unexplored Antarctic continental/ocean region; (2) 
geopolitically, the USAP provides an active, influential and 
year-round U.S. presence in an historically unstable region; 
(3) NSF has been an effective manager of the program in terms 
of science, environmental stewardship, and efficient 
operations, including privatization of support services, which 
saved $3.2 million last year and will save $10 million by 2000; 
(4) current investment is sound, and NSTC supports continued 
operation of the three existing stations; (5) health, safety 
and environmental problems, especially at the South Pole 
Station must be addressed; and (6) NSF should convene an 
external panel to examine further cost-saving options and 
ensure continued program quality.
    Dr. Sullivan elaborated on the importance of the USAP's 
scientific mission and achievement, and outlined NSF's progress 
in streamlining and economizing the USAP without sacrificing 
scientific integrity. He stated that the USAP has adopted a 
five-year program to address waste management, resulting in a 
70% recycling rate; and privatization of vehicle and food 
services are underway, with potential privatization of air 
traffic, medical services and fire management, consistent with 
changes already in place. In addition, the program is shifting 
some Department of Defense (DOD) responsibilities to civilian 
contractors and transferring transportation support from the 
Navy to the Air National Guard. Dr. Sullivan also stated that 
the South Pole Station, the only year-round U.S. facility in 
Antarctica, is nearing the end of its program life and is in 
immediate need of facility, safety and health upgrades, 
including a new power plant and fuel storage facilities for 
which NSF sought $25 million for its FY97 Major Research 
Equipment Account. Further, and as prescribed by the NSTC 
report, NSF has convened an external peer review panel to 
investigate proposals for a long-term South Pole Station 
upgrade and alternatives.
    Mr. Scully stated that the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and the 
continued active U.S. presence in the Antarctic via the USAP 
have been important components of U.S. foreign policy spanning 
Administrations and accomplishing numerous foreign policy 
objectives. The Treaty establishes the region as free for 
scientific research and prohibits territorial claims, military 
activity and nuclear testing; it protects the environment from 
industrialization/economic development; and it provides a 
peaceful forum for Treaty maintenance which has been recognized 
even in times of conflict and the Cold War. Notably, a treaty 
nation's influence in the region is directly proportional to 
that nation's scientific participation--currently, 26 nations 
participate, half of which have significant programs. For 35 
years, the United States has been at the center of Antarctic 
decision-making because of the USAP, which currently comprises 
25% of total research. Such activity demonstrates commitment 
not only to leading-edge science, but to international 
cooperation and stability. According to Mr. Scully, by 
lessening its presence in Antarctica, the United States would 
effectively abdicate its leadership and likely invite 
territorial conflict.
    Secretary Pirie stated that the post-Cold War military 
drawdown and a constrained budget have necessitated Naval 
withdrawal from the region. He outlined the first phase of 
transition, including the continuing privatization of logistics 
in virtually all support areas (transportation, food, public 
works, waste management, etc.). Second, helicopter operations 
are being contracted to the private sector. Finally, the Navy 
will transfer operation of the USAP's ski-equipped LC-130s 
(owned by NSF, currently operated by the Navy) over three 
years, to the Air National Guard--a perfect fit for the job 
because of its long-standing mission and experience in both 
polar regions and its extensive use of the LC-130. This 
transfer of duty will yield numerous benefits to both NSF and 
the Air Guard, including substantial savings to NSF, making the 
Air Guard single-point manager of polar transport, and 
deferment of new aircraft procurement by both.
Panel 2
    Dr. Rutford reiterated the importance of the leadership 
role the USAP plays, in terms of leading-edge science and in 
the international community. In considering the future of the 
USAP, he continued that the United States must act decisively 
because of the long-term commitment involved and the ever-
evolving nature of the research. He stated that the USAP 
currently has a good infrastructure mix which allows high-
quality, highly flexible, wide-ranging research and emphasized 
the importance of a year-round station. The South Pole Station 
has immediate needs that must be met. Dr. Rutford praised NSF 
for its ``exemplary'' management of the program in terms of 
efficiency, its willingness to address fiscal constraints 
through privatization and the LC-130 transfer. On a different 
note, he added that international cooperation among scientists 
is vital to Antarctic research, but that an international 
station ``would not be in the best interest of the U.S.,'' 
especially for health and safety reasons.
    Dr. Clark addressed the needs of the USAP in the context of 
today's budget environment and stated that the program is 
highly efficient; and for a relatively small investment, the 
United States reaps broad benefits across virtually all fields 
of science and allows research opportunities unavailable 
anywhere else in the world. Specifically, large-scale systems 
study--and its application to questions of plate tectonics, 
oceanography, atmospheric and climatic systems, etc., and to 
problems of immediate public concern, such as oil spill clean-
up and the ozone hole--is only possible in the region. 
Unparalleled science combined with the foreign policy and 
national security benefits gained by maintaining a strong 
presence in Antarctica more than justify the current 
investment, and in Dr. Clark's opinion, provide a model for 
future large-scale research missions. Similarly, as data 
collection and space-based technology advances, U.S. polar 
research programs must keep up.

      4.3(a)--FY 1996 DOE, EPA, and NOAA R&D Budget Authorizations

                 February 13, 14, 15, 16, and 21, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-10

February 13, 1995:
Background
    On February 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled to receive testimony on 
ways to reduce spending in the research and development 
programs of the three agencies under the Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction: DOE, EPA and NOAA.
    The panel of witnesses included: Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, 
President of Citizens Against Government Waste; Ms. Jill 
Lancelot, Director of Congressional Affairs for the national 
Taxpayers Union; Dr. A. Alan Moghissi, Associate Vice President 
of Environmental Health and Safety at Temple University; Dr. 
William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University; 
and Mr. Victor Rezendes, Director of Energy and Science Issues 
in the Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division 
of the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Schatz recommended that before members of the 
Subcommittee approve the expenditure of one more tax dollar on 
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction, they ``should 
ask themselves two questions: (1) Is this project worth the 
further weakening of our representative government?; and (2) Is 
this a project I want my children and grandchildren to be 
responsible for paying?'' Mr. Schatz gave specific suggestions 
for reducing and/or eliminating projects and claimed savings 
over the next five years.
    Ms. Lancelot recommended the cancellation of the Tokamak 
Physics Experiment (TPX), termination of the Gas Turbine-
Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) and the Advanced Neutron Source 
(ANS). She also suggested an investigation of issues 
surrounding the proposed privatization of the Uranium 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC). She said there are concerns that 
it ``could be making decisions that are inconsistent with the 
decisions of a privatized corporation, and appear to 
potentially put taxpayers at risk.''
    Dr. Moghissi noted that since the inception of the EPA, its 
R&D has been criticized. Dr. Moghissi recommended that EPA's 
R&D emphasize assessments and monitoring. He also recommended 
that EPA mandate reliance upon BAS (Best Available Science) in 
all its decisions and undertake a research effort with the 
objective to remove all societal objectives from its risk 
assessment process. He also said EPA should encourage staff to 
publish the results of R&D activities in peer-reviewed 
scientific journals.
    Dr. Happer testified in support of R&D in general. He 
reviewed what he considers some of the most important research 
and development activities of DOE. The activities he discussed 
were: nuclear weapons research; basic research; risk 
assessment; the GOCO concept; essential services of DOE; and 
safe disposal of nuclear waste.
    Mr. Rezendes stated that DOE's mission and priorities have 
changed dramatically since 1977 when the Department was 
created. He noted that DOE's original priorities included 
energy research, conservation and policy-making, and today's 
DOE budget focuses on weapons production and environmental 
cleanup. Mr. Rezendes noted DOE's management problems and 
stated that GAO is also examining the roles and missions of 
DOE's national laboratories. He said DOE needs to better define 
the roles of labs and manage them in a way that promotes 
progress toward its goals. Mr. Rezendes testified that three 
questions should be addressed in considerations that could 
change DOE missions: (1) Which missions should be eliminated 
because they are no longer a valid government function?; (2) 
For those missions that are inherently governmental, what 
organizational arrangement would be best suited to achieving 
these missions?; and (3) Could the private sector perform some 
of these missions better?
February 14, 1995:
Background
    On February 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony from (DOE) 
officials and outside witnesses on DOE's Fiscal Year 1996 
budget requests for energy R&D programs under the 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    Witnesses were presented in two panels. Panel one consisted 
of Department of Energy officials including: Ms. Christine A. 
Ervin, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy; Ms. Patricia Fry Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy; Dr. Tara J. O'Toole, Assistant Secretary for 
Environment Safety and Health; Rear Admiral Richard J. Guimond, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management; and Mr. Ray A. Hunter, Acting 
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy.
    Panel two contained outside witnesses including: Mr. Myron 
Gottlieb, Vice President of Natural Gas Supply Technology 
Development at the Gas Research Institute; Mr. Linden Blue, 
Vice Chairman of General Atomics; Dr. Amos E. Holt, Senior Vice 
President of Engineering for the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers; and Mr. Michael L. Marvin, Director of Governmental 
and Public Affairs for the American Wind Energy Association.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Ms. Ervin said the request for budget increases would 
generate significant savings and benefits to the nation. Ms. 
Ervin stressed that the program emphasizes voluntary 
partnerships with industry and local governments that are 
highly leveraged with matching funds. She stated that the 
Energy Audit Program saved small and medium-sized businesses an 
average of $20,000 per audit. She also emphasized the 
development and commercialization of alternative fuels as well 
as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Ms. Ervin 
asked for increases to support programs that partner with the 
housing industry to apply energy-efficient technologies to both 
residential and commercial projects. She also asked for R&D 
funding for cost-share demonstrations of biomass projects 
related to the utility sector.
    Ms. Godley testified that it is important for the Federal 
Government to invest in the development of energy technology 
when ``market participants are unable or unwilling to take the 
high-risk'' involved. She emphasized the declining rate of 
domestic oil production to call for support of DOE's programs 
to help independent producers recover hard-to-get oil and gas 
deposits. Ms. Godley also pointed out that coal currently fuels 
55 percent of electric power generation in the United States 
and that most new power plants in the near term will be coal or 
gas-fired. She requested federal funding to develop new, 
cleaner coal and natural gas-fired power systems. Ms. Godley 
said the Advanced Computational Technology Initiative will help 
meet these objectives for the oil and gas industry. She also 
called for support of the Clean Coal Technology Program and 
indicated fuel-cell development is a direct result of federal 
investment.
    Dr. O'Toole said the job of DOE's Office of Environment, 
Safety and Health is to prevent environmental health and safety 
problems at DOE facilities, with an emphasis on the nuclear 
weapons complex. Dr. O'Toole stated that increases in the 
budget request for the Office of Health are efforts to prevent 
worker exposure to hazardous materials and help to states 
performing studies of health effects from DOE facilities. Dr. 
O'Toole also asked for additional funding to continue studies 
in Byelorussia on the health effects stemming from Chernobyl.
    Rear Admiral Guimond testified that DOE is ``dramatically 
changing'' the way the agency runs environmental management. He 
said that a cut of $4.4 billion from projected targets will be 
accomplished by improvements in productivity and ``ensuring 
(our) agreements with states and EPA are based on reasonable 
cost-effective approaches and schedules.'' Admiral Guimond said 
the Technology Development program has undergone dramatic 
changes by developing four focus areas: mixed waste 
characterization; radioactive waste tank remediation; 
contaminated plume containment remediation; and landfill 
stabilization.
    Mr. Hunter stated his priority programs are the Advanced 
Light Water Reactor project and a cost-shared program to help 
utilities extend the life of currently operating nuclear 
plants. He noted other important programs include helping 
Russia in its operation of nuclear facilities and isotope 
production and distribution (with emphasis on U.S. production 
capability of molybdenum-99). He also noted that his office is 
downsizing from 258 FTEs in 1993 to 154 in 1996.
Panel 2
    Mr. Gottlieb testified in favor of DOE's budget request. He 
stated that the DOE budget for applied energy RD&D can be 
reduced by obtaining the co-funding of projects with industry 
and through the prioritization of projects. He stated that the 
partnerships with private industry will bring more rigorous 
cost/benefit analysis and privatization to the government, 
shortening the time and increasing the probability of effective 
commercialization. He asked that while Congress considers 
reductions for applied R&D funds, that they consider the 
phasing out of projects rather than immediate termination. This 
transition is important to allow current jointly funded 
projects with industry to be completed and to allow industry 
time to adjust its R&D plans and budgets. He also requested 
Congress consider providing an economic incentive to industry 
to make increased private sector RD&D a reality.
    Mr. Blue asked for support of the Gas Turbine-Modular 
Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). He spoke about the relationship of GDP 
to electricity growth. Mr. Blue noted the GT-MHR also has 
potential to destroy plutonium and produce tritium. He also 
indicated that the Japanese are investing heavily in this 
technology.
    Mr. Holt described the Society's analysis of the DOE 
budget. He stated that the nation's security is also dependent 
upon our energy and economic security. He stated economic 
security cannot be achieved in the absence of energy security. 
He urged that as Congress deliberates the priorities in the 
Department's R&D budget proposal this year, every consideration 
be given to sustaining a strong educational component of energy 
R&D.
    Mr. Marvin testified in support of DOE's Wind Energy 
Research and Development program. He said there is good reason 
to expect that in the next 10 or 12 years wind energy will 
generate the cheapest electricity of any energy source. He 
claimed that wind energy, per unit of energy, creates more jobs 
than any other utility-scale technology.
February 15, 1995:
Background
    On February 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony on DOE's FY 
1996 budget request for the Office of Energy Research. The 
purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the DOE FY 
1996 budget request from the Director of Energy Research for 
DOE and directors of five of the multi-program national 
laboratories, as well as testimony on DOE's Fusion Energy 
Program.
    The witnesses included: Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of DOE's 
Office of Energy Research (OER), and two panels.
    Panel one focused on the Scientific Facilities Initiative 
and included: Dr. John Peoples, Jr., Director of Fermi national 
Accelerator Laboratory; Dr. Nicholas P. Samios, Director of 
Brookhaven national Laboratory; Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece, 
Director of Oak Ridge national Laboratory; Dr. Alan 
Schriesheim, Director of Argonne national Laboratory; and Dr. 
Charles V. Shank, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
    Panel two focused on the Fusion Energy Program and included 
Dr. Robin Roy, Project Director of the Office of Technology 
Assessment (OTA), and Dr. David E. Baldwin, Associate Director 
for Energy at Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Krebs testified that the OER programs are a major 
element of the nation's investment in basic research. She 
stated that the 1996 budget request for these programs totals 
about $2.75 billion, an increase of about $90 million from 
1995. She noted that the major elements of increase within that 
budget are the Scientific Facilities Initiative and the renewal 
of high energy and nuclear physics programs in the aftermath of 
the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) termination. She also 
noted that the request included increases to the Basic Energy 
Sciences Program, as well as high energy and nuclear physics to 
increase the operating times of large scientific facilities. 
Dr. Krebs said the initiative will provide more time, support 
more users, and result in more science and basic research that 
meets the tests and needs of energy and environmental missions. 
Dr. Krebs said the budget also includes a proposal for the 
construction of the TPX and continued participation in the ITER 
Engineering Design Activities. She also discussed neutron 
scattering and stated that DOE had terminated the Advanced 
Neutron Source due to its increased costs.
Panel 1
    Dr. Peoples commented on the purpose of the Scientific 
Facilities Initiative contained in the Department's FY 1996 
budget request. He said it is to increase the effective 
scientific use of the extraordinary user facilities. He stated 
that in recent years the lack of funding has kept some of these 
facilities from operating at levels commensurate with their 
capabilities.
    Dr. Samios focused his testimony on the $100 million 
facilities initiative of which $25 million is being proposed 
for nuclear physics. He stated that in most of these 
facilities, the fixed costs are so large that a 20-percent 
reduction in the budget means that the facility is unable to 
operate. He said that the leverage factor is very large and 
that is why the additional $25 million in the nuclear physics 
budget request would have an extraordinary effect on the 
utilization of these facilities.
    Dr. Trivelpiece testified that a small amount of 
incremental dollars makes a large difference in operations. He 
noted the possibility of funds decreasing so much that the 
facilities can't operate, but yet they would still be costing 
money. He stated that a small difference in dollars produces a 
substantial improvement in operation. Dr. Trivelpiece also 
discussed neutrons and the neutron science.
    Dr. Schriesheim focused on synchrotron radiation sources 
and urged support for increased used of these facilities.
    Dr. Shank testified that the DOE facilities represent a 
significant investment and serve as tools for probing the 
fundamental properties of matter by scientists from 
universities, federal labs, and industry. Dr. Shank stated the 
Initiative will make these facilities more effective for use by 
the broad scientific community. He also said the investment 
will provide a great value in delivering analytic capability to 
keep the nation at the forefront of science and technology.
Panel 2
    Dr. Roy discussed DOE's Fusion Energy Program and released 
OTA's Background Paper, Fusion Energy Program: The Role of TPX 
and Alternate Concepts. The study was produced in response to a 
request from the Science Committee to examine two Fusion Energy 
Program issues: (1) the role of the Tokamak Physics Experiment 
(TPX); and (2) the role in the Fusion Energy Program of 
alternative (i.e., non-tokamak) concepts. Dr. Roy noted that 
meeting the current fusion energy goals requires annual budgets 
of $700-$900 million. He also noted that if current plans are 
pursued, the greatest single near-term budgetary requirement 
for the Fusion Energy Program would be international 
cooperation to build the ITER. He stated that ITER is roughly 
estimated to cost on the order of $10 billion, and if 
successful, ITER would be the first device to demonstrate 
controlled ignition of fusion fuel.
    With regard to the TPX, Dr. Roy testified that construction 
costs of approximately $700 million would be followed by annual 
operating budgets of around $150 million. He noted that no 
other partner in the ITER project has found it necessary to 
pursue an interim device with TPX's capabilities as part of the 
program for successful development of ITER. He also 
specifically noted that there is uncertainty with the tokamak 
concept.
    In summary, Dr. Roy stated that while alternate (or 
alternative) concepts are no panacea for fusion energy, or 
necessarily for energy policy for the 21st Century, there is 
merit in examining them as part of a broad fusion program. He 
stated that the current program goals and direction, including 
construction and operation of large new tokamaks, require a 
doubling or tripling of budgets.
    Dr. Baldwin spoke in support of the Administration's FY 96 
budget request of $366 million. He said that this level permits 
the program to continue developing the tokamak as its principal 
fusion concept, but is insufficient to pursue meaningful 
development of specialized materials and non-tokamak 
alternatives. Dr. Baldwin testified that the current U.S. 
fusion program focuses on the goal of a tokamak demonstration 
reactor and places heavy reliance on international cooperation. 
He stated that the ITER is a conservative design because it is 
an experiment. He also emphasized that the ITER is not a 
reactor prototype.
February 16, 1995:
Background
    On February 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony from EPA and 
public witness on EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 budget request 
for its Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Energy 
and Environment Subcommittee has jurisdiction over ORD. The 
Administration's FY 1996 $7.4 billion request (+$138 million or 
2%) for EPA includes $629 million for ORD. The request for ORD 
represents an $83.8 million (15%) increase over its FY 1995 
funding level.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Robert J. Huggett, Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and Dr. Roger O. McClellan, 
President of the Chemicals Industries Institute of Toxicology, 
and member of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory 
Board.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Huggett testified in support of EPA's ORD FY 1996 
budget request of $629 million. He explained that ORD is making 
dramatic changes in the way it operates. ORD's chief objective 
is to provide EPA with the sound scientific data it requires to 
promulgate appropriate regulations. ORD is improving its 
science by redirecting its research monies in two manners. 
First, ORD will increase its budget for long-term research. 
Second, ORD will increase its use of extramural research 
through an expanded grants program. Dr. Huggett also discussed 
ORD's laboratory reorganization plan which will establish three 
national laboratories and two national centers to coordinate 
the activities of ORD's laboratories. He concluded by outlining 
ORD's intent to triple, from 100 to 300, the number of 
environmental fellowships it funds over the next two years.
    Dr. McClellan testified to the importance of good science 
in the promulgation of EPA regulations. He noted that 
approximately $150 billion is spent every year complying with 
environmental regulations and that any marginal improvement in 
the science used as a basis for these regulations can yield 
significant economic returns. Dr. McClellan stated that EPA as 
a whole should redirect more of its resources to research and 
development. He spoke in favor of increasing extramural 
research and singled out the need for additional research on 
ozone and air-borne particulate matter. He also noted the need 
to improve the quality of data on EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). Dr. McClellan concluded by 
emphasizing the need for better research management within ORD.
February 21, 1995:
Background
    On February 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony from NOAA and 
outside witnesses on NOAA's Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 budget 
request for its programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction, 
as well as to receive additional testimony on the FY 1996 
budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE) energy R&D 
programs.
    Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for 
Oceans and Atmospheres, and Administrator of NOAA, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, and two panels of outside witnesses.
    Panel one consisted of outside witnesses testifying on 
programs within NOAA including: Mr. Joel Myers, President of 
Accu-Weather, Inc., and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director of the 
Accounting and Information Management Division of the U.S. 
General Accounting Office.
    Panel two focused on DOE Research and Development (R&D) 
programs and included: Mr. Scott Sklar, Executive Director of 
the Solar Energy Industries Association, and Mr. Howard Geller, 
Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Baker outlined the priorities within NOAA's 
$2,195,400,000 FY 1996 budget request. Of these funds, 
approximately $1.8 billion fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Energy and Environment Subcommittee. Within the Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, the FY 1996 request represents an increase of 
$179 million over FY 1995 appropriations. Dr. Baker listed 
modernization of the NWS as NOAA's top priority to improve 
technology used for weather forecasting and lead to the 
consolidation of over 300 weather service offices into 118 
facilities. Dr. Baker indicated that the country's initial 
investment in the weather service modernization will be repaid 
within two years, and once complete, contribute over $7 billion 
in savings to the nation's economy through improved capacity 
for storm weather and long-term forecasting. Dr. Baker 
emphasized the importance of NOAA's strategic plan which 
creates the ``vision'' for the agency through the year 2005, 
enabling NOAA's environmental stewardship assessment and 
prediction programs to become ``keystones to enhancing economic 
prosperity.''
Panel 1
    Mr. Myers stated that the commercial weather services can 
save the government substantial sums by replacing services 
currently provided by the NWS and amending the 1890 NWS Organic 
Act to conform with the 1990 NWS policy statement on the role 
of the private weather industry and the NWS. Mr. Myers also 
cited the potential savings identified by a Booz Allen & 
Hamilton study that noted overlapping NWS structures which 
could be consolidated and found savings of $100 million 
annually if the NWS reduced its weather service offices from 
334 to 25.
    Mr. Willemssen emphasized three main points from GAO's 
review of the NWS modernization efforts: (1) the modernization 
effort is an outstanding opportunity for the NWS to streamline 
and downsize its organization while at the same time improving 
its services; (2) NWS has made progress on modernization but 
problems and risks remain in key systems; and (3) NWS must act 
quickly to correct these problems and address the risks or the 
modernization effort could fail to met its goals.
Panel 2
    Mr. Sklar outlined the significant Third World need for 
reliable cheap energy. According to Mr. Sklar, solar can play a 
major role in addressing the Third World's growing energy 
needs. He indicated that the market for solar energy is growing 
between twenty and thirty percent a year. One factor driving 
this growth is the decrease in material costs associated with 
building solar energy sources. Mr. Sklar supported DOE's 
investment in solar and the President's FY 1996 request of $423 
for renewable energy research and development.
    Mr. Geller spoke in support of DOE's energy efficiency 
programs and the Administration's FY 1996 request for energy 
conservation research and development. He stated that energy 
efficiency research yields substantial returns to the Federal 
Government and taxpayers. As an example, Mr. Geller pointed out 
that the Federal Government invested roughly $3 million fifteen 
years ago in electronic ballast research. As a result of this 
research, roughly $500 million worth of fluorescent light 
ballasts have been sold. The tax revenue generated from these 
sales far exceeds the government's research costs, he said.

   4.3(b)--Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National 
  Laboratories ``The Galvin Report'' and ``National Laboratories Need 
 Clearer Missions and Better Management, a GAO Report to the Secretary 
                              of Energy''

                             March 9, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-11

Background
    On March 9, 1995, the Subcommittees on Basic Research and 
Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy national 
Laboratories `The Galvin Report' and `national Laboratories 
Need Clearer Missions and Better Management, a GAO Report to 
the Secretary of Energy,''' on alternative futures and clearer 
missions/management of the Department of Energy's national 
Laboratories, based on the recommendations of the Galvin Task 
Force and the GAO.
    When the Department of Energy was created in 1977, it 
inherited the national Laboratories with a management structure 
that had evolved from the World War II ``Manhattan Project,'' 
whose mission was to design and build the world's first atomic 
bombs. From this national security mission, the laboratories 
generated expertise that initially developed nuclear power as 
an energy source. The laboratories' missions broadened in 1967, 
when the Congress recognized their role in conducting 
environmental as well as public health and safety-related 
research and development. In 1971, the Congress again expanded 
the laboratories' role, permitting them to conduct non-nuclear 
energy research and development. During the 1980's, the 
Congress enacted laws to stimulate the transfer of technology 
from the laboratories to U.S. industry. The Department of 
Energy estimates that over the past 20 years, the nation has 
invested more than $100 billion in the laboratories.
    The 1990's have accelerated the laboratories' 
diversification from defense and nuclear research to 
environmental issues and the development of commercial 
technologies.
    The purpose of this hearing was to identify and examine the 
principal issues affecting the laboratories' missions and the 
Department of Energy's approach to laboratory management. 
Witnesses were presented in three panels.
    Panel one consisted of: Mr. Robert Galvin, Chairman of the 
Task Force on Alternative Futures for the DOE national 
Laboratories (and Chairman of the Executive Committee of 
Motorola Inc.), and the Honorable Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of 
the U.S. Department of Energy.
    The second panel included: Dr. Siegfried Hecker, Director 
of Los Alamos national Laboratories; Dr. Bruce Tarter, Director 
of Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory; and Dr. Albert 
Narath, President of Sandia national Laboratories.
    Panel three consisted of: Dr. John Denson, Director of 
Idaho national Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Charles Gay, 
Director of the national Renewable Energy Laboratory; Dr. 
Nicholas Samios, Director of Brookhaven national Laboratory; 
Dr. Alan Schriesheim, Director of Argonne national Laboratory; 
Dr. William Madia, Director of the Pacific Northwest 
Laboratory; Dr. Charles Shank, Director of Lawrence Berkeley 
Laboratory; and Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge 
national Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Galvin testified that a bold plan of action was needed 
to salvage and restructure DOE. He emphasized five primary 
missions of the national Laboratories: national security; 
energy; environmental cleanup; economic development with 
appropriate industry; and science and engineering. He also 
encouraged the labs to become a single entity with a focus on 
core missions; DOE to streamline radically; and Congress to 
bear the brunt of the responsibility for a new system of 
governance for the labs. He recommended that the laboratories 
be corporatized, a major energy agenda be embraced, and 
Congress recommit support for national defense for a minimum of 
forty years.
    Secretary O'Leary discussed the Galvin report stating that 
she agreed with many of the recommendations but disagreed with 
the recommendation to corporatize the national Laboratories. 
She supports the concept of managing the laboratories like a 
corporate entity. Secretary O'Leary noted the realities DOE 
must face as the national security focus changes to accommodate 
dismantling weapons, non-proliferation, and maintaining a safe 
and reliable stockpile. She also presented the improved cleanup 
record of DOE and the role she envisions for DOE's 
environmental management team.
Panel 2
    Dr. Hecker stressed fixing GOCO, rather than 
corporatizating, allowing for flexibility and independence 
within the labs. He emphasizes that the labs must work with 
industry to maintain the high level of technology and to 
provide leverage to garner federal research investment, 
cautioning Congress to carefully consider any cutbacks in this 
area. According to Dr. Hecker, Congress must allow DOE to 
redefine its own missions, as well as those of the labs--then, 
make it a goal to downsize the labs in the right manner, for 
the best productivity and service to the nation.
    Dr. Narath urged Congress to proceed cautiously when 
considering DOE mission differentiation, so that multipurpose 
labs do not become single-purpose labs. He advises DOE to take 
advantage of the diversity, to create a ``system of 
laboratories,'' seeking more inter-lab cooperation. He also 
stressed the importance of the university and industry 
partnerships with the labs, which will be critical to DOE's 
success as it moves from a nuclear weapons mission to pursuing 
missions relating to energy, environment, and basic science.
    Dr. Tarter testified that strong leadership from DOE and 
reduced government management will make the labs both more 
efficient and cost-effective. He expressed concern about 
downsizing the labs and believes that as the missions and the 
leadership of DOE are improved and defined, the question of 
size will take care of itself. Dr. Tarter stated that adhering 
as closely as possible to the original GOCO format would 
maintain the strength of excellence and the missions of the 
labs.
Panel 3
    Dr. Denson endorsed a ``system of laboratories,'' where the 
national Laboratories act as one entity. He noted that the 
primary missions of DOE will be strengthened by a well directed 
technology transfer program.
    Dr. Gay discussed a performance-based award fee ``report 
card'' from DOE and ``sunset clauses'' which provide criteria 
for technology development projects. He spoke against 
corporatizing the labs but recommended the ``privatization of 
technologies'' for spin-off technology. He also approved of 
DOE's strategic realignment.
    Dr. Samios testified that the problems of the labs have 
ensued because of short-term goals and the governance imposed 
by Congress and the Administration (i.e. too much regulation 
and red-tape). He stated that a long-term plan is definitely 
needed to address these issues. He spoke in support of 
government investment in large-scale scientific user facilities 
to ``push the frontier of science'' and to close older 
facilities which are no longer cutting edge, while creating 
state of the art facilities to comply with DOE/laboratory 
missions.
    Dr. Schriesheim stressed the importance of the ties between 
energy and environmental technologies and the global impact of 
how to achieve effective environmental growth and balance. He 
backed DOE's Scientific Facilities Initiative, which increased 
the availability of facilities for industry and university 
users. Dr. Schriesheim endorsed external regulation by EPA, 
OSHA, and NRC, rather than DOE regulation, to improve the GOCO 
system.
    Dr. Madia testified that when encouraging a stronger 
missions focus a model must address ``cross-fertilization'' of 
technologies and application of the unique laboratory system. 
He stated that forces of supply and demand will naturally 
determine laboratory capacity and a business approach is 
necessary in assignment and flexibility of R&D. He also stated 
that environmental technology and energy research are the best 
solution to pursue in order to insure economic energy and 
environmental security.
    Dr. Shank affirmed that national security depends on a 
scientific foundation enhancing and paralleling national 
interests. The national Laboratories are a cornerstone of 
enduring U.S. leadership. He cited that the ``most exciting 
scientific advances are occurring at the boundaries between the 
fields.'' Each area plays off the other in terms of technology, 
innovation, and application of disciplines.
    Dr. Trivelpiece underscored that the GOCO concept of 
governance has been severely neglected and that it must be 
given a chance to improve and revitalize itself before it is 
abandoned altogether.

  4.3(c)--Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: Future 
  Missions and Governance for the Department of Energy (DOE) national 
 Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title II), and H.R. 2142

                           September 7, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-30

Background
    On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittees on Basic Research 
and Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment: Future 
Missions and Governance for the Department of Energy (DOE) 
national Laboratories, H.R. 87, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1993 (Title 
II), and H.R. 2142,'' on the restructuring of the DOE national 
Laboratories.
    During the 104th Congress, several legislative proposals 
have been introduced which would significantly restructure the 
DOE national Laboratories. Pending legislation includes 
proposals to: restructure and terminate some or all the labs; 
effect major reductions in personnel at the non-defense program 
labs; and review and assign narrower missions for the labs in 
conjunction with possible streamlining. Another issue addressed 
in some of the legislative proposals is governance of the labs, 
whether by DOE through a more traditional government-owned, 
contractor-operated (GOCO) role, with or without DOE internal 
regulation, or through corporatization/privatization of the 
labs.
    This is the second in a series of hearings in which the 
Committee on Science is examining options for restructuring the 
federal scientific establishment. The goals of this legislative 
hearing will be to examine the role of the DOE laboratories 
within that broader context, and specifically, to receive 
testimony on four pieces of legislation pending before the two 
Subcommittees: H.R. 2142, the ``Department of Energy Laboratory 
Missions Act'' (Mr. Schiff); H.R. 87, the ``Department of 
Energy Laboratory Facilities Act of 1995'' (Mr. Bartlett); 
Title II of H.R. 1993, the ``Department of Energy Abolishment 
Act'' (Mr. Tiahrt); and H.R. 1510, the ``Department of Energy 
Laboratories Efficiency Improvement Act'' (Mr. Roemer).
    Witnesses were presented in three panels following the 
testimony of the Honorable Charles B. Curtis, Acting Deputy 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.
    Panel one included: Mr. Robert W. Galvin, Chairman of the 
Executive Committee of Motorola Inc.; Mr. Erich Block, Acting 
President and Distinguished Fellow of the Council on 
Competitiveness; Dr. Charles M. Vest, President of the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Sherman McCorkle, 
President of Technology Ventures Corporation; and Dr. Bruce 
L.R. Smith, Senior Staff at the Brookings Institute.
    The second panel consisted of DOE contractors and included: 
Dr. Frederick M. Bernthal, President of the Universities 
Research Association; Dr. Albert Narath, President of the 
Energy and Environment sector at the Lockheed Martin 
Corporation; Dr. Douglas E. Olesen, President and CEO of 
Battelle Memorial Institute; and Dr. C. Judson King Interim 
Provost at the University of California.
    Panel three contained directors of national laboratories 
and included: Dr. Charles F. Gay, Director of the national 
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),; Dr. Siegfried S. Hecker, 
Director of the Los Alamos national Laboratory; Dr. Alan 
Schriesheim, Director of Argonne national Laboratory; Dr. C. 
Bruce Tarter, Director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; Dr. 
Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge national 
Laboratory; and Dr. John C. Crawford, Executive Vice President 
of Sandia national Laboratories.
Summary of hearing
    Deputy Secretary Curtis testified that DOE is actively 
trying to bring down costs while enhancing R&D efficiency and 
performance at the national Labs. He stated that the Department 
has not forced its nine multi-program laboratories into tightly 
defined missions so not to sacrifice their versatility. Mr. 
Curtis spoke in support of H.R. 2142, and its efforts aimed at 
creating a refined mission framework for the national 
Laboratories. He does not support H.R. 1510's mandated 
reduction of DOE laboratory personnel by one-third over 10 
years. He says the reduction would dictate how much work could 
be performed at the DOE labs through a steady constriction of 
their employment rolls. He also spoke against H.R. 87 and Title 
II of H.R. 1993 saying he opposed a broad closure effort for 
DOE's laboratories and the proposed method for addressing 
opportunities for consolidation and restructuring.
Panel 1
    Mr. Galvin testified against the closing of the labs and 
proposed corporatization of the labs. Under his plan the 
government would continue to own DOE's facilities, but the labs 
would be overseen by a board of trustees composed of industry 
and academic leaders. The government would retain title to the 
sophisticated, complex physical assets of the laboratories and 
would continue to fund the labs as well as university research 
at near-current levels. The labs would be operated by the 
private sector. DOE would remain the sponsor of the labs and 
the Federal Government would continue to be the labs' principle 
customer although they would also serve university and 
corporate clients. Mr. Galvin stated that the simplification 
would lead to a 75 percent reduction in DOE's lab personnel. He 
noted that the structure could include the following 
conditions: DOE will carry out a revised role; the corporation 
will be subject only to ``normal'' federal and state control of 
commercial companies; and the Federal Government will continue 
to bear preexisting liabilities associated with the labs. 
Annual reports must document the presence of internal 
accounting and control systems. Audit reports will be submitted 
to Congress. The corporation has the authority to make 
financial commitments without fiscal year limitations. The 
corporation will not have to hire people from within the civil 
service system. A transitional planning mechanism will be put 
into place.
    Mr. Bloch testified that the U.S. government spends too big 
a portion of the R&D budget on federal labs. He stated that the 
problem resides with DOE organization, its management style and 
oppressive controls. Mr. Bloch said the solution lies with 
reducing bureaucracy, regulations, micro-management from the 
top, and overhead costs, while focusing on the mission of the 
laboratories, their programs and projects. He spoke in support 
of H.R. 2142. In his testimony, Mr. Bloch listed some ground 
rules for streamlining: (1) DOE and its labs must be considered 
as a system; (2) DOE missions must be simplified; (3) Goals for 
downsizing must be clear and time frame mandated; and (4) 
Congress must refrain from becoming excessively involved in the 
downsizing effort and, instead, concentrate on policy, goal 
setting and progress assessment. Turning the DOE into an 
independent agency, transferring the four science labs to the 
NSF, and creating a closing commission to eliminate unnecessary 
and obsolete federal labs and regional offices will help reduce 
management inefficiencies, overhead, redundant activities, and 
regulations so that the DOE labs can focus on their core 
missions.
    Dr. Vest testified that the laboratories should pursue work 
in areas identified as having long term national importance 
relevant to the DOE mission, and should be allocated through a 
merit-based competitive process. He stated that the primary 
role of national laboratories should be to operate unique 
experimental facilities that are of too large scale, or are too 
costly to be maintained by individual research institutions 
outside the federal sector. When thought is given to 
downsizing, expanding, or changing the mission of existing 
laboratories, merit-based competition should be introduced. 
This is likely to lead to establishment of modest-scale 
laboratories or centers in universities or other performing 
organizations.
    Mr. McCorkle spoke in support of programs which facilitate 
the commercialization of dual-use technologies originated in 
the Department of Energy laboratory structure. He also spoke in 
support of H.R. 2142. He urged caution in the closure of DOE 
facilities and noted that they comprise the key element of our 
nation's scientific community, furthering basic research and 
playing a critical role in national security. He stated that 
commercialization doesn't replace the government-funded 
research in the laboratories, but rather enhances the value of 
the research by creating a ``dual benefit.'' Mr. McCorkle said 
DOE should continue to develop core competencies and technical 
capabilities that strategically position them to contribute to 
the scientific and technological well being of the nation. He 
stated that this should include a continuation of their current 
role in national security, and should expand to include a 
greater contribution to the private sector.
    Dr. Smith testified that the reduction of employment called 
for in H.R. 1510 and H.R. 2142 would have serious effects on 
the resources which support university scientists. He does not 
support H.R. 1993 language for directing cuts only toward 
civilian laboratories and activities in part because the 
defense labs also have non-defense functions which he says, by 
this logic, should also be cut. Dr. Smith criticizes H.R. 87 
for its ``unwieldy'' process for eventually reaching lab 
closure and/or reconfiguration. He noted that DOE labs are so 
diverse in mission and function that a common set of criteria 
for reviewing and assessing their activities will be difficult 
to achieve. He spoke against the language in H.R. 2142 calling 
for an extensive set of criteria to be used in deciding which 
labs or programs to close or to consolidate. He noted that the 
publication of criteria in the Federal Register in advance of 
the decisions may create opportunities for delay, stretching 
out the process, and legal challenge to the action taken. Dr. 
Smith criticized H.R. 1993 questioning if the gains are 
sufficient to outweigh the inevitable confusion, disarray, and 
wheel-spinning that accompanies a major organizational change.
Panel 2
    Dr. Bernthal discussed the importance of strengthening the 
partnership between the nation's distinguished research 
universities and its national laboratories. He spoke in favor 
of H.R. 2142 and he noted that the principles set forth in the 
bill reflect the conclusions of the Galvin Task Force. Dr. 
Bernthal testified that the research objectives of the national 
laboratories should be determined by the marketplace of ideas 
and the needs of the country. He suggests a corporate-style 
governing structure be created for DOE's major research 
laboratories and he said that if ``privatization'' means 
selling the laboratories to the highest bidder, then it is a 
non-starter. It is not clear who would buy the laboratories in 
an era when industry seems to be systematically reducing in-
house research. If, on the other hand, ``privatization'' means 
developing an augmented ``corporatized'' GOCO system, that kind 
of privatization is appropriate. Dr. Bernthal recognized an 
important objective of H.R. 2142 and H.R. 1510 requiring 
laboratories to comply with existing regulatory law so to 
distinguish research centers from their ``production'' and 
related facilities.
    Dr. Narath spoke in support of H.R. 2142 and discussed 
common weakness of H.R. 87 and H.R. 1993 creating a Facilities 
Commission to review and modify DOE's plan before the 
Department has demonstrated failure in aligning its laboratory 
system with its mission responsibilities. Dr. Narath stated 
that assigning laboratories specific missions may hinder their 
ability to progress toward becoming an effective system of 
laboratories. Dr. Narath testified against corporatization 
stating that it eliminates a linkage between the laboratories 
and the Executive Branch encouraging the Department to direct 
its funds elsewhere. He stated that a Board of Trustees is 
unlikely to be effective in resource allocation. He is 
supportive of the GOCO (Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated) 
model of laboratory management stating that it should be 
revitalized and restored. Any change to the laboratory system 
should preserve the joint agency responsibility and 
accountability for nuclear weapons.
    Dr. Olesen stated that increasing economic productivity and 
enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. industry should not be a 
core mission of either DOE or the national laboratories. He 
testified that primary research missions of the national 
laboratories should be those that are not more effectively 
conducted by universities or private industry. He also 
testified that a clear mission focus in each laboratory will 
improve the performance of the laboratories both individually 
and as a system. He stated that DOE's core missions of energy, 
environment, national security, and fundamental science should 
be the primary focus of the national laboratories. Dr. Olesen 
noted that rather than attempting to regulate the size of the 
work force, the government should hold laboratory management 
contractors accountable for achieving the scientific results 
and meeting the technology needs specified by the government. 
He also recommended revitalization of the GOCO model in 
contrast to the corporatization and privatization alternatives 
and stated that the GOCO model is highly effective in meeting 
government R&D needs.
    Dr. King spoke in support of the GOCO model that ensures a 
greater level of contractor responsibility, autonomy and 
accountability to enable the national laboratories to fulfill 
their roles as efficient and cost-effective vehicles in support 
of national missions. He stated that the role of the DOE 
national laboratories should be mission-driven, keyed to 
national needs and issues, and focused on problems whose 
solutions require multidisciplinary expertise. He spoke in 
support of HR. 2142 but not H.R. 1510 because of its proposed 
one-third reduction. He stated that any decisions about the 
size and scope of the national laboratories should be made only 
after their missions have been clearly defined.
Panel 3
    Dr. Gay fully supports DOE's national laboratory 
realignment activities. He stated that a comprehensive 
strategic plan is needed to define laboratory missions and to 
allocate resources to accomplish these missions. He spoke 
against privatizing facilities stating that they will not 
attract sufficient funding to effectively fulfill national 
missions. He also stated that improving the DOE national 
laboratory system involves the following steps: establish clear 
missions; prioritize research tasks and funding; assess core 
competencies of individual laboratories; assign specific 
missions; review and redefine governance structure; and define 
the best DOE oversight and laboratory management structure. 
NREL supports the ``basic thrust'' of H.R. 2142. Dr. Gay stated 
that H.R. 2142's core mission provisions could provide 
appropriate guidance to a commission which would review and 
evaluate all pertinent recent studies. In general Dr. Gay 
supports H.R. 87 and H.R. 1993 and the formation of an 
independent commission to make recommendations on reconfiguring 
and streamlining the DOE laboratory system but he says both 
bills are too narrowly focused. He also suggested that the 
bills: seek to facilitate the clear definition of laboratory 
missions; evaluate prioritization of laboratory work; assess 
whether current missions are being effectively accomplished; 
identify unnecessary overlap and application; ascertain whether 
any laboratories should be consolidated, reduced in size or 
scope, reconfigured or closed; and determine appropriate 
staffing levels for individual laboratories. Regarding H.R. 
1510, the NREL supports elimination of self-regulation at DOE 
laboratories.
    Dr. Hecker spoke in support of the importance of defining 
missions for the DOE laboratories. He noted that in addition to 
a compelling mission, it is imperative that the laboratories 
demonstrate cost effective operations. He does not favor 
establishing additional commissions or conducting more studies 
of the laboratories, nor does he endorse arbitrary size 
reduction. He suggests the path outlined in H.R. 2142 to define 
the missions of the laboratories and then size them 
accordingly. He noted that three crucial research functions 
continue to be best performed by the DOE laboratories--nuclear 
weapons defined broadly, energy and environment, and a sharing 
of the fundamental research mission with other federal 
agencies. He noted that mission assignment for the individual 
laboratories should reflect their scientific and technical core 
competencies as well as the ability of the laboratory to 
satisfy specific customer requirements. Dr. Hecker spoke in 
support of the GOCO system of governance and noted that the 
system has eroded over time. He suggested the system be rebuilt 
based on the same fundamental principles.
    Dr. Schriesheim testified that the mission of the 
Department of Energy is clearly stated in its strategic plan. 
He noted that one of the most important missions for DOE 
laboratories is the design, construction, and operation of user 
research facilities. He agreed that DOE improve the 
coordination of its basic sciences program with its energy 
technology programs. Dr. Schriesheim spoke in support of 
greater DOE coordination of basic science programs with energy 
technology programs and more partnerships with industry. He 
also supports elimination of self regulation.
    Dr. Tarter stated the core mission areas of the DOE 
national laboratories: national security; energy; environmental 
science and technology; and underpinning fields of basic 
science. He testified that each major DOE laboratory needs to 
have a defining purpose which will cause the laboratories to 
appropriately ``size'' themselves as the mission and program 
definitions are refined, and as the management requirements are 
restructured. Dr. Tarter supports the GOCO laboratory 
arrangement and stated that every effort should be made to 
retain and improve it.
    Dr. Trivelpiece expressed concern about lab closures and 
the private sectors decreased investment in research. He also 
spoke in support of the GOCO concept.
    Dr. Crawford supports R&D partnerships with industry, 
universities, and other federal laboratories. He testified that 
realignment of the DOE laboratories is necessary, but should be 
driven by mission requirements and best business practices. He 
said that it is unwise to prescribe an explicit size and 
personnel limitation (as H.R. 1510 would mandate) and to make 
closure recommendations before missions have been mapped to 
resources and facilities. He is supportive of H.R. 2142 and 
concerned that as missions are defined for the laboratories, a 
trend toward finer and finer differentiation among missions 
might eventually move the multiprogram laboratory system in the 
direction of very narrowly defined, single-mission 
laboratories. Dr. Crawford spoke in support of the GOCO system.

   4.3(d)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science Behind 
Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 1--Stratospheric Ozone: Myths 
                             and Realities

                           September 20, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-31

Background
    On September 20, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the first in a series of hearings to receive 
testimony on the use of scientific research by agencies under 
the Subcommittee's jurisdiction in the formulation of federal 
policies and mandates. The hearing, entitled, ``Scientific 
Integrity and Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies 
and Mandates, Case Study 1--Stratospheric Ozone: Myths and 
Realities,'' focused on the science behind the accelerated 
timetable for the phase-out of anthropogenic compounds, 
including chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) and methyl bromide, 
suspected of depleting the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer.
    The witnesses included: Congressman Tom Delay and 
Congressman John T. Doolittle and two panels.
    Panel one testified on science issues and included: Dr. 
Robert T. Watson, Associate Director of Environment at the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Dr. S. Fred Singer, 
President of the Science and Environment Policy Project; Dr. 
Daniel L. Albritton, Director of the Aeronomy Laboratory of the 
Environmental Research Laboratories of the national Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Senior 
Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute; Dr. Richard 
Setlow, Associate Director of Life Sciences, Brookhaven 
national Laboratory; and Dr. Margaret L. Kripke, Professor and 
Chairman of the Department of Immunology at the University of 
Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
    The second panel focused on economic, regulatory and policy 
issues and consisted of: the Honorable Mary Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation at the Environmental 
Protection Agency; Mr. Kevin Fay, of the Alliance for 
Responsible Atmospheric Policy; Mr. Ben Liebermann, 
Environmental Research Associate for the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute; Professor Richard L. Stroup, Senior Associate for 
the Policy Economy Research Center; and Dr. Dale Pollet, 
Project Leader for Entomology at the Louisiana Cooperative 
Extension Service.
Summary of hearing
    Congressman Doolittle testified in opposition to 
accelerating the phase-out date for CFCs from 2000 to 1996. 
According to Congressman Doolittle, the scientific evidence to 
date does not justify the accelerated ban, which takes affect 
on December 31, 1995, for a number of reasons: NASA retracted 
its 1992 findings that an ozone hole was likely to open over 
North America; astronomical costs are associated with a ban on 
CFCs; flaws are present in EPA's cost-benefit analysis; and 
safe CFC replacements are not readily available.
    Congressman Delay also questioned the science behind the 
CFC ban, as well as the connection between ozone depletion and 
current increases in skin cancer rates. In addition, he 
expressed concern about the unknown environmental impact of CFC 
replacements and the costs to the American family associated 
with CFC phase-out.
Panel 1
    Dr. Watson presented what he termed the scientific 
consensus of the overwhelming majority of the international 
scientific community on ozone depletion. He stressed the 
critical importance for sound science and risk assessment as 
the basis for regulatory policy on environmental issues. Dr. 
Watson highlighted the dangers of increased ultraviolet-B 
radiation (UV-B), including melanoma and non-melanoma skin 
cancers, eye cataracts, and possibly suppressed immune-
response. According to Dr. Watson, an increase in ground UV-B 
can be attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion resulting 
from human activity, specifically the use of CFCs. However, he 
also stated that more evidence is needed to clearly establish a 
trend of increased ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface 
and also to determine whether there is a direct relationship 
between UV-B and melanoma.
    Dr. Singer supplied examples of the lack of scientific 
integrity underlying the ozone issue and cases where the 
science was manipulated in such a way to yield ``certain 
political objectives.'' According to Dr. Singer, accelerated 
phase-out of CFCs is based upon a CFC-ozone theory that has 
never been proven. Dr. Singer, who supports the original phase-
out date of 2000, testified that a longer record is necessary 
to isolate natural variations, including the solar cycle, from 
the data before concluding there is a long-term trend 
indicating a decline in stratospheric ozone. He cautioned that 
evidence indicating an increasing trend in UV-B radiation and 
resulting harmful health effects is based on mathematical 
models, not direct measurements. He emphasized that non-
melanoma skin cancer resulting from changes in ozone cannot be 
deduced from the evidence to date. He agrees with Dr. Setlow, 
that skin cancers, in general, have increased over the last 60 
years as a result of a change in lifestyle and not changes in 
UV or ozone levels.
    In addition, Dr. Singer highlighted his experience with 
those within the scientific community who do not agree with the 
current theory but do not speak up for fear of losing research 
funding. He also expressed concern over the potential harm to 
the economy as a result of the accelerated phase-out date and 
the practice of ``science by press release.''
    Dr. Albritton testified on the impact of human activities 
on the stratospheric ozone layer. He addressed the findings of 
``Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994,'' summarizing 
the current viewpoint on ozone depletion. He stated that there 
is no doubt among the vast majority of scientists that man-made 
compounds destroy stratospheric ozone and have led to the 
creation of an ozone ``hole'' over the Antarctic. He conceded 
that at present there is no documented long-term increasing 
trend in UV levels and that some fluctuation in the level of 
ozone can be attributed to natural processes.
    Dr. Baliunas noted the difficulty of measuring the impact 
of anthropogenic factors on the ozone layer, citing natural 
variability of ozone levels and other natural factors which 
make it difficult to deduce an anthropogenic trend. She also 
noted the difficulty of establishing long-term trends in 
existing UV-B exposure data. Dr. Baliunas believes that a five 
year delay in phase-out of CFCs, back to the original date of 
2000, would result in an insignificant UV-B increase when 
compared to natural fluctuations. She further stated that such 
small UV-B increases should not be regarded as a significant 
threat to public health. She feels that more research should be 
conducted to measure ground-level UV-B and assess the 
environmental and health impacts of CFC replacement chemicals. 
Dr. Baliunus informed members of the Committee of her 
experience with federal funding agencies that had discouraged 
her from applying for funding to study subjects that might 
question conventional wisdom on ozone depletion. The Chairman 
asked her to submit a letter detailing efforts by groups inside 
and outside government to stifle discussion of the issue.
    Dr. Setlow testified on the health effects attributed to 
the increase of UV exposure due to decreases in stratospheric 
ozone. He highlighted findings from experiments with UV 
radiation on mice and tropical fish. According to Dr. Setlow, 
``the results from studies on fish, if extrapolated to humans, 
indicate that any ozone depletion and attendant UV-B increase 
will have only a small effect on melanoma induction.'' Dr. 
Setlow attributed the current four to five percent a year 
increase in skin cancer to changes in lifestyle and not ozone 
depletion. Further, he testified that the use of sunscreens, 
which inhibit the absorption of UV-B to prevent sunburn (but 
encourage individuals to extend exposure to the sun) lead to 
increased exposure to UV-A, increasing the risk of melanoma. In 
addition, he testified that skin cancer is the result of 
chronic exposure to the sun's radiation, rather than 
instantaneous exposure to increased levels of radiation, as 
from an event such as the ozone hole.
    Dr. Kripke presented data from 20 years of research 
focusing on the role of UV-B radiation in both basal and 
squamous cell cancers of the skin, cataracts, and suppression 
of the immune-response system. According to Dr. Kripke, a full 
understanding of the contribution of ultraviolet radiation to 
melanoma cannot be estimated from current data. She stated that 
if UV-A is the principal cause of melanoma, then the impact of 
ozone depletion on melanoma skin cancer rates is limited. She 
believes more research on the effects of UV-B radiation, 
specifically on immune response and melanoma, as well as the 
health effects of replacement compounds, is necessary.
Panel 2
    Ms. Nichols focused on the scientific basis for 
accelerating the phase-out and the resulting economic impact. 
She testified that the decision to move to an accelerated 
phase-out date for CFCs rests on an overwhelming consensus of 
the scientific community, economists, and business leaders. She 
disagreed with the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute's (CEI) 
estimate of the $45-$100 billion cost to the economy from the 
phase-out of CFCs. Ms. Nichols admitted that questions still 
exist as to what level of exposure causes an increase in skin 
cancer. According to Ms. Nichols, EPA has the support of the 
White House to work on language to give an ``essential-use 
exemption'' for agricultural uses of ozone-depleting compounds 
which have no substitutes.
    Mr. Fay testified on behalf of 250 industry members on the 
need to maintain economic competitiveness during the transition 
from CFCs to their substitutes. He testified that the 
scientific basis for phase-out of CFCs is credible and has 
remained basically unchanged since the original policy decision 
to phase-out production of the compound. According to Mr. Fay, 
producer industries have acted responsibly and quickly to 
develop and implement safe and effective substitute 
technologies that allowed the phase-out to be accelerated. As a 
result of quick action by industry, further restrictions to 
other compounds, such as HCFCs, are unnecessary. However, he 
feels much still needs to be done internationally in order to 
ensure full compliance with the Montreal Protocol, including 
completion of CFC phase-out in developing countries and better 
enforcement against the trade of illegally imported CFCs. He 
believes the black market on CFCs will fade if Congress 
eliminates the excise tax of $5.35 on the compounds.
    Mr. Liebermann testified on the consumer impact of the 
accelerated CFC-phase-out. According to Mr. Liebermann, 
American consumers will face a disproportionate share of the 
cost associated with CFC-phase-out. U.S. consumers will spend 
$2 billion more annually to repair their car air conditioners 
as a result of the accelerated phase-out date. In addition, 
other nations are not strongly enforcing the phase-out, 
allowing a black market for CFCs to go unchecked. Mr. 
Liebermann stated that acceleration of CFC-phase-out will 
exacerbate costs due to large volumes of existing equipment 
requiring premature replacement or retrofitting; continuing 
technological bugs with substitute refrigerants and equipment; 
and uncertainty about the safety of CFC substitutes. He also 
stated that equipment requiring CFCs is more efficient than 
comparable non-CFC systems.
    Professor Stroup testified on the importance of proper 
policy decision-making on CFCs with regard to the gains claimed 
and the sacrifices imposed by such policies. He asked, ``Will 
the known costs and the added risks that we force onto 
Americans by banning CFCs rapidly be counter-balanced or offset 
by the benefits of reduced stratospheric ozone depletion?'' An 
overestimate of one risk relative to others, cited by Professor 
Stroup, involved the original asbestos-containing putty used to 
seal the O-ring system of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Despite 
a proven track record of safety and effectiveness, the asbestos 
putty was replaced by an asbestos-free putty after asbestos was 
banned. The new putty contributed to the tragic loss of the 
Challenger. According to Professor Stroup, CFCs, like asbestos, 
can be replaced, but not without sacrificing many benefits, 
such as safe, cheap refrigeration which increases food safety.
    Dr. Pollet addressed the negative economic, nutritional, 
and environmental impacts of a methyl bromide-phase-out. 
According to Dr. Pollet, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
studied 21 crops in five states and projected $1.5 billion in 
direct economic losses from a ban on methyl bromide. The ban on 
methyl bromide will also contribute to the loss of American 
food production independence since many farmers will not be 
able to compete in world markets. Environmental impacts of the 
methyl bromide phase-out will include harm to reforestation 
efforts as well as the increased use of dangerous pesticides. 
At present, farmers do not have alternatives to methyl bromide. 
It will require 10 or more years and $50 to $100 million to 
develop a viable substitute. Dr. Pollet estimated that even if 
there were no scientific uncertainties about methyl bromide's 
impact on the ozone layer, the most optimistic environmental 
benefits would not be greater than the damage incurred from 
phase-out.

    4.3(e)--Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD): Are We Covered?

                            October 17, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-25

Background
    On October 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held an oversight hearing entitled, ``Next 
Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD): Are We Covered?'' on the 
national Weather Service's (NWS's) current plan for 
modernization focusing on Next Generation Weather Radar 
(NEXRAD) coverage for the United States. Witnesses offered 
their assessments of two recently released reports, ``Toward a 
New national Weather Service: Assessment of NEXRAD Coverage and 
Associated Weather Services,'' by the national Research Council 
(NRC); and ``Weather Forecasting: Radar Availability 
Requirement Not Met,'' by the United States General Accounting 
Office (GAO), which identify areas in the United States that 
may receive less-than-optimal coverage under the Department of 
Commerce's Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 national Implementation Plan 
For the Modernization of the national Weather Service (NWS).
    The witnesses included: Congressman Steve Buyer, 
Congressman Phil English, Congressman George W. Gekas, 
Congressman Wally Herger, Congressman Mark E. Souder, and 
Congressman William M. Thornberry, who all testified on the 
effect of the modernization efforts on their districts. Also 
testifying were Dr. Joe Friday, Director of the national 
Weather Service, NOAA; Mr. William Gordon, Chairman of the 
NEXRAD Panel of the national Weather Service Modernization 
Committee of the national Research Council; and Mr. Jack L. 
Brock, Jr., Director of the Defense Information Management 
Division of the United States General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
    Congressman Buyer expressed concern for the potential 
degradation of service associated with the closure of local 
weather service offices. He proposed using Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) NEXRADs, originally designated to provide 
spare parts for existing radars, and siting the new system at 
the Grissom Air Reserve Base in Northern Indiana.
    Congressman English testified on the impact of the 
modernization on weather services near Lake Erie. The Erie 
region, an area with variable weather which is often difficult 
to predict, was identified by the NRC as one of five areas 
within the United States where NEXRAD coverage might be 
inadequate. Congressman English indicated that defects in the 
new system, which include the distance of the NEXRAD from the 
forecast area; less than optimal ASOS (Automated Surface 
Observing System) performance; and the replacement of 
professional staff with less experienced subcontractors, could 
significantly affect the safety of the Erie region.
    Congressman Gekas indicated his skepticism for the ability 
of a new NEXRAD to deliver adequate weather coverage to 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He believes the NWS disregarded a 
radar gap resulting from the positioning of a NEXRAD 115 miles 
north of the Harrisburg metropolitan area on Rattlesnake Ridge 
in Black Moshannon State Park. He asked the Committee to 
address the situation created by the NWS and urged members to 
rectify any degradation of weather forecasting.
    Congressman Souder urged the Committee to direct the NWS to 
modify its modernization plan. He believes the plan should be 
reconciled with the NRC conclusion that some areas could 
experience degradation of service and additional NEXRAD units 
should be commissioned. He testified that northeast Indiana and 
northwest Ohio experience the second highest rate of tornado-
related deaths and frequent microburst wind damage. He 
suggested optimum placement of a new site would be in northeast 
Indiana instead of northcentral Indiana.
    Congressman Herger reiterated the modernization plan's 
shortcomings and the risks it may pose to public safety. 
According to Congressman Herger, an area north of Redding, 
California, due to its unique geography, will experience 
degradation in weather service after the closing of the Redding 
office. Congressman Herger highlighted the services provided by 
the Redding office to Northern California, which include flood 
and wildfire forecasting as well as weather forecasting for the 
busy Interstate-5 corridor. He suggested placing a NEXRAD in 
Red Bluff, just south of Redding.
    Congressman Thornberry testified on problems associated 
with the 15 Department of Defense (DOD)-operated radars around 
the country, which, according to the NRC, do not satisfy the 
same standards as the NWS-operated radars. At the Congressman's 
suggestion, representatives from the Air Force, NWS, local 
telephone companies, and long distance carriers were called 
together to discuss the reliability of radar coverage for North 
Texas. The NRC identified problems which can potentially cause 
the entire radar to shut down without warning, including downed 
phone lines and the lack of back-up power. In addition to 
problems within the radar system, he expressed concern for the 
large areas sometimes covered by a single NWS forecast office.
Panel 1
    Dr. Friday testified that although the country is already 
enjoying benefits from modernization, much still needs to be 
done in order to reach the new system's full potential. NOAA 
contracted the NRC to identify where possible degradation of 
service could occur as existing radars are decommissioned. The 
Commerce Secretary then put together a team to move beyond the 
NRC findings and consider the total network before determining 
the potential for service degradation. The Secretary's report, 
scheduled to be submitted to Congress in November, will respond 
to NRC recommendations. One of the recommendations concerned 
the critical contribution of the DOD NEXRADs to the nation-wide 
network and the need to ensure operational availability of all 
NEXRADs in the network. Increasing the timeliness of NWS 
warnings, NEXRADs are one of the cornerstones of the NWS 
modernization and part of a national network which will provide 
a significant improvement over the present radar network. The 
Secretary's team will also develop recommendations of its own 
related to NWS modernized operations.
    Dr. Friday stated that the NWS is already addressing 
concerns over the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS), in 
conjunction with the FAA and the aviation community, by 
contracting human observers to augment the system until 
technical issues are resolved. He justified acquisition of the 
surplus FAA radars in anticipation of a possible requirement to 
add a small number radars to the system. Money will be saved 
whether the FAA NEXRADs are used for radars or spare parts when 
compared to the expense of new radars or spare parts. According 
to Mr. Friday, if the Secretary's report recommends additional 
radars, they would be in place and running in 18 to 24 months. 
In addition, although the implementation plan calls for 
reducing the number of NWS offices from 300 to 118, only six 
offices have gone through the certification process to be 
closed and staff has been adjusted in only a few areas.
    Dr. Gordon and Mr. Floyd Hauth, Study Director for the 
Committee on the Modernization of the NWS, testified on the 
Panel's recommendations, as well as suggestions for evaluation 
procedures and criteria for use in site-by-site evaluations of 
radar coverage. Mr. Gordon presented the conclusion of the 
NEXRAD Panel of the national Weather Service Modernization 
Committee (NWSMC) that ``weather services on a national basis 
will be improved substantially under the currently planned 
NEXRAD network.'' He stated that the new radars would be far 
more powerful and sensitive than the old radar system. In areas 
where the pre-NEXRAD radar is not replaced and service is to be 
provided by a NEXRAD located some distance away, the panel's 
analyses show that there is a potential for some degradation in 
radar-detection coverage capability. However, according to Mr. 
Hauth, the Panel did not recommend locating NEXRADs where each 
pre-existing radar was formerly located. Due to topographic 
obstacles, in some cases it may be better to locate the NEXRAD 
at another site and look at the detection capabilities of the 
radar once the national network is in place.
     According to Dr. Gordon, degradation of radar-detection 
coverage doesn't necessarily mean degradation of weather 
service in the forecasting and warning functions when you 
consider the entire system. Degradation of associated warning 
services must be compensated for by other improvements in the 
system through modernization.
    Mr. Brock stated that a modernized weather service will 
improve national radar coverage, but emphasized important 
questions remain regarding possible gaps in the current siting 
scheme. He testified that from 20 to 35 percent of Air Force 
NEXRAD sites are still falling short of the availability 
requirement each month despite the initiation of steps by the 
Air Force and NWS to implement GAO recommendations. According 
to Mr. Brock, NEXRADs lack an uninterruptible power supply 
(UPS) to protect against power outages. The NEXRAD program 
office did not expect loss of power to be a significant risk. 
NWS and the Air Force now plan to retrofit their respective 
NEXRADs with an UPS capability at an estimated cost of $125,000 
per radar, but do not call for all sites to receive these 
retrofits until Fiscal Year 2002. Mr. Brock stated the NWS 
bought two FAA NEXRADs which would provide spare parts and save 
$900,000. If the NWS determines that additional NEXRADs are 
needed, the program office estimates $3.8 million will be 
required to convert the two FAA radars into four systems, 
making the total price for four NWS NEXRADs about $8.4 million. 
This is one-third the amount the NWS would have to spend to buy 
equivalent new systems. However, as funds allocated for UPS 
retrofit were used for purchase of the FAA NEXRADs, retrofit 
completion has been delayed.

   4.3(f)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science Behind 
    Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 2--Climate Models and 
       Projections of Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change

                           November 16, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-35

Background
    On November 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the second in a series of oversight hearings 
to receive testimony on the use of scientific research and data 
by agencies under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction in the 
formulation of federal policies and implementation of federal 
mandates. The hearing, entitled, ``Scientific Integrity and 
Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates, 
Case Study 2--Climate Models and Projections of Potential 
Impacts of Global Climate Change,'' focused on climate models 
and their uses and limitations in projecting changes in the 
global climate and impacts associated with those changes.
    Witnesses were arranged into two panels. Panel one 
included: Mr. Peter F. Guerrero, Director of Environmental 
Protection Issues for the Resources, Community, and Economic 
Development Division of the United States General Accounting 
Office (GAO); Dr. Jerry Mahlman, Director for the Geophysical 
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at the national Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and Dr. Patrick Michaels, 
Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science 
at the University of Virginia.
    Panel two consisted of: Dr. Robert T. Watson, Associate 
Director of Environment in the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy; Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus at the 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Mr. David Gardiner of the 
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation at the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA); Dr. Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow 
at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University; and Dr. 
Robert W. Corell, Assistant Director for Geosciences at the 
national Science Foundation, and Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Global Change Research.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Guerrero presented the testimony of GAO based on the 
July 1995 GAO report, ``Global Warming: Limitations of General 
Circulation Models and Costs of Modeling Efforts.'' According 
to Mr. Guerrero, although general circulation models are the 
most highly developed tools available to develop understanding 
of the global climate's response to greenhouse gas emissions, 
the models remain limited in their ability to estimate future 
climatic changes. These limitations stem from scientists' 
imperfect understanding of the climate system and computers' 
insufficient capacity to perform the detailed calculations 
needed to make more precise estimates. However, efforts are 
underway to improve the accuracy of the models including 
incorporation of more of the processes affecting the climate 
system--particularly cloud formation processes--and better 
reflect interactions among various components of the climate 
system. Scientists are also developing larger and faster 
computers to manipulate data for longer periods of time and to 
better understand regional effects. According to Mr. Guerrero, 
the ability to model will continue to improve, but there will 
never be one hundred percent certainty. Even if scientists 
completely understood the physical processes they are modeling 
and the climate systems themselves, and they do not, 
unvalidated assumptions regarding emission rates, population 
growth, and technology development would still have to be used 
by the modelers.
    Dr. Mahlman presented the estimated climatic effects in the 
year 2050 from the projected increase in greenhouse gases. 
According to Dr. Mahlman, information was derived from the 
strengths and weaknesses of climate models, climate theory, and 
widespread observations of the climate system. His assessment 
of the change in climate by the middle of the next century 
included several predictions with varying levels of confidence. 
According to Dr. Mahlman, although there are no more credible 
counter-hypotheses to the assertion that the observed warming 
over the last century is attributed to the greenhouse effect, 
scientists cannot say with absolute certainty that the observed 
temperature change over the last century can be ascribable to 
anthropogenic factors. He emphasized that understanding cloud 
response is still the most serious barrier to more confident 
predictions about climate warming. Also, it is uncertain 
whether a warmer, wetter atmosphere could lead to increased 
intensities of tropical storms. According to Dr. Mahlman, the 
predicted warming to date is not yet large compared to natural 
climate fluctuations, which on short time scales, can mask 
greenhouse warming signals. In addition, the presence of 
sulfate aerosols, from industrial pollution, exerts a 
previously unquantified cooling effect on the planet. As a 
result of our increased understanding of the offset due to 
sulfate aerosols, the predicted rate of global warming has 
decreased. With respect to predicting impacts associated with 
global warming, Dr. Mahlman warned ``the state of knowledge of 
the wide range of possible impacts and costs of climate change 
is far less certain than are the predictions for the climate 
system.'' He emphasized that without a better climate-change 
measuring system, research and predictions can not be properly 
evaluated.
    Dr. Michaels testified that recent reports which claim 
serious ecological consequences as a result of global warming 
are based upon models that are now known to have greatly 
overpredicted the extent of greenhouse warming. According to 
Dr. Michaels, new calculations support the view of scientists 
who predicted that global warming would be relatively modest. 
Older calculations were the basis for the 1992 Framework 
Convention on Climate Change and known, even at that time, to 
greatly overestimate warming. The record of temperature 
measurements from the atmosphere show no net temperature change 
from 1977 through 1994, and there is no net change from the 
beginning of the record in 1965 to 1976. The temperature 
increase appears to have occurred between 1976 and 1977. No 
model will ever show such a one-time warming spike. The most 
important development in the last two years is that it is now 
acknowledged that if global warming occurs at all, it will be a 
very modest. In Dr. Michaels' opinion, the lower part of the 
projected global warming, on the order of 1 to 4 degrees 
Celsius, is not cause to implement risky economic policy.
Panel 2
    Dr. Watson testified that climate change is likely to have 
a ``wide-ranging and mostly adverse effect on human health, 
with significant loss of life.'' His testimony was based on 
findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) Working Group II's present state of understanding of the 
climate system. According to Dr. Watson, theoretical models 
that take into account increased greenhouse gas and sulfate 
aerosol concentrations simulate observed changes in surface 
temperature and vertical temperature distribution, suggesting 
that human activities are implicated in the observed changes in 
the Earth's climate. The IPCC Working Group II concluded that 
human health, ecological systems, and socio-economic sectors 
are all vulnerable to climate change. However, many of the 
impacts are difficult to quantify because existing studies are 
limited in scope. In answer to questions by the members about 
the peer-review of the IPCC document, Dr. Watson indicated the 
present system is not perfect, but probably the best that can 
be expected at this moment in time. Dr. Watson believes 
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are 
technologically possible and economically feasible.
    Dr. Nierenberg emphasized his certainty that the current 
anthropological growth of CO2 in the atmosphere will influence 
the climate. However, when, how much, and the nature and 
magnitude of the effects remain uncertain. More significant 
than the change in the average global surface temperature 
change is the knowledge of the change in the statistical 
behavior of regional quantities such as rainfall, storm 
frequency and intensity, flooding, coastal storm surges and so 
on. He stressed that a significant weakness of the 
approximately fifteen climate models worldwide is demonstrated 
in a spread of temperature rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees 
centigrade for an anticipated doubling of atmospheric CO2. In 
addition, the coupled ocean-atmosphere model has provided 
better insight into the decay time of excess anthropogenic CO2 
in the atmosphere. According to Dr. Nierenberg, the exponential 
lifetime for the disappearance of excess CO2 in the atmosphere 
is now approximated at between 50 and 160 years, down from the 
1000 years proposed at the time of the 1983 national 
Atmospheric Studies (NAS) report. With this in mind, Dr. 
Nierenberg believes policymakers can now safely wait until the 
science behind climate changes becomes clearer before taking 
action.
    Mr. Gardiner testified on EPA's assessment of sea level 
rise. According to Mr. Gardiner, estimates of sea level rise 
vary substantially by locality. Both the IPCC and the EPA 
reports note that the latest estimates of sea level rise are 
lower than previous estimates, primarily due to lower estimates 
of global temperature change.
    Dr. Moore testified that it is unquestionable that the 
Earth's climate will change. He suggested that although the 
evidence supporting the claim that the earth has grown warmer 
is shaky, if warming occurs it is more likely to bring net 
benefits to Americans and most of the world. According to Dr. 
Moore, it is well documented that the Earth's climate has 
changed with time. Warmer periods in the past have been 
beneficial to the human race. With global warming, longer 
growing seasons and increased agricultural output would result 
from increased precipitation and milder temperatures. In 
addition, increased CO2 would also boost forest productivity by 
20 percent and warmer temperatures will also mean fewer and 
less violent storms. Dr. Moore emphasized the declining 
influence of climate on human activities with the growth in 
wealth and resources. According to Dr. Moore, modern society is 
less dependent upon farming, principally affected by a change 
in climate. Today's society has developed a more industrial 
base, boosting immunity to temperature variations. Dr. Moore 
believes the way to deal with potential climate change is to 
promote growth and prosperity which would provide the needed 
resources to adapt to changing temperatures. According to Dr. 
Moore, the worst aspect of global warming would be a rise in 
the sea level, which could be costly, but can be dealt with if 
necessary. He explained that policymakers would have to 
consider preventative measures only if warming should create 
more difficulties than benefits in the future.
    Dr. Corell testified on the research strategies that 
underlie climate modeling efforts and the research strategies 
that support studies on impacts of climate change. He stated 
the present climate change models are the best tools available 
to provide insight into what may happen to the planet if 
emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow. According to 
Dr. Corell, the goal of the climate change program is to 
provide credible, state-of-the-art, global modeling capability. 
Computer models enable tracking of the important complex 
interactions and are used to sharpen the understanding of key 
factors guiding the behavior of the planet's weather. The 
integrated mathematical-based models bring together scientific 
understanding of winds, air pressure, ocean currents, 
temperature, salinity, water vapor, clouds, solar and infrared 
radiation, precipitation and evaporation, and other factors. At 
present, current models are still not able to predict important 
regional issues. Dr. Corell emphasized the importance of 
increasing computational capabilities in order to improve the 
finer-scale resolution of climate models. In addition, Dr. 
Corell testified there are currently 11 federal agencies 
sharing an annual budget of $1.8 billion to study global 
climate change because no single agency has the resources 
necessary to attack such a complex problem on its own.

 4.3(g)--Superfund Research and Development: The Role Of R&D Within A 
                           Reformed Superfund

                            December 6, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-37

Background
    On December 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Superfund Research and 
Development: The Role Of R&D Within A Reformed Superfund,'' to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the Superfund Research and 
Development (R&D) program and review its role under a reformed 
Superfund. The hearing also examined whether R&D is the best 
use of funding from the Hazardous Waste Trust Fund. The fund's 
primary purpose is the cleanup of contaminated sites. The R&D 
program, currently funded at roughly $60 million a year, is 
reauthorized in H.R. 2500, the Reform of Superfund Act of 1995.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Robert J. Huggett, Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development at EPA; and Mr. 
Lawrence J. Dyckman, Associate Director of Environmental 
Protection Issues for the Resources, Community, and Economic 
Development Division of the United States General Accounting 
Office (GAO).
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Huggett testified on the research performed in EPA's 
Office of Research and Development (ORD). According to Dr. 
Huggett, the Superfund research done by ORD strives to improve 
site characterization, risk assessment methods, and the cost-
effectiveness of remediation technologies. The program is 
currently funded at approximately $60 million (for FY 1995) 
which supports 146 scientists, engineers and staff. Dr. Huggett 
described the process by which innovative technologies are 
selected for testing at contaminated sites identified by EPA. 
Dr. Huggett also explained that the EPA will continue to work 
with the DOE labs and increase collaboration with the academic 
community. He praised EPA's Superfund R&D program, giving 
special emphasis to the Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation (SITE) program. Dr. Huggett noted that some changes 
to the Superfund R&D program are warranted. Specifically, he 
expressed his support for making all funding for the Superfund 
academic research centers competitive.
    Mr. Dyckman testified on GAO's review of EPA's Superfund 
R&D program. Specifically he discussed EPA's use of innovative 
technologies at Superfund sites, which factors limit the use of 
innovative technologies, and how EPA's SITE program encourages 
the development and use of innovative technologies at Superfund 
sites. Mr. Dyckman described the 1992 GAO review of SITE which 
identified significant problems within the program. According 
to the report, SITE only provides testing for new technologies 
under limited conditions, making it difficult to assess the 
wide-scale applicability of these new technologies. In 
addition, EPA selected an innovative technology in only about 
20 percent of all cleanups in 1994 and only a few technologies, 
including soil vapor extraction, thermal desorption, and fire 
remediation, account for almost half of the new technologies in 
use. Mr. Dyckman questioned whether EPA has identified enough 
technologies to be of benefit to the Superfund program as a 
whole. According to Mr. Dyckman, regulatory barriers, technical 
limitations of innovative technologies, lack of sufficient cost 
and performance data, and the lack of incentives for private 
industry to invest in innovative technology have all inhibited 
the further development and widespread use of innovative 
technologies at Superfund sites. In terms of regulatory 
barriers, Mr. Dyckman believes a softening or elimination of 
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS), 
the state regulatory framework for Superfund, would benefit the 
innovative technology program.

   4.3(h)--Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science Behind 
 Federal Policies and Mandates, Case Study 3--EPA's Dioxin Reassessment

                           December 13, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-39

Background
    On December 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the third in a series of oversight hearings to 
receive testimony on the use of scientific research and data by 
agencies under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction in the 
formulation of federal policies and implementation of federal 
mandates. The hearing, entitled, ``Scientific Integrity and 
Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates, 
Case Study 3--EPA's Dioxin Reassessment,'' focused on the 
scientific foundation underlying the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) reassessment of the health effects associated 
with dioxin compounds. Concerns have been raised that chapter 
nine of the reassessment document, which focuses on health 
effects, has been based upon ``regulatory policy'' and not 
``matters of scientific fact.''
    The witnesses were arranged into two panels. Witnesses on 
panel one included: Dr. William H. Farland, Director for the 
national Center for Environmental Assessment of the Office of 
Research and Development at the Environmental Protection 
Agency; Dr. Michael Gough, Former Government Expert Member of 
the Dioxin Reassessment Review Committee of the EPA Science 
Advisory Board; Dr. George W. Lucier, Director of the 
Environmental Toxicology Program at the national Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences; and Dr. Kay H. Jones, President 
of Zephyr Consulting.
    Panel two consisted of: Admiral Elmo E. R. Zumwalt, Jr., 
USN (ret.), Agent Orange Coalition.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Dr. Farland testified on the conclusions of the EPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) from its review of EPA's reassessment of 
dioxin. The SAB found that the scientists concurred on a series 
of possible human biochemical, cellular and tissue-level 
biological changes occurring from exposure to dioxin-like 
compounds. According to Dr. Farland, ``based on all the data 
reviewed in this reassessment and scientific inference, a 
picture emerges of TCDD and related compounds as potent 
toxicants in animals with the potential to produce a spectrum 
of effects in animals, and, perhaps, in humans.'' Despite this 
he explained, ``there is currently no clear indication of 
increased disease in the general population attributable to 
dioxin-like compounds.'' Dr. Farland also conceded EPA's risk 
characterization includes high levels of exposure to animals, 
but only limited human information. He informed the Committee 
that EPA will now look at alternative models to the linear 
model, which may exaggerate and overestimate cancer risks 
associated with exposure to dioxin, and write it into the risk 
characterization portion of the reassessment. Finally, in the 
future, Dr. Farland recommends outside peer-review of other EPA 
reassessment documents.
    Dr. Gough testified on the inconsistency between the 
scientific findings in the earlier chapters and the analyses 
and conclusions in chapters 8 and 9 of the reassessment. Dr. 
Gough stated his opinion that conclusions from the EPA document 
are inadequate and do not provide direction for research or 
decision making. According to Dr. Gough, there are recurring 
faulty themes in the review committee's report to the SAB. 
First, EPA added the estimated toxicity of all dioxin-like 
molecules together. Also, EPA derived toxicity data at high 
dose levels and failed to adequately describe its methods for 
extrapolating lower dosage risks. In addition, EPA failed to 
factor the Ah-recepter, which may bind with dioxin to produce 
the toxic effects, or any other receptor into EPA's risk 
assessment. Further, if one of the models had included a 
receptor, that model would predict a non-linear and/or a 
threshold containing dose response curve, producing risk 
estimates lower than those produced by EPA. At present, EPA is 
using a linear model which it says exaggerates and 
overestimates the cancer risk. According to Dr. Gough, the 
linear model produces a response which is generally regarded as 
``very improbable.'' Finally, EPA classifies dioxin as a 
complete carcinogen, including all the steps that lead to 
cancer. In addition to these themes, Dr. Gough emphasized that 
EPA's estimation of human risk (at low levels of exposure to 
dioxin) were based on extrapolating results from data on 
animals exposed to high doses of the toxin. After examination 
of EPA's tables in chapter 9, which indicate that most toxic 
effects in animals occur at doses 100 to 100,000 times higher 
than human exposure rates, Dr. Gough concluded that there is an 
ample margin of safety for humans. Further, Dr. Gough cited the 
review committee's conclusion that, ``the only human effect 
that is clearly established as being related to TCDD [dioxin] 
exposure'' is chloracne. This contradicts EPA's conclusion that 
segments of the population might be suffering multiple adverse 
effects from dioxin exposures. Finally, Dr. Gough referred to 
the Ranch Hand study and the underscoring of the areas in which 
there was a negative response to dioxin, including the immune 
and other biological systems, which were not indicated in the 
risk characterization portion of the reassessment. In the 
future, he hopes that EPA will ``exercise more discipline in 
its selection of data'' and do a better job ``of presenting its 
explanations and its decision making process.''
    Dr. Lucier testified in support of the EPA SAB review of 
the dioxin reassessment. He believes that the information in 
the reassessment provides evidence that we should be concerned 
about current levels of human exposure to dioxin chemicals. He 
states, ``my bottom lines on hazard identification are that 
dioxin should be considered a probable human carcinogen and 
that non-cancer effects of dioxin and related compounds are of 
public health concern.'' He agrees with the risk 
characterization which identifies dioxin as a public health 
concern at current exposure levels, but hesitates to put a 
quantity on the level of concern. Dr. Lucier stated he would 
like to see a clearer explanation of the ``known'' and 
``unknown'' regarding the health effects of dioxin exposure in 
the finalized risk assessment chapter. He also expressed desire 
for a review of the process EPA has undertaken and an interest 
for streamlining the process to be more time efficient.
    Dr. Jones testified in nearly complete agreement with the 
EPA SAB review of the dioxin reassessment, but expressed some 
concerns regarding EPA's misuse of their non-peer reviewed 
documents for regulatory purposes. According to Dr. Jones, 
technical hypotheses must meet the peer review test in order to 
be considered ``science'' and EPA cannot exempt itself from the 
same standards of peer review imposed on scientists outside of 
government. He believes that in order to ensure 
``scientifically valid and balanced risk analyses in the 
future,'' strict procedures for peer review are necessary if 
EPA is to be allowed to continue performing both risk 
assessments and regulatory functions. He emphasized that the 
background and exposure chapters were done by internal staff at 
EPA and not subject to the same outside input as the toxicology 
chapters with which Dr. Jones was directly involved. In 
addition, Dr. Jones expressed his curiosity as to why the 
United States has taken a totally independent approach to 
dealing with dioxin risks and why EPA is treating dioxin as a 
zero-threshold pollutant.
Panel 2
    Admiral Zumwalt testified with concern over what he 
believes is the practice of constructing panels of ``scientists 
with obvious conflicts of interest'' to evaluate studies on 
Agent Orange and dioxin. According to Admiral Zumwalt, the 
panel assigned with reviewing the draft reassessment of dioxin 
by EPA contained members and consultants from the scientific 
community ``who have a strong interest in finding negative 
correlation between dioxin and health effects.'' In his 
opinion, due to the participation of these scientists, the SAB 
was unable to draw scientifically-sound conclusions. Admiral 
Zumwalt emphasized that the conclusions of the Agent Orange and 
dioxin studies benefit unspecified ``interested corporations.''

         4.3(i)--Leveraging National Oceanographic Capabilities

                            January 25, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-69

Background
    On January 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a joint hearing with the Committee on national 
Security's Subcommittee on Military Research and Development 
(R&D) and the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to receive testimony from the 
United States Navy, federal agencies, academia and other 
experts on oceanographic science and technology as well as the 
opportunities and benefits that can be derived from refocused 
and accelerated research in oceanography. The focus of the 
hearing, entitled, ``Leveraging national Oceanographic 
Capabilities,'' was on identifying potential leveraging 
mechanisms and partnerships to improve our understanding of the 
marine environment and increase fiscal efficiency through 
shared research for defense and civilian purposes.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Robert D. Ballard, Senior Scientist 
at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, President of the 
Institute for Exploration and Chairman of the Board for the 
JASON Foundation for Education; Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of 
the national Academy of Sciences and Chairman of the national 
Research Council (NRC); Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the national 
Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary 
for Oceans and Atmosphere at the national Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce; 
Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations; 
Rear Admiral Paul G. Gaffney, II, U.S. Navy Commander of Naval 
Meteorology and Oceanography at Stennis Space Center, 
Mississippi; Mr. Robert A. Frosh, Senior Research Fellow and 
Adjunct Lecturer for the Center for Science and International 
Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 
University; and Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), President 
of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Ballard predicted that human activity in the world's 
oceans will greatly expand given the explosion in population 
and the continued development of advanced technology. He stated 
the Navy's position as the leader in deep submergence 
technology and emphasized the need for improved access for 
academic institutions to that technology. Dr. Ballard also 
stressed the need to continue maintenance of an oceanographic 
fleet that will allow scientists to go to sea and pursue 
initiatives in manned vehicle and robotic systems. He reported 
that the Navy research submarine, which has become more 
accessible to the academic community, now has a support ship 
with the ability to operate remotely-operated vehicle systems. 
For the future, Dr. Ballard emphasized the critical need to 
prepare young oceanographers, scientists, and engineers. 
According to Dr. Ballard, the JASON project is a good example 
of the kind of resource leveraging that can improve 
oceanography education.
    Dr. Alberts testified on the health and future of the 
United States' ocean research programs. He emphasized the need 
for a sustained effort to understand the role of the ocean in 
human activities, recognizing the continually changing 
challenges facing society and the ocean science community. 
Marine issues of present concern include the ecosystems of 
fisheries, economic competitiveness, national security, coastal 
weather hazards, environmental quality, biodiversity, and 
global climate change. According to Dr. Alberts, increased 
cooperation among the Federal Government, academia, and private 
industry is necessary if the United States is to continue to 
lead the world in oceans science and technology development. In 
addition, he emphasized the benefit of competitive bidding and 
the peer review process. Dr. Alberts noted the importance of 
increased cooperation in the planning and use of physical 
resources, including ships, satellites, and submersibles, which 
could increase efficiency and provide better platforms for 
ocean science. He also emphasized increased utilization of the 
World Wide Web to provide localities with the data necessary 
for wise coastal planning decisions.
    Dr. Lane testified on the challenges in conducting state-
of-the-art ocean research. He emphasized the enormous pay-offs 
in terms of advanced scientific understanding and the potential 
economic benefits of oceanographic research. He is optimistic 
that NSF's past partnerships with agencies that support 
research and education in ocean science, including NOAA, the 
national Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Naval Research 
(ONR), will allow for future coordination of research and 
leveraging of resources that will be necessary in the face of 
future budgets with little or no growth. In addition, he 
emphasized the need to continue the United States' 
international cooperation with 30 countries to meet scientific 
program requirements and allow deployment of research vessels 
in all the major oceans of the world.
    Dr. Baker testified on NOAA's effort to work with the 
national and international ocean community to increase our 
knowledge of the world's oceans. According to Dr. Baker, no 
other agency has NOAA's vast responsibility for research, 
measurement, monitoring, and the delivery of products and 
services related to the oceans. He indicated that progress has 
been made in the declassification of military oceanographic 
data that is likely to be valuable to civilian agencies and 
academia. Dr. Baker invited Members of Congress to meet with 
NOAA, government agencies, academia, and private industry to 
set future priorities for ocean research.
    Admiral Boorda testified on the importance of ocean 
research to the mission of the U.S. Navy. According to Admiral 
Boorda, ``partnerships in oceanography between the Navy, other 
federal agencies, academia, and industry improve not only Navy 
capabilities, but support many civil applications as well.'' He 
emphasized the Navy's commitment to active partnerships with 
the world-wide ocean community in order to ensure the United 
States remains at the forefront in ocean research and 
technology. He added that partnerships make sense because 
national and international civil organizations supply the 
overwhelming majority of the environmental data used in the 
Navy's daily operations, and that the Navy allows 90 percent of 
the data it collects to be made available for public use. 
Admiral Boorda stressed that it is the Navy's goal to allow as 
much public access to Navy data and systems as possible. In 
addition, he announced the Navy's commitment to start a 
national oceanographic facilities council, to stay in the 
forefront of large-scale computer capability, establish some 
ocean areas as natural laboratories and to re-establish Navy-
funded research chairs at appropriate oceanography and academic 
institutions.
    Rear Admiral Gaffney testified that the Navy depends upon a 
global effort and requires comprehensive oceanographic 
information to operate safely and effectively. According to 
Rear Admiral Gaffney, the Navy must seize partnership 
opportunities in ocean research as a result of the complex 
technical challenges it must face every day. These partnerships 
allow the Navy to ensure that naval oceanography will have 
``peripheral vision'' and ``address the micro-scale 
oceanography that affects naval expeditionary warfare.'' In 
addition, Rear Admiral Gaffney indicated that the Navy has an 
obligation to make its wealth of ocean knowledge available when 
that knowledge can benefit other national interests without 
compromising national security. Rear Admiral Gaffney also 
stated that it is in the nation's interest to encourage 
students of oceanography who will become a source of technical 
talent that the Navy and oceanography community can tap in 
years to come.
    Mr. Frosh expressed concern that despite the cooperation 
among federal agencies and between those agencies and 
universities, the weakest part of cooperation is the link 
between these entities and industry. Mr. Frosh emphasized the 
large number of ocean-related small- and medium-sized 
businesses that do not have the capacity to do their own R&D 
and may not be aware of how they can benefit from available 
knowledge. He indicated that direct contact between those doing 
the R&D and those in communities and businesses who may benefit 
from the knowledge is vital. However, Mr. Frosh expressed 
concern about formal statutory and regulatory mechanisms that 
may stand in the way. He emphasized that the designation of 
coordinating bodies will allow and encourage more informal 
contact and coordination across all levels of government 
between those who generate oceanographic knowledge and those 
businesses and industries that use it.
    Admiral Watkins testified on the importance of forming new 
partnerships within the ocean research community. He cited the 
national Research Council (NRC) report that stated that changes 
in the post-cold war period will require ``new approaches to 
partnerships in the oceanographic scientific community.'' 
According to Admiral Watkins, partnerships are necessary 
because oceanography issues are generally large in scale. 
Moreover, ocean science requires that issues of security, 
ownership of resources, and the lack of communication inside 
and outside the ocean community be overcome. Admiral Watkins 
emphasized that the ocean science community should focus on 
forming partnerships that optimize use of data, resources and 
educational/communication tools; integrating a federal agency 
and non-federal agency partnership management plan; and 
organizing a Congressional taskforce to oversee effective 
coordination of ocean science and technology issues in order to 
accelerate and improve the applicability of ocean research to 
the national interests. He indicated that more emphasis should 
be placed on expeditious declassification of any Navy 
environmental data that may be useful to the civilian research 
community.

     4.3(j)--National Weather Service Modernization Program Status

                           February 29, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-57

Background
    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held an oversight hearing entitled, ``national 
Weather Service Modernization Program Status,'' on the status 
of the national Weather Service's (NWS) modernization program. 
The focus of the hearing was on the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) and Department of Commerce Inspector General (IG) reports 
that raised concern for the lack of quality assurance and the 
unrealistic timetable associated with the cornerstone of the 
NWS modernization program, the Advanced Weather Interactive 
Processing System (AWIPS).
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Dr. D. James Baker, 
Administrator of the national Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at 
the Department of Commerce, joined by Mr. Bill Mehuron, 
Director of the NWS Systems Acquisition Office; Mr. Frank De 
George, Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Commerce; 
Mr. Arthur Zygielbaum, Senior Member of the Technical Staff in 
the Observational Systems Division of the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology; and Mr. 
Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director of Information Resources 
Management/Resources, Community and Economic Development at the 
U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by Randy Hite, the 
GAO project manager.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Baker testified on the status of NWS modernization and 
the concerns regarding modernization technologies. According to 
Dr. Baker, new technologies applied during the NWS 
modernization will require similar modernization of the system 
that processes and disseminates the data. AWIPS, designed to 
replace the outdated Automation of Field Operations and 
Services (AFOS) system, integrates data for the meteorologist 
and disseminates products and information to users. Dr. Baker 
stated that the AWIPS program was restructured last year to 
provide the system capabilities that support improved, cost-
effective weather services as the earliest possible date. He 
cited an independent assessment of the AWIPS program that found 
that development in ``incremental builds'' is rapidly becoming 
the industry standard for system development and deployment, 
and recommended that the AWIPS program follow this path. He 
announced NWS's intention to install AWIPS at several field 
sites this spring. Dr. Baker explained NWS's belief that there 
is a minimal risk associated with this aggressive deployment 
schedule, but he acknowledged there is a technical risk that 
the schedule might slip due to the overlap of certain 
development steps. In addition to the accelerated schedule, Dr. 
Baker indicated that the AWIPS program will be able to operate 
under cost caps provided that funding increments are on 
schedule. However, Mr. Mehuron confirmed suspicions of further 
cost-overruns before completion of AWIPS. According to Mr. 
Mehuron, independent government cost estimates for the program 
show the program slightly above the $525 million estimated 
level. Mr. Hite testified that Fiscal Year 89 staffing levels 
in terms of full time equivalents (FTEs) numbered 5,100, rising 
to 5,522 in 1995. He said that the FTE numbers for the five 
years between 1989 and 1995 could explain the change in NWS 
staff numbers over time, but those figures were unavailable.
    Mr. De George testified that AWIPS development has been 
characterized over the years by substantial cost growth, 
protracted schedules, management instability, and sluggish 
technical progress. He indicated the modernization program, 
including deployment of AWIPS, was originally slated to be 
completed in 1995 and cost $350 million. However, Mr. De George 
warned that the IG's office now expects that AWIPS will not be 
completed before the turn of the century and will cost 
taxpayers over $600 million. Mr. De George expressed concern 
over NOAA's plan to deploy the system nationwide before 
demonstrating that AWIPS can replace AFOS, potentially risking 
many millions of dollars. In addition, he emphasized that an 
accelerated schedule not only increases the likelihood that the 
hardware will be inadequate and obsolete, but it also prevents 
NOAA from taking advantage of better and cheaper hardware that 
will be available later, when the software can be assured to 
work adequately and AWIPS is mature enough for full deployment. 
Although NOAA maintains that AWIPS must be deployed quickly 
because of the fragile condition of AFOS, Mr. De George 
revealed that AFOS, if augmented by other meteorology systems, 
can continue to support NWS operations at least to the year 
2000. According to Mr. De George, NWS should not assume further 
risk than necessary at this stage in the development of AWIPS 
and cautions against overlapping builds. In addition to the 
IG's concerns regarding AWIPS, Mr. De George indicated that 
despite recommendations for prompt field office closures, NOAA 
continues to require unnecessary certification and stall field 
office closures. He also pointed out that while NWS has 
prepared detailed plans for consolidation and restructuring of 
field offices, it has neglected to initiate plans for 
streamlining its headquarters and support operations, which 
employ more than 1,000 staff.
    Mr. Zygielbaum testified that AWIPS development, while 
severely troubled in the past with management, contracting and 
personnel problems, has made significant improvements. In Mr. 
Zygielbaum's opinion, AWIPS will successfully field a necessary 
and usable system even if no changes are made in its process or 
organization, but he did express concern over the project's 
schedule and escalating cost. Dr. Zygielbaum believes AWIPS is 
moving in the right direction from the basis of hardware, 
software and the development process. According to Mr. 
Zygielbaum, the hardware and software has been tested and 
demonstrated, indicating little risk in deployment. He defended 
parallel build, but cautioned that the first build must be 
reasonably stable before components of the second build can be 
integrated into the first. Although NWS, SAO, and PRC are now 
functioning well together, Mr. Zygielbaum warned that a project 
as complex as AWIPS requires a single project manager. He 
suggested appointing a standing independent review team to 
periodically assess the status of AWIPS.
    Mr. Brock testified on the GAO report, which concluded that 
NWS has not demonstrated AWIPS will provide better forecasts, 
operate fewer field offices, or reduce staffing levels. Mr. 
Brock warned GAO is unclear whether AWIPS is a wise investment 
or if the NWS will deliver AWIPS as promised. He expressed 
concern that NWS's ability to meet its AWIPS commitments is 
being jeopardized by a risky development approach. According to 
Mr. Brock, unless NWS takes advantage of ongoing and planned 
AWIPS prototyping it runs the risk of wasting taxpayer money. 
He cautioned against overlapping builds--potentially increasing 
the risk of instability from one increment to the other--in 
AWIPS development. Mr. Brock also indicated his surprise that 
Dr. Baker would agree to a $525 million spending cap for AWIPS. 
According to Mr. Brock, the last NWS estimate was $525 million 
in December 1994 and since that time several things have 
occurred to cause that estimate to increase. In addition to the 
increased costs and delays in schedule, Mr. Brock explained 
that NWS expectations for staffing reductions from the 
modernization continue to shrink.

4.3(k)--The Department of Energy's Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences 
                                Program

                             March 7, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-53

Background
    On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held an oversight hearing entitled, ``The 
Department of Energy's Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences 
Program.'' The hearing focused on the January 27, 1996, DOE 
Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) report, A Restructured 
Fusion Energy Sciences Program, and the June 1995 national 
Research Council report, Plasma Science: From Fundamental 
Research to Technological Applications.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Robert Conn, Dean and Walter J. 
Zable Professor of Engineering, University of California, San 
Diego School of Engineering and Chair, Department of Energy 
(DOE) Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC); Professor 
William Drummond, of the Fusion Research Center at the 
University of Texas at Austin; Professor George Miley, 
Director, Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois; 
Dr. L. John Perkins, the Magnetic Fusion Program at Lawrence 
Livermore national Laboratory; Dr. Clifford Surko, Professor of 
Physics at the University of California at San Diego, and Co-
Chair, national Research Council Panel on Opportunities in 
Plasma Science and Technology; Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of 
the Office of Energy Research at the Department of Energy 
(DOE); Mr. Thomas Schatz, President of Citizens Against 
Government Waste (CAGW); Mr. Joseph Gavin, Jr., retired 
President and Chief Operating Officer of Grumman Corporation 
and member of FEAC; and, Mr. James Adams, Senior Analyst for 
the Safe Energy Communication Council.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Conn testified on findings from the report issued by 
the FEAC as well as on recommendations from the President's 
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which 
produced a report in July, 1995. Accompanying Dr. Conn were: 
Dr. Michael Knotek, Senior Director of Science and Technology 
at the Pacific Northwest national Laboratory and Chair of the 
Strategic Planning Subcommittee of the FEAC; and Professor 
James Callen, of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and 
Physics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and Chair of 
the FEAC Scientific Issues Subcommittee. Dr. Conn stated that 
the FEAC-proposed mission for the new fusion program is to 
advance plasma science, fusion science and fusion technology--
the knowledge base needed for an economically and 
environmentally attractive fusion energy source. Consistent 
with this mission, FEAC recommended three key, and new, policy 
goals for the program: (1) the development of fusion science 
(specifically the science of high temperature plasma physics 
and related areas), basic fusion technology and fusion plasma 
containment innovations; (2) the advancement of plasma science 
in pursuit of national science and technology goals; and (3) 
the continued pursuit of the goal of fusion energy through 
international collaboration. The FEAC recommended a budget 
level of $275 million in FY 1997 to fully operate existing 
tokamaks, maintain the U.S. commitment to the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Engineering Design 
Activities (EDA), and increase efforts in plasma and fusion 
science, particularly on alternative concepts. With regard to 
the issue of possible U.S. participation in the construction of 
ITER following the completion of the EDA in 1998, Professor 
Callen said that, during his subcommittee's deliberations with 
the ITER partners, these partners encouraged U.S. participation 
and indicated their ability to accommodate any decrease in U.S. 
funding for the project. And Dr. Knotek said that FEAC 
recommends that there first be a rigorous review of the ITER 
design and that U.S. participation be based on the merits of 
that review.
    Professor Drummond specifically focused on the FEAC's 
recommendation that the fusion program be redirected to have a 
science orientation rather than a developmental orientation. 
According to Professor Drummond, the U.S. fusion program has 
not been managed from a scientific perspective over the last 25 
years. Rather, it has been carried out as a traditional 
developmental program in which the science was assumed to be 
known and large projects organized on the basis of guesses made 
about where the science will be in 10 to 20 years. He stated 
that the next four to five years will be the most productive 
years of the program in understanding the basics of fusion 
plasmas, and that progress can continue with all the facilities 
and theoretical groups involved in the fusion program working 
at the FY 1996 funding level with no annual cost increases. 
Professor Drummond remarked, ``in terms of the science 
research, I think it's a sustainable level.'' Further, he 
indicated the United States should consider the opportunity to 
enter into international projects involving alternatives to the 
ITER, especially if such alternatives are more scientifically 
inclined and require less financial commitments. In addition, 
he recommended U.S. commitment to only those international 
programs that are consistent with and supplement our domestic 
programs. He also emphasized the need for Congress to impose 
discipline on the fusion program to ensure it conforms to a 
scientific perspective.
    Professor Miley testified on his views regarding the 
revitalization of the fusion energy program and the FEAC 
report. He stated that, ``[t]o truly revitalize the magnetic 
fusion energy program, we need a vision for fusion development, 
a goal that will serve to inspire not only forefront research, 
but also inspire young scientists and engineers to come into 
the field.'' According to Professor Miley, the present reactor 
concepts don't lead to that goal and revitalization of the 
fusion program cannot take place without an appropriate vision. 
He explained his disagreement with the FEAC suggestions for 
restructuring the program and his belief that program re-
engineering will require more study. In addition, in order to 
ensure that the fusion program will be successful and 
effective, according to Professor Miley, it should have some 
percentage of the budget dedicated to alternative concepts. 
Further, he stated that it is crucial to ensure a continual 
evaluation of new concepts in spite of budget constraints and 
that if the United States is to pursue innovative concepts, 
there must be better communication among the participants. He 
also suggested establishment of a virtual center to provide a 
``think tank'' atmosphere for alternate concepts.
    Dr. Perkins testified on his concerns with the FEAC 
recommendations. According to Dr. Perkins, a viable fraction of 
the fusion R&D funds should be invested in alternative fusion 
concepts that have the potential of leading to an attractive 
commercial reactor. He remarked that, ``any breakthroughs 
leading to a fully economically viable fusion product will lie 
in the exploration of innovative and alternative physics, both 
in the advanced tokamak program and especially in new or 
revisited alternative ideas.'' According to Dr. Perkins, it is 
not 100-percent clear that a conventional tokamak reactor alone 
will lead to a fully practicable fusion power plant and that 
the United States should avoid putting ``all its eggs into one 
basket'' by overinvesting in the tokamak concept. He indicated 
his general support for the FEAC report but emphasized two 
points: (1) the importance of basic science focused toward a 
commercial reactor power plant--that is, the coupling of the 
physics of a proposed alternative concept with a reactor 
embodiment; and (2) the lack of a FEAC-recommended quantitative 
budget level for alternative concepts. Dr. Perkins believes the 
fraction of the budget currently devoted to alternative 
concepts is insufficient and recommends a budget share of about 
25 percent. He commended the FEAC for their recommendation for 
uniform peer review of future investment in new ideas, 
including advanced tokamak ideas, and supported Dr. Conn's view 
that the United States should not participate in the ITER if 
asked to be an equal partner because it will consume all of the 
available fusion budget.
    Dr. Surko testified on the recommendations of that NRC 
Panel's June 1995 report on plasma science. According to Dr. 
Surko, the Panel focused the study on the critical importance 
of understanding basic plasma science to the underlying fusion 
plasma physics and the quest for useful fusion energy. In 
addition, the Panel recommended that increased support for the 
more basic aspects of plasma science be a key element in the 
restructuring of the fusion energy program. He expressed 
concern for the protection of the 5 percent of the fusion 
budget for basic science, as the FEAC recommended, in order 
that the basic programs will not be wiped out by small 
increases in large projects. According to Dr. Surko, the Panel 
found that large projects with focused technological objectives 
have grown while smaller, more basic activities have suffered. 
Accordingly, the Panel recommended a reassessment of the 
relative allocation of funds between large programs and the 
smaller-scale activities. Further, Dr. Surko expressed his 
belief that the basic program should emphasize small, 
university-scale experiments. He said that the Panel's study 
revealed that although many plasma applications are progressing 
well, the underlying fundamental science is not. In addition, 
he pointed to the need for better coordination of plasma 
science research within the Department of Energy where there 
are large programs for magnetic and inertial confinement fusion 
but no support for the fundamental aspects of the science. Dr. 
Surko recommended a stable, long-term commitment and protection 
for the small basic program to avoid the danger it will 
disappear with the inevitable cost growth associated with large 
projects.
    Dr. Krebs testified on DOE's perspective on the Fusion 
Energy Science Program. According to Dr. Krebs, the fusion 
program as it stands has a strong base from which the 
transition can be made to a world-class fusion energy science 
program. She expressed her endorsement, and the DOE's 
acceptance, of the FEAC's proposed program mission and goals, 
and indicated that the reconstruction of the DOE fusion program 
will reflect the FEAC recommendations. First, she said, the DOE 
intends to start a new plasma science initiative in FY 1997 
that will grow in the out-years to about $10 million and that 
will be coordinated with other agencies, such as NASA and NSF, 
who rely on the development of plasma science. Also, she said 
that DOE intends to support an increased emphasis on 
alternative concepts and to shutdown the TFTR, as recommended 
by the FEAC, in 1997 or 1998. Further, she stated that 
resources will be concentrated on increasing the fusion science 
knowledge base and construction of a limited number of small- 
to medium-scale experiments funded within an essentially flat 
budget. Finally, given the financial limitations, Dr. Krebs 
said that the DOE will not propose that the United States host 
the ITER facility, but will pursue international collaboration 
as integral to the restructured program. Dr. Krebs stated that 
although fusion will not be funded at past levels, the United 
States will not miss the opportunity to be first rate in 
science and remarked that ``the U.S. will rely on external peer 
review to go forward in making the balance between plasma 
science, alternatives and improvements in the tokamak 
technology.''
    Mr. Schatz testified on the FY 1997 budget for the fusion 
energy program and the recommendations in the FEAC report. He 
commended the FEAC for its recommendations for increasing 
plasma research and shifting the focus of the program to 
alternatives, and stated that, ``the U.S. is clearly at a 
crossroads in fusion research and certainly setting 
priorities.'' He explained the importance of setting priorities 
for programs, and remarked, ``we wish we could do everything 
and maybe we could with a balanced budget.'' According to Mr. 
Schatz, CAGW believes there may be a longer-term benefit and a 
greater benefit to the taxpayers if more funds are invested 
into smaller projects, and indicated such a course would enable 
us to see whether the investment will bear fruit in the future 
without risking a large long-term investment of taxpayer money. 
In addition, he said that CAGW believes that TFTR should be 
shut down to avoid further wasteful expenditures. He noted that 
many questions have been raised about the commercial viability 
of the tokamaks and that answering them could take 30 to 40 
years and $30 billion. Further, Mr. Schatz explained CAGW's 
belief that money for ITER should be frozen and that the United 
States should not take the lead in that project. According to 
him, researchers need to know three things before a reactor is 
developed--the best fuel source, the best way to contain the 
reaction, and the best way to convert that reaction to 
affordable energy. In addition, he commented that if the 
commercial industry isn't willing or starting to look at 
contributing more towards harnessing fusion energy, the 
taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill; instead, it 
may be constructive to explore a public/private cooperative 
effort for funding fusion projects.
    Mr. Gavin testified against the recommendations of the FEAC 
report and endorsed the $320 million funding level that PCAST 
recommended for the fusion program in July 1995. Mr. Gavin 
defended the $320 million funding level as the only way for the 
United States to maintain a leadership position in fusion, and 
remarked that, ``the $320 million represents a holding 
position, not a world leadership position. Any level below $300 
million would be third rate.'' According to Mr. Gavin, the FEAC 
report should have recommended that the leadership of DOE make 
a much more aggressive bid to achieve the PCAST recommended 
funding of $320 million. In addition, he believes the United 
States should complete its commitment to the ITER EDA, but 
adopt a subsidiary role for participation instead of assuming 
the lead. He said that FEAC should have argued more strongly 
for a continuing use of the three major tokamak facilities. Mr. 
Gavin also suggested reconstructing the tax laws to provide 
more incentive for a company to make an investment that will 
yield profits 10 to 20 years in the future.
    Mr. Adams testified on the Council's recommendations for a 
future path for the fusion program. Specifically, he pointed to 
the need for expanded focus on alternative concepts to the 
tokamaks. According to him, if the United States continues on 
the tokamak path mandated in last year's budget, expenditures 
will total somewhere between $25 and $30 billion. Mr. Adams 
also referred to the budget for FY 1996, of which approximately 
60 percent of the fusion budget--$154 million--relates to 
tokamaks. He said that it is the Council's position that the 
current path is unacceptable and will not lead to affordable 
energy, and he expressed concern that utility companies have 
shown little interest in fusion energy. He noted two specific 
recommendations from the Council: (1) that the TFTR should not 
operate after this fiscal year because taxpayers cannot afford 
to fund three tokamaks and investigate a fourth on an 
international basis; and (2) that the Department should spend 
at least 10 percent of its budget for basic plasma physics and 
another 10 percent for alternative fuels. Mr. Adams indicated 
his support for reorganizing the fusion program and making it 
part of the basket of future energy options. Mr. Adams also 
believes there is potential for public/private cost sharing for 
the fusion energy program to be implemented over a period of 
several years.

     4.3(l)--U.S. Energy Outlook and Implications for Research and 
                              Development

                             March 14, 1996

                   Hearing Volume No. 104-70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This hearing is not yet available. It will be printed 
during the 105th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
    On March 14, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Energy Outlook and 
Implications for Research and Development, '' which focused on 
future U.S. energy supply and related R&D, including the Energy 
Information Agency's Annual Energy Outlook for 1996 (AEO96), 
accuracy of forecasts and predictions of an oil crisis, use of 
forecasts in public/private sector decision-making, and 
implications of these forecasts for the federal role in energy 
research, development, demonstration and commercialization 
activities, specifically for programs at the Department of 
Energy.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Jay E. Hakes, Administrator, Energy 
Information Administration (EIA); Mr. Glenn R. Schleede, 
President, Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc.; Mr. Joseph J. 
Romm, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, DOE; and, Mr. Michael Lynch, Research 
Affiliate, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Hakes outlined AEO96, which predicts: (1) overall lower 
prices and greater supply for fossil fuels, coal and 
electricity; (2) greater impact of new technologies on energy 
supply; and (3) steeper decline of nuclear power than AEO95. 
Although he admitted that past EIA forecasts, including AEO95, 
have been inaccurate, Dr. Hakes defended AEO96 by saying that 
EIA has a better understanding of energy markets and trends and 
the market impact of new technologies. He stated that the 
United States can meet its domestic energy needs, with the 
important exception of oil. AEO96 predicts a gradual increase 
in the price of oil from $17/barrel today to approximately $25/
barrel in 2015. It also reports that at present, the United 
States imports almost half of its oil, and predicts that by 
2015, imports will account for 56-60 percent. Because of this 
dependence on foreign oil, said Dr. Hakes, the United States is 
particularly vulnerable to price shifts. He noted that the last 
three U.S. recessions coincided with international oil price 
disruptions. Further, he pointed out that AEO96 predicts that 
by 2015, Persian Gulf oil will provide 43 percent of the 
world's oil consumption (compared to 30 percent today), and its 
share of the global oil export market will expand from 
approximately 50 percent today to 74 percent. Mr. Hakes 
concluded that growing dependence on foreign oil and the 
Persian Gulf's increasing share of the market are complicated 
by the region's inherent instability.
    Mr. Schleede testified that over the last 20 years energy 
markets have undergone tremendous changes that are not 
reflected in EIA forecasts and many DOE programs. He stated 
that such programs are often driven by predictions of high 
price trends, looming crises and shortages--``Chicken Little'' 
tactics that have served to scare Congress into excessive 
spending. He recommended that the Committee be wary of such 
forecasts and rethink its government-based approach to energy 
policy, keeping two basic facts in mind: EIA's poor track 
record has served as the basis for bad decision-making that 
has, in turn, cost industry and the consumer tens of billions 
of dollars in inflated energy costs. Moreover, he continued, as 
a division of DOE and because its data serves as justification 
for many DOE programs, EIA's decision-making rationale cannot 
be separated from its need to preserve itself and DOE programs. 
In terms of R&D, Mr. Schleede commented that technology is 
often market-driven and will keep developing regardless of 
government intervention. And, while federal R&D has yielded 
benefits, we must ask whether the private sector would have 
developed it faster without federal intrusion. He also added 
that R&D budgets are inflated by superfluous spending (e.g., 
expensive mailings & publications, market activities, etc.)
    Mr. Romm stated that AEO96 is the foundation of a great 
deal of decision-making at DOE and testified that the United 
States must work to achieve a diversified energy portfolio, 
including expanded development and use of alternative/renewable 
energy sources (solar, wind, fuel cells, etc.). He stated that 
Republicans and Democrats from both the public and private 
sector agree that the United States is in an increasingly 
dangerous predicament as we expand our dependence on oil from 
the Persian Gulf, because our economy is linked to energy 
supply and the region is unstable. He emphasized that DOE must 
take all scenarios seriously, including a worst-case oil 
crisis. He stated that because of relatively low energy prices, 
private sector R&D has been flat for the past five years, and 
energy R&D has dropped 35 percent; and therefore DOE must 
undertake long-term R&D projects neglected by the private 
sector. In Mr. Romm's opinion, if Congress' cuts are 
implemented, energy security will be threatened. He concluded 
that via investment in fossil efficiency and alternatives, DOE 
will achieve multiple goals--lessening economic vulnerability 
and cutting pollution, the benefits of which alone justify 
program costs.
    Mr. Lynch agreed that, ``forecasting has been very bad,'' 
predominately because of logical, yet misguided trend analysis, 
and serious pessimism about Persian Gulf and Alaskan 
production. He stated that one should never rule out any 
scenario, but that in the most likely scenario, increased OPEC 
competition will keep prices low and supply at pace with 
demand. Although energy R&D is important, it is not related to 
whether or not we will be affected by an oil crisis. An oil 
crisis, he said, is ``a short term political event,'' not 
related to domestic or global demand trends, and the severity 
of which is often determined by market structure and crisis 
management policies, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
He suggested that energy R&D ``needs to be justified on the 
grounds of long-term and even medium-term scientific and 
economic benefits.''

  4.3(m)--Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget Request for DOE, NOAA, EPA and 
                        Safe Drinking Water R&D

                             March 21, 1996

                   Hearing Volume No. 104-76
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This hearing is not yet available. It will be printed 
during the 105th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
    On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 
Budget Request for DOE, NOAA, EPA and Safe Drinking Water 
R&D,'' to receive testimony from the Department of Energy 
(DOE), the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 
American Water Works Association (AWWA) on the FY 1997 requests 
for DOE, NOAA, EPA and the Safe Drinking Water R&D. The 
Administration's FY 1997 request for NOAA , EPA Office of 
Research and Development and DOE totals $7.6 billion, a $471 
million, or 6.2 percent increase over the FY 1996 level.
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Dr. D. James Baker, 
Administrator, NOAA, and Under Secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; The Honorable Joseph 
Vivona, Chief Financial Officer of the DOE; The Honorable Dr. 
Robert J. Huggett, Assistant Administrator for Research and 
Development at the EPA; and Stephen A. Hubbs, Vice President of 
the Louisville Water Company, testified on behalf of the AWWA.
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Baker testified that NOAA's budget request increase is 
primarily driven by systems' costs. He stated that the budget 
reflects a decrease of $25 million for FTE and administrative 
reductions and that by 1999 NOAA will have reduced its FTEs by 
more than 2,000 people. He also noted the elimination of the 
NOAA Corps and the downsizing of ship operations. Dr. Baker 
stressed that the budget is allocated according to NOAA's 
strategic plans and its four elements: (1) advancing short-term 
warnings and forecasts; (2) implementing seasonal to 
interannual forecasts; (3) predicting decadal to centennial 
change to provide accurate measurements of the changing 
environment; and (4) making navigation safer.
    Mr. Joseph Vivona testified that DOE has maximized the use 
of buyouts, retraining, community development, and other 
activities to downsize the Department. He stated that the $3 
billion difference from DOE's FY 1993 appropriation is the 
result of three years of management initiatives and 
programmatic prioritization that are now delivering high 
returns in programmatic and operational efficiency. In May 
1995, Secretary O'Leary announced a Strategic Alignment 
Initiative (SAI) committing the Department to achieve a $1.7 
billion savings through operational efficiencies over five 
years. According to Mr. Vivona, the Department has reformed its 
procurement practices to promote competition for the management 
and operation of DOE facilities and sites, and to improve 
contractor performance, response, and accountability.
    Dr. Robert J. Huggett testified that EPA has reorganized 
twelve research laboratories and five headquarters offices into 
three national research laboratories, two national research 
centers, and two headquarters offices. He also testified that 
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) headquarters' 
staff has been reduced to less than 150. He stated that EPA is 
working with its Science Advisory Board (SAB), the national 
Academy of Sciences, the national Research Council and the 
private sector to obtain recommendations and guidance. Dr. 
Huggett highlighted research areas of primary concern for the 
ORD in FY1997, including drinking water, disinfection by-
products, particulate matter (PM10), and endocrine disruptors. 
Dr. Huggett stated that the challenge in providing safe 
drinking water today lies in reaching an acceptable balance 
among competing risks. He said a reauthorized Safe Drinking 
Water Act will improve EPA's ability to implement its research 
plan and other administrative reforms now underway. Dr. Huggett 
also said that H.R. 3392 from the 103d Congress would allow EPA 
to better align research priorities and regulatory development. 
The Administration continues to urge strongly that Congress to 
pass amendments to strengthen public health protection in the 
SDWA and improve the regulatory process.
    Mr. Hubbs testified on EPA's draft Comprehensive Drinking 
Water Redirection Plan. He stated that the primary objectives 
of the plan are the use of sound science, risk-based standard 
setting, implementation partnerships, and source water 
protection. AWWA has recommended that the highest priority be 
given to the use of sound science and risk-based standard 
setting. Mr. Hubbs noted that it is not clear how the Drinking 
Water Redirection Proposal will affect EPA's overall research 
planning and execution. However, AWWA urges that EPA research 
activities be modified to reflect these new drinking water 
priorities. He also said that AWWA recommends that 
authorizations and appropriations for EPA reflect these 
priorities.

4.3(n)--The Department of Energy's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget Request 
  for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy Programs

                             April 17, 1996

                   Hearing Volume No. 104-71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This hearing is not yet available. It will be printed 
during the 105th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
    On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 
held an oversight hearing entitled, ``The Department of 
Energy's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget Request for Energy 
Efficiency & Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy Programs,'' 
focusing on the DOE's FY 1997 Budget Requests for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy Programs. The 
hearing focused on levels and types of program funding, the 
appropriate federal role in funding of deployment and 
commercialization of near-term technologies, and DOE's claims 
of program benefits.
    Witnesses were divided into two panels. Panel one, which 
concerned efficiency & renewable energy, included: the 
Honorable Christine A. Ervin, Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), U.S. Department of 
Energy; Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, Energy Resources and 
Sciences Issues, United States General Accounting Office; Mr. 
David Nemtzow, President, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, 
DC; and, Dr. Ronald L. McMahan, President, Resource Data 
International, Inc., Boulder, CO.
    Panel two, which concerned fossil energy, included: the 
Honorable Patricia Fry Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy (FE), U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Ralph De Gennaro, 
Executive Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Washington, DC; 
Mr. John M. Rackley, Vice President, McDermott/Babcock and 
Wilcox, Alliance Research Center, Alliance, OH; and, Mr. David 
G. Tees, Vice President of Energy Production, Houston Lighting 
& Power Company, Houston, TX.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Ms. Ervin stated that although the budget request for EERE 
is significantly higher, the overall DOE budget is 13 percent 
lower than the FY 1996 Conference mark. Moreover, the budget 
request is in the context of three clear DOE priorities: (1) 
environmental quality--as energy demand multiplies, so does the 
cost of pollution control and clean/efficient technologies 
prevent such pollution at a fraction of the cost of cleanups; 
(2) economic benefit--efficient/renewable technology is a 
quickly-expanding global industry--meaning increased trade and 
foreign investment in U.S. technology--and adopting efficient 
technologies cuts business operating overhead and pollution-
control costs--thereby generating savings that can be 
reinvested or passed to employees or the consumer; and (3) 
national energy security--by developing alternatives to fossil 
fuels and stabilizing U.S. energy supply, we can insulate the 
economy from oil price shifts. This budget, she claimed, is a 
balanced R&D/demonstration portfolio that not only provides for 
successful EERE technology, but, by 2000, is projected to 
radically cut energy demand and carbon emissions and save over 
$10 billion annually; by 2010, benefits will be even greater 
and oil consumption will be reduced by approximately two 
million barrels/day. In addition to refocusing priorities, she 
said, EERE is setting quantitative targets and ``striving to 
operate more like a business, and less like a bureaucracy'' by 
broadening stakeholder participation, encouraging partnerships 
and private investment, and cutting administrative costs/
overhead. She also stated that often the private sector does 
not have immediate price incentives to conduct long-range and 
expensive applied R&D--`` . . . that is where DOE comes in.''
    Mr. Li outlined GAO's study of Success Stories (SS), for 
which DOE selected 61 of its best, most significant examples of 
beneficial technologies, in response to criticism that few 
viable technologies have come from DOE's applied R&D programs. 
GAO evaluated cost-effectiveness of fifteen SS technologies 
that covered all major programs and accounted for most of the 
benefits claimed in SS, and reached two basic conclusions: (1) 
math errors, questionable economic analysis and unsupported 
links between benefits and DOE contributions call into question 
actual benefits in eleven of the fifteen examples; and (2) the 
SS sample of technologies is too small to be representative of 
DOE's overall applied R&D programs. Moreover, said Mr. Li, 
although some measurable benefits were demonstrated, program 
costs were not included, so cost-benefit analysis was 
impossible. He concluded that DOE's methodology does not 
accurately reflect net benefits and ``despite benefits, and 
there are many, we must look at the entire investment portfolio 
and ask, `Is our investment worth it?' and `Would the money 
have been better-spent elsewhere?'''
    Mr. Nemtzow made four points on energy efficiency: (1) 
clean energy R&D fulfills multiple national priorities--energy 
security, lower pollution, greater economic competitiveness, 
job creation--therefore, the government should promote 
development and deployment of that technology to society; (2) 
these programs are not corporate welfare, but rather are 
partnerships between investors; (3) energy efficiency is 
popular and a key part of environmental strategy--the 
government should promote environmental protection not through 
regulation, but through services such as EERE; and (4) DOE, 
paired with industry, has a solid record of success--e.g., the 
energy efficient window. He claimed that scaling back or 
eliminating EERE programs will endanger vital current programs 
and set the U.S. economy and environment back long-term.
    Dr. McMahan summarized the findings of RDI's recent 
assessment of the domestic electricity outlook. The current 
electric mix, he said, is composed of coal (55 percent), 
nuclear (20 percent), gas (11 percent), hydro (9 percent), oil 
(3 percent) and renewables (2 percent). Cost, environment and 
technological/operational restraints, said Dr. McMahan, will 
determine the nature of new capacity needed to meet growing 
domestic electric demand (1.5 percent annually)--``non-
competitive utilities will not survive,'' and most renewables 
are cost prohibitive without incentives, subsidies, or are in 
niche markets; no type of energy production is environmentally 
benign; and utilities are limited by geographic location, power 
demands, etc. RDI predicted that, due to availability, low cost 
and improving environmental record, coal will garner most of 
the new market share. It reached three major conclusions for 
renewables: (1) despite significantly higher costs, renewables 
will probably grow to 4 percent of electricity production by 
2010 at a cost of approximately $50 billion; (2) under 
deregulation and intense market competition, renewables will 
``survive only in highly specialized niches''; and (3) forced 
implementation of renewables, through massive subsidies or 
penalties, would cost approximately $200 billion for a best-
case market share of 11 percent by 2010.
Panel 2
    Ms. Godley stated that FE's 17 percent-lower-than-FY 1996 
budget changes FE's structure and approach and reflects a 
commitment to fiscal responsibility through leveraging federal 
dollars to encourage private investment, utilizing sound 
science and ``cutting edge'' technology and restructuring 
management/operations. She echoed the desire to operate more 
like a business, and said that FE has redefined its role as a 
federal entity by focusing on creative problem-solving to help 
industry meet federal regulations, promoting long-term projects 
that the private sector does not have resources or short-tern 
incentive to undertake, and preserving national energy security 
through maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
long-term resource utilization planning. She said that the 
current budget minimizes costs, reflects these new priorities 
and will yield measurable benefits.
    Mr. DeGennaro stated that his organization, Taxpayers for 
Common Sense (TC$), is ``dedicated to cutting wasteful 
government spending, subsidies and tax breaks . . . and 
balancing the budget.'' He said that TC$ supports elimination 
of energy tax breaks and funding for the Clean Coal Technology 
program, and the Coal and Petroleum R&D programs because they 
subsidize mature industry and are therefore corporate welfare. 
These programs, he said, have expanded beyond their original 
scopes and now duplicate or even compete with activity that can 
and should be undertaken by the private sector, or that the 
private sector has rejected. In a recent report, CBO pointed 
out that, ``DOE continues to develop technologies in which the 
market clearly has no interest.'' He concluded that we must 
balance the budget and cannot afford to subsidize industry that 
does not need it.
    Mr. Rackley stated that Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) is a global 
leader in power generation and marine construction technology, 
whose government partnerships have benefited both B&W and the 
nation. He said that DOE is in a unique position to help 
industry in terms of both high-risk and long-term investment 
and that, ``relatively small magnitudes of federal funding can 
provide great leverage . . . to direct private sector resources 
toward the resolution of serious national problems.'' Without 
DOE-industry partnerships, he said, numerous existing 
technologies will be delayed or never developed. He was 
optimistic about the potential for ``constructive reductions'' 
in federal support, but added that arbitrary, across-the-board 
cuts would not only endanger current progress but would also 
place the United States at a disadvantage in the global 
marketplace against federally-subsidized energy industries in 
Japan and Europe, which would hurt our industrial energy base.
    Mr. Tees testified to the value of DOE fossil energy R&D, 
and stated that Houston Lighting & Power Company has invested 
more than $100 million over the last ten years in DOE 
partnerships that have resulted in deployment of advanced 
energy conservation technologies and R&D which has enhanced 
innovation, efficiency and environmental technologies across 
the electric utility industry. He emphasized the importance of 
DOE in an era of deregulation--when fiscal needs shift and 
utility competition grows, DOE will not only provide stability, 
but will help enable competing companies to pool resources in 
long-term, expensive R&D that will yield national-scale 
economic, technical, efficiency and environmental benefits.

    4.3(o)--The Department of Energy's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget 
 Requests for Environment, Safety & Health, Environmental Restoration 
         and Waste Management (Non-Defense) and Nuclear Energy

                              May 1, 1996

                   Hearing Volume No. 104-72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This hearing is not yet available. It will be printed 
during the 105th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
    On May 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held an oversight hearing entitled, ``The Department of 
Energy's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget Requests for Environment, 
Safety & Health, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
(Non-Defense) and Nuclear Energy.'' These programs are 
contained in DOE's Energy Supply R&D appropriations account. 
The FY 1997 budget request for the Office of Environment, 
Safety and Health--which includes Technical Assistance, Policy, 
national Energy Policy Act (NEPA), Radiation Effects Research 
Foundation (RERF) and Management and Administration--is 
$112.206 million, a decrease of $7.033 million, or 5.9 percent, 
below the FY 1996 appropriation of $119.209 million. DOE's 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (Non-Defense) FY 
1997 budget request is $651.414 million--an increase of $53.523 
million, or 9.0 percent, above the FY 1996 appropriation of 
$597.891 million. The FY 1997 budget request for Nuclear Energy 
is $248.054 million, a decrease of $3.546 million, or 1.4 
percent, below the FY 1996 appropriation of $251.6 million.
    Witnesses were divided into two panels. Panel one, which 
concerned environment, safety & health and environmental 
restoration and waste management (non-Defense), included: Mr. 
Peter Brush, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 
Environment, Safety & Health (EH), DOE; Rear Admiral Richard J. 
Guimond, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management (EM), DOE; Ms. Bernice Steinhardt, Associate 
Director for Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, U.S. 
General Accounting Office (GAO); and, Mr. E. William 
Colglazier, Executive Officer, national Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) and national Research Council (NRC).
    Panel two, which concerned nuclear energy, included: Dr. 
Terry Lash, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & 
Technology, DOE; Mr. Thomas R. Schatz, President, Citizens 
Against Government Waste; Mr. Phillip Bayne, CEO, Nuclear 
Energy Institute; and, Mr. Matthew Freedman, Energy Policy 
Analyst, Public Citizen.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Brush stated that the EH is the single DOE office of 
safety and health for more than 100,000 facility workers, the 
public, and the environment near federal energy facilities. 
Within the constraints of a balanced budget, he said, EH has 
consolidated administration and support services, leveraged 
resources, and focused its attention on three major areas: (1) 
individual oversight--site and human resource management; (2) 
health studies--state health programs, joint projects with the 
Department of HHS, radiation studies, and RERF; and (3) 
technical assistance--hazard control and advising/management at 
major-risk sites. He claimed that the FY 1997 budget request is 
a ``bare-bones'' budget, and that further cuts would jeopardize 
EH's ability to protect public/worker safety ``at a time when 
the Department of Energy's operations have never been more 
dangerous.''
    Admiral Guimond explained that the mission of EM 
encompasses cleanup of hazardous sites, as well as secure 
maintenance of spent nuclear fuel at federal sites. DOE, said 
Admiral Guimond, is seeing results at a number of sites, such 
as Oak Ridge, West Valley, and Savannah River, and agreed with 
Mr. Brush that further cuts to the current budget would 
jeopardize this progress, as well as other cleanups and 
remediations. He stated that EM has been working with citizens' 
groups, unions, communities, etc., to adopt a ``new way of 
doing business . . . which spends more on cleanup and less on 
studies'' by increasing efficiency, progress and accountability 
via savings and privatization. As part of this disciplined 
approach, he said, EM has streamlined support services, 
administration and oversight. He reiterated his concerns that 
his office can only economize so far, and that EM is reaching 
the point where further cuts would endanger its programs. He 
justified the RERF program, noting that many radiation effects 
are generational and can only be studied long-term, as in 
Japan.
    Ms. Steinhart focused her testimony on DOE's current 
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action project (UMTRA), which 
began in 1978 to clean up contaminated land and groundwater at 
approximately 50 uranium ore processing sites and nearly 5,000 
nearby properties. After 17 years, said Ms. Steinhardt, UMTRA 
is nearing completion--some eight years and $600 million (37 
percent) over budget. Funding authority expires this year, and 
DOE is seeking approximately $300 million more to reach 
completion in 1998, at a final cost of $2.3 billion. Additional 
costs of at least $130-$200 million, she said, stem from a 
number of major factors--lack of defined remediation strategy, 
unsure technical assumptions, uncertainty of states' ability to 
pay their 10 percent share of cleanup costs, changing EPA 
regulations, and management. Moreover, according to Ms. 
Steinhardt, long-term custodial costs associated with both 
disposal of tailings left in the ground (e.g., under paved 
roads, etc.), and care of privately-owned sites is seriously 
underestimated.
    Mr. Colglazier outlined NRC's framework for ongoing 
evaluation of EM projects in two basic areas--operational 
structure and waste/clean-up management. He noted DOE seems 
``committed to improving the organization and operation of the 
EM program'' as reflected in its implementation of some of NRC 
suggestions--expansion of performance-based contracts and 
decision-making based on consensus-building among stakeholders. 
But, he said, EM ``still has a long way to go'' and must 
implement further changes to achieve greater effectiveness and 
credibility including: establishing a formal decision-making 
process based on risk assessment, priority-setting and cost-
benefit analysis; revamping R&D/technology utilization via 
external peer-review; and replacing self-regulation with 
external regulation to promote common-sense, safety and 
flexibility. In terms of waste, NRC's Board on Waste Management 
conducted recent reviews in the areas of Environmental 
Management Technologies and Buried/Tank Waste Remediation and 
suggested similar prioritized, competitive, defined, 
stakeholder-inclusive strategies. Finally, a recent NRC report 
stated that, `` . . . environmental management activities are 
driven too often by the internal needs of the organizations 
charged with the remediation work rather than by the overall 
goal of environmental remediation.''
Panel 2
    Dr. Lash stated that his office has met or exceeded the 
Administration's review goals and streamlined staff/support 
services in order to run its nuclear facilities more safely and 
efficiently. The Office, said Dr. Lash, is concentrating on two 
goals: (1) certification by 1997 of an Advanced Light Water 
Reactor (ALWR); and (2) safety and economic viability at 
existing plants. Medical research and the space program have 
already benefited from nuclear power/research, he said, and if 
the Office achieves its goals, the United States can reap 
further benefits, including recoupment of ALWR costs via 
commercial sales, increased global nuclear safety via export of 
our superior technology, production and sale of critical 
isotopes used in health care and industry, etc. Despite 
criticism, said Dr. Lash, ``it is in the nation's best interest 
to see [the ALWR] to completion.'' For current nuclear 
facilities, he said, present funding is modest, but adequate--
without effective government involvement, not only will the 20 
percent of total domestic electricity generated by nuclear 
power be at risk, but corrosion of nuclear industry, university 
research and spinoffs will accelerate.
    Mr. Schatz noted his appreciation of DOE's efforts to 
downsize, but stated the Department should move on from the 
ALWR. The program, he said, has accomplished important 
technological goals, but is now at a dead end--its funding 
expired in FY 1996, industry has dropped out of participation 
because the technology lacks commercial viability (raising 
questions of cost recovery potential), and the only target 
markets are outside the United States, yet the taxpayer 
continues to foot the bill. He warned that, ``eternal life is a 
government program,'' and the Committee should realize that 
money is better spent elsewhere or not spent at all.
    Mr. Bayne stressed the strategic importance of nuclear 
power in the face of economic and environmental consequences of 
fossil fuel dependence. As global energy demand multiplies in 
third world and Asian countries and dependence on Persian Gulf 
oil grows, he said, a robust energy policy promoting nuclear 
energy is ``strategic insurance'' and is essential to a sound 
and stable energy supply. According to Mr. Bayne, over 40 
percent of new electricity demand since 1973 has been met by 
nuclear energy; and, considering that the nuclear industry 
matches every federal dollar with $1.75 of its own, the Federal 
Government is making a sound investment in the economy, 
environment and the nation's well-being. He provided an 
explanation for apparent low market interest--namely, that 
utility companies make decisions based on what is currently 
available and rarely publicize decisions before they are made.
    Mr. Freedman agreed that the ALWR should not be 
reauthorized. He stated that the reactor's only market 
potential is export to S.E. Asia and China, a banned market. 
Not a single order has been placed for a new reactor since 
1978, he said, and for the government to continue to subsidize 
mature, profitable companies' R&D/production is nothing more 
than corporate welfare. If reactors were market-viable, said 
Mr. Freedman, companies would invest in their production, but 
it now seems that the DOE wants the ALWR more than industry and 
the market. Moreover, Mr. Freedman denounced the ALWR as an 
``export promotion subsidy for ALWR industry participants'' in 
violation of the Energy Policy Act.

 4.3(p)--Changes in U.S. Patent Law and Their Implications for Energy 
                and Environment Research and Development

                              May 2, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-58

Background
    On May 2, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``Changes in U.S. Patent Law and Their 
Implications for Energy and Environment Research and 
Development.'' From Article I of the U.S. Constitution, 
inventors have been afforded intellectual property rights and 
protections. Since 1861, those rights included a patent term of 
17-years from date of issue. Under this system, the United 
States has become the world leader in fundamental patents, 
holding nearly half of all fundamental patents in the world. 
Along with the ratification of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade (GATT) in 1995, tertiary agreements regarding 
``harmonizing'' patent laws were held. Although not required by 
GATT, the Clinton Administration entered into an agreement with 
Japan to harmonize our patent laws, and attached legislation to 
the Treaty which would change the 17-year term to 20 years from 
date of filing. Subsequent legislation has been introduced this 
Congress that requires publication of applications eighteen 
months after filing. This hearing focused on the implications 
of this new patent law legislation on American business.
    Witnesses were divided into two panels. Panel one included: 
the Honorable Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents & 
Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Mr. Terry 
Bibbens, Entrepreneur in Residence, Office of Advocacy, Small 
Business Administration.
    Panel two included: Dr. James P. Chandler, President, 
national Intellectual Property Law Institute, Washington, DC; 
Mr. Michael Kirk, Executive Director, The American Intellectual 
Property Law Association; Ms. Diane L. Gardner, Molecular 
Biosystems, Inc.; Mr. Roger L. May, Assistant General Counsel--
Intellectual Property, Ford Motor Company; Mr. William D. 
Budinger, Chairman & CEO., Rodel, Inc., Newark, NJ, Delegate 
and Regional Technology Chair to the White House Conference on 
Small Business; and Mr. Salvatore J. Monte, President, Kenrich 
Petrochemicals, Inc.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Lehman supported the new patent system, and claimed 
that these reforms both maintain and better the system in the 
interests of inventors. Moreover, he said, PTO is completely 
``reengineering'' its system to speed applicants through 
processing in ``no more than twelve months,'' which will yield 
three major benefits: (1) specific to energy and environment, 
changes will encourage tech-transfer and quicker application in 
the private sector; (2) regarding the 20-year term, the new 
system is less bureaucratic and will have fewer delays, 
enabling faster capital returns so that when patents are issued 
within twelve months, the actual term of exclusivity is longer 
than under the present system; and (3) in terms of the 18-month 
publication requirement, inventors will be aware of the 
activity of other inventors, and will not waste resources 
duplicating technology that already exists. This system, he 
said, has not promoted intellectual property theft in Europe, 
and the United States is the only nation in the world without 
an 18-month publication. Overall, and with the expanding nature 
of the global economy, U.S. laws should be uniform with those 
around the world, he stated, and the new system will level the 
playing field for inventors and industry in terms of 
publication.
    Mr. Bibbens testified that, ``protection of the 
intellectual properties of small businesses via patents . . . 
is a fundamental cornerstone of the economic well-being of the 
U.S.,'' and under the new patent laws, small businesses are 
more vulnerable to foreign and large companies. At the crux of 
small business concerns about the new patent system, he said, 
are: (1) confidentiality pre-issuance; (2) term length 
certainty; and (3) ensuring that small businesses with fewer 
resources are not at a disadvantage to larger firms. He noted 
that small and large firms are markedly different in their 
approaches to intellectual property and resources and stated 
that small businesses are often in a David-Goliath relationship 
with large companies. He suggested that small business patents 
be exempt from early publication, in order to protect them from 
interference/competition from third parties. With respect to 
term certainty, he said that despite assurances from the PTO 
that patents will be issued within a 12- to 24-month period, 
the current patent process regularly takes longer than two 
years to complete, especially for breakthrough technologies. 
Moreover, he continued, with earlier publication, more avenues 
for third-party of issuance are open so that not only does a 
17-year-from-issue term afford longer protection than a 20-
year-from-filing term, but more importantly it provides term 
certainty--of vital concern to a small company with few 
patents. In conclusion, Mr. Bibbens stated that the patent 
system the United States has had for over 200 years has yielded 
unparalleled innovation and success--the United States has no 
compelling reason to alter it. As a successful small 
businessman for 30 years, and now as a representative of 
thousands of small businesses, he believes that current changes 
put small business at a disadvantage and will ultimately hurt 
the economy.
Panel 2
    Dr. Chandler stated that the new system of early 
publication and potentially shorter patent terms ``imposes a 
tremendous hardship on the patentee.'' He questioned why the 
United States would trade a patent system which has fostered 
the greatest creativity and intellectual property success, for 
a lesser one--historically, patent processes in Japan and 
Europe take years longer than the U.S. system, with greater 
opportunity (especially in Japan) for infringement. With that 
in mind, he saw no reason to jeopardize the vast investment 
that both the Federal Government and the private sector make in 
research and development. He agreed with Mr. Bibbens that 
``pioneering'' patents, which typically take longer to grant, 
would be more vulnerable to piracy because they would be in the 
public domain longer without patent protection. He also noted 
that such intellectual property often forms the basis of entire 
ranges of technology and even industry, and ``it is a necessity 
to protect these patents.'' He concluded that, at a minimum, 
our patent system should assure a guaranteed period of 
protection--and that the new system will not.
    Mr. Kirk stated that the new 20 year from filing term and 
18-month publication laws will strengthen U.S. patent law and 
encourage energy & environment R&D and boost technology 
exports. Specifically, he stated the new procedures will 
encourage timely processing (on part of the applicant and the 
PTO) and therefore ultimately yield a longer patent term. He 
also stated that the 18-month publication remedies inequities 
between U.S. companies and other nations--over 45 percent of 
U.S. patents are issued to foreigners, and U.S. companies do 
not have access to this information in English until these 
patents are issued. In Mr. Kirk's opinion, our patent terms and 
procedures should be uniform with those of other countries. 
Further, he said, advanced publication will not threaten trade 
secrets or intellectual property sovereignty and will actually 
help small businesses avoid infringing on pending technologies 
via expanded access and the ability to monitor such inventions. 
He also noted that since the Johnson Administration, such ideas 
have been circulated and supported by numerous patent law and 
trade associations and the Bush and Clinton Administrations. 
Moreover, he said, the PTO held extensive public hearings from 
which it received overwhelming public support from hundreds of 
small and large businesses for the new laws.
    Ms. Gardner stated that her company is representative of 
numerous small, new companies who are propelling the United 
States to world leadership in biotech and biomedical fields. 
She said that patent, regulatory and investment issues are the 
top concerns of her industry, and the recent changes to U.S. 
patent law particularly hurt small, start-up companies trying 
to acquire the essential capital necessary for operation. Ms. 
Gardner continued that the variable term, subject to the speed 
of the PTO, is particularly damaging. She said that 
``pioneering'' technology historically takes longer to approve, 
and will therefore suffer shorter terms; that such technology 
often takes years to mature and receive regulatory approval, 
eroding market time; and that the value of bio- and medical 
technology is often greater late in the patent term--thus if 
terms are shortened, the patent holder reaps fewer benefits. 
Ms. Gardner explained a number of drawbacks to 18-month 
publication, including the opinion that small firms are 
particularly vulnerable to larger firms, and American 
technology in general is accessible earlier to foreign 
companies. Instead, she favored publication at 60 months, if 
patents have not yet been granted.
    Mr. May stated that, as an international corporation, 
Ford's success is not only based on their innovation and 
quality, but their ability to compete with foreign companies. 
They, therefore, support the current changes to U.S. patent law 
because of their enhanced stability and predictability. Despite 
arguments to the contrary, in Mr. May's opinion, a 20-year term 
from date of application actually provides more certainty 
because it prevents manipulation and abuse via chain or 
``submarine'' patents, and encourages efficiency in the 
application process. He asserted that early publication reduces 
duplication of R&D, allows scientists and inventors to ``assess 
the state of the art,'' and also cuts patent litigation by 
curtailing innocent infringement. In addition, he said, the new 
laws provide for royalty compensation for infringement between 
the time of publication and date of issue, as well as term 
extensions for those whose applications are unduly delayed. 
Most importantly, stated Mr. May, harmonizing the U.S. patent 
system with the rest of the world benefits American companies, 
large and small, because of the increasingly global nature of 
the economy.
    Mr. Budinger stated that, although the new patent law 
changes will have little immediate effect on his and most small 
business' R&D, they will enhance their competitiveness long 
term. Small businesses, he said, place particular importance on 
the strength of their patents, because often they are their 
only advantage against large and foreign competitors. Mr. 
Budinger asserted that patent law uniformity in the face of 
today's global economy is our only answer--``the last thing we 
want . . . is to have American patent law put American 
companies at a global disadvantage.'' He stated that the 20-
year term ultimately ``ensures every diligent applicant at 
least 17 years of term'' by eliminating incentives to delay/
obfuscate applications and giving the PTO reason to act 
quickly. Despite apparent drawbacks, he said, 18-month 
publication would also benefit small business by preventing 
companies from wasting scarce resources on pending technology. 
Also, he claimed that the notion of early publication exposing 
secrets is a myth--not only are 75 percent of U.S. patents 
filed by multinational and foreign companies, but allowances 
can be made to accommodate application withdrawal, royalty 
rights, and pre-grant opposition. Finally, Mr. Budinger 
explained that plans to adopt changes such as these have been 
supported for decades, and much of the recent opposition stem 
from scare tactics and misinformation.
    Mr. Monte, who holds dozens of revolutionary petrochemical 
patents around the world, directed most of his testimony to his 
experience dealing with Japan. He explained that Japanese 
patent practices and interpretation are abusive, illegal, and 
``tilted'' to benefit Japanese industry--``patent flooding,'' 
where an application is narrowly defined and many slightly-
modified patents are created by home-industries, is 
commonplace. He said that parts of GATT (namely the TRIPS 
Agreement) establish a global patent standard and deal with the 
United States, Europe, and Japan on an even basis. 
Unfortunately, he said, no mechanism exists to enforce the 
agreement, and thus do not protect American companies from 
Japan's bully tactics. Mr. Monte stated that the United States 
cannot afford to abdicate its leadership in high-tech industry 
by conforming to patent laws which handicap American companies.

4.3(q)--The Department of Energy's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Budget Request 
                for the Office of Energy Research (OER)

                              May 8, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-66

Background
    On May 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``The Department of Energy's Fiscal 
Year (FY) 1997 Budget Request for the Office of Energy Research 
(OER),'' to receive testimony from the Office of Energy 
Research (OER) and DOE laboratory directors on the 
Administration's FY 1997 budget request for OER.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the 
Office of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, and two 
panels.
    The first panel consisted of directors of laboratories 
engaged in high energy and nuclear physics research and 
included: Dr. John Peoples, Jr., Director of Fermi national 
Accelerator Laboratory; Dr. Burton Richter, Director of the 
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC); Dr. Nicholas P. 
Samios, Director of Brookhaven national Laboratory; and Dr. 
Hermann Grunder, Director of the Continuous Electron Beam 
Accelerator Facility (CEBAF).
    The second panel, which included directors of laboratories 
involved in other OER programs, featured: Dr. David E. Moncton, 
Associate Laboratory Director of Argonne National Laboratory 
(ANL); Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory (ORNL); Dr. Charles V. Shank, Director of Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); and Dr. William J. Madia, 
Director of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
Summary of hearing
    Dr. Krebs stated that OER's FY 1997 budget request is 
``earmarked for maintaining U.S. leadership in performing 
fundamental science, maintaining scientific facilities, and 
building the nation's scientific and technical strength.'' 
According to Dr. Krebs, OER's highest program priorities in FY 
1997 include high energy physics, nuclear physics, the fusion 
program and expansion of selected programs. Following the 
cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, Dr. Krebs 
believes participation in the European Large Hadron Collider 
will be necessary for the United States to stay at the energy 
frontier. She explained that an agreement on U.S. commitment to 
the Large Hadron Collider at CERN should be reached sometime in 
1996 and is expected to be in the neighborhood of $450 million 
over 10 years. However, according to Dr. Krebs, because there 
is no way to predict from where the most exciting science will 
arise, it is necessary to maintain domestic facilities like 
Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In addition to 
DOE priorities, Dr. Krebs also defended the Administration's 
reductions in the out-year budgets for high energy physics and 
nuclear physics. According to Dr. Krebs, the reductions 
beginning in 1998 through 2000, do not represent official 
policy or reflect the value of the DOE programs. Dr. Krebs also 
expressed support for and indicated progress on a plan to 
develop upgrades for those facilities involved in neutron 
science in order for the United States to maintain its eminence 
in the field. She further indicated DOE's commitment to 
collaboration with universities, industry, and national 
laboratories to multiply the effectiveness of its activities 
and leverage more research funds through partnerships.
Panel 1
    Dr. Peoples testified that Fermilab is a program-dedicated 
lab and one of three DOE laboratories that operate particle 
accelerators for high-energy physics research. Dr. Peoples 
stated that Fermilab consists of a chain of three proton 
accelerators and the Tevatron, the highest energy accelerator 
in the world. However, Dr. Peoples emphasized that Fermilab 
does not have the option of operating only selected 
accelerators and requires sufficient resources to operate the 
three accelerators simultaneously for research. In addition, 
Dr. Peoples indicated the implementation of the Galvin Report's 
recommendations has prompted an effort to consolidate Fermilab, 
and has led to the expectation of future benefits with the 
restructure of environment safety and health. Dr. Peoples 
explained Fermilab's contribution may not be an immediate one 
but emphasized the importance of national focus on high-energy 
physics for the future.
    Dr. Richter emphasized the long-range scientific impacts of 
the High Energy Physics program and highlighted the strong 
programs in both high-energy physics and synchrotron-radiation 
research at SLAC. He indicated that SLAC also has a very strong 
program in the development of accelerators and detectors for 
high energy physics and synchrotron radiation research, and has 
developed many techniques in these areas that are in use in 
labs worldwide. According to Dr. Richter, the Science 
Facilities Initiative (SFI) has been of considerable benefit to 
the synchrotron radiation program. Dr. Richter expressed 
concern that environment safety and health costs, including the 
mandated studies and reports, burden the DOE laboratories. 
According to Dr. Richter, easing those burdens would allow the 
national laboratories to run more efficiently. Dr. Richter said 
that he believed that reducing DOE to a non-Cabinet level 
position will not harm energy research programs, but 
elimination of the Department would require careful placement 
of research programs to preserve their efficient operation.
    Dr. Samios indicated Brookhaven has major user facilities 
in high energy and nuclear physics and basic energy sciences, 
and receives 80 percent of its funding from OER. Dr. Samios 
emphasized that small incremental funding will allow Brookhaven 
to maintain its ``vigorous first-class, peer-reviewed 
scientific program.'' Dr. Samios highlighted the SFI's 
importance in allowing cost effective and increased utilization 
of existing energy research facilities. Dr. Samios indicated 
that although many overhead costs and the number of audits by 
DOE have been reduced, micromanagement is still high at the DOE 
laboratories. Dr. Samios responded to the possibility of DOE's 
restructure into an agency by pointing out that the national 
laboratories flourished under the Atomic Energy Commission, the 
agency that became the Department of Energy.
    Dr. Grunder emphasized the unique capabilities of CEBAF, 
the new DOE laboratory for nuclear physics research designed to 
deepen understanding of the fundamental nature of nuclear 
matter. He commended the SFI's contribution to increasing the 
scientific output at CEBAF and providing leverage to R&D 
funding. Dr. Grunder expressed concern for the Administration's 
current out-year projections for OER after FY 1997 and 
recommended a reprioritization of U.S. nuclear physics research 
without sacrificing a substantial portion of the current 
program. According to Dr. Grunder, the Nuclear Physics 
community needs a funding profile that allows for responsible 
planning to stay at the cutting edge and produce the most 
important science. Dr. Grunder answered the call for a 
restructure or elimination of DOE by suggesting a Congressional 
assessment of science in its totality to decide how to better 
organize the research establishment.
Panel 2
    Dr. Moncton testified that OER now funds 45 percent of 
Argonne. According to Dr. Moncton the SFI will be instrumental 
to providing a fully effective program for the Advanced Proton 
Source (APS) as it becomes an operational facility at Argonne. 
Dr. Moncton indicated strong support for the Initiative which 
has already produced benefits at Argonne including: (1) 
increasing the number of days the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source 
(IPNS) operates; (2) operating the Argonne Tandem-Linac 
Accelerator System (ATLAS) 24 hours a day and seven days a 
week; and (3) increasing equipment performance and reliability 
as well as additional staff to increase operations at the HVEM-
Tandem User Facility. Dr. Moncton strongly encouraged the 
Science Committee to work with the Administration to restore 
the out-year budgets for OER to healthy levels.
     Dr. Trivelpiece explained that the mission of Oak Ridge 
Laboratory is to conduct ``basic and applied research and 
development in order to advance the nation's energy resources, 
environmental quality, and scientific knowledge and to 
contribute to educational foundations and national economic 
competitiveness.'' Dr. Trivelpiece explained that the SFI 
represents an increase in operating funds of only about 10 
percent, but the resulting increase in availability and future 
capabilities amount to many times that. Dr. Trivelpiece 
expressed concern for the lack of communication to taxpayers on 
the value of the government-sponsored research conducted by the 
national labs. He emphasized careful budgeting and avoidance of 
a roller coaster effect in funding for research. According to 
Dr. Trivelpiece, variable funding levels lead people to be 
attracted to a field that appears to be growing, having the 
effect of degrading the quality of scientists as the talent 
leaves one area of research for another. Dr. Trivelpiece said 
that he believed this also prevents young scientists and 
engineers from entering fields that lack stability and 
predictability.
    Dr. Shank stated the national laboratories are best 
utilized when they respond to national questions including 
energy options for the future. Dr. Shank explained the mission 
of the Berkeley Laboratory spans the DOE spectrum from high 
energy physics and high performance computing to materials and 
biological science and energy efficiency. Dr. Shank emphasized 
the contribution of SFI to the Advanced Light Source (ALS) at 
the Lawrence Berkeley facility which saw a 78-percent increase 
in the scheduled user time. According to Dr. Shank, SFI has 
allowed the national Center for Electron Microscopy (NCEM) to 
establish two new positions to provide access to the facility 
for scientists who are not expert microscopists.
    Dr. Madia testified the programs funded through the OER 
budget are a vital and productive part of the nation's basic 
research investment. Dr. Madia indicated basic research 
investments are applied at Pacific Northwest national 
Laboratory to develop innovative technologies which reduce 
cleanup costs of environmental disasters such as removal of 
nuclear waste tanks from the ground. According to Dr. Madia, 
the basic research investments are coupled with applications 
investments from DOE's Environmental Management Program, 
Department of Defense programs and Environmental Protection 
Agency programs. Dr. Madia expressed support for the SFI 
because it will enable DOE to increase significantly the 
availability of its unique user facilities to the general 
scientific community and its researchers at the national labs. 
Dr. Madia stated that scientists and engineers require 
stability, but expressed concern that funding levels in the 
out-years of the Administration's budget will destroy the 
innovative process in the laboratory. According to Dr. Madia, 
stability and certainty of funding are much more important than 
the absolute budget number.

4.3(r)--Environmental Regulation: A Barrier To the Use of Environmental 
                               Technology

                             June 20, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-63

Background
    On June 20, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment and the Subcommittee on Technology held a joint 
hearing entitled, ``Environmental Regulation: A Barrier To the 
Use of Environmental Technology,'' to receive testimony from 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives 
of the environmental industry on legal and regulatory barriers 
to the development and use of high technology products 
developed to protect and improve the environment. (See also 
page 247.) The discussion focused on the need for federal 
policies or improved regulations to facilitate the use of 
innovative environmental technologies.
    Witnesses included: Mr. David M. Gardiner, Assistant 
Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation for the 
Environmental Protection Agency; Ms. Jan Power, President of 
Power and Associates Corp.; Mr. John Uhr, Sales and Marketing 
Manager for CETAC Technologies, Inc.; and Mr. Peter A. Carroll, 
Vice President for Government Affairs for Solar Turbines, Inc.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Gardiner testified that EPA has already initiated 
significant changes to reduce regulatory and policy barriers 
and increase incentives for technology innovation, without 
compromising environmental protection. Mr. Gardiner emphasized 
that innovative technologies benefit not only the environment, 
but also U.S. industry. According to Mr. Gardiner, the U.S. 
environmental industry accounts for annual revenues of $134 
billion and demand for environmental technologies is projected 
to reach $300 to $500 billion annually by 2000. However, he 
expressed concern that the United States could be left behind 
in the world environmental technology market if it does not 
strengthen its own position by enacting reforms to promote the 
development of new technologies. Mr. Gardiner indicated current 
internal and external impediments to the domestic market, which 
include: (1) statutes, regulations, policies and procedures 
that favor the use of conventional, often less efficient or 
cost-effective technologies; (2) reluctance on the part of 
private industry and the financial community to fund the 
development of new technologies; (3) inability to obtain 
credible, independently-verified data on the performance and 
cost of promising new technologies; and (4) the lack of 
established information networks that provide users with 
awareness of (and easy access to) better, cleaner, safer and 
lower-cost technologies. Above all, Mr. Gardiner emphasized the 
importance of removing EPA's ``prescriptive'' environmental 
policy framework and building a successful partnership between 
government and industry for flexible, performance-based 
regulations. He explained EPA's Project XL will provide the 
cornerstone to streamlining the current system. Mr. Gardiner 
indicated support for the performance-based standards approach, 
like that mandated as part of the Clean Air Act, but opposition 
to new legislation to reach that goal. Instead, he encouraged 
$80 million in funding for the Environmental Technology 
Initiative (ETI) in FY 1997. According to Mr. Walter Kovalick, 
Director of Technology Innovation for the Office of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response, the ETI's purpose is to provide project 
grants aimed at changing the infrastructure to encourage states 
to issue permits for use of innovative technologies.
    Mr. Urh testified on the importance of stimulating the 
development and use of new environmental technologies for 
environmental measuring and monitoring. Mr. Uhr indicated that 
although analytical monitoring methods continue to improve, the 
current approval system inhibits and delays the use of new 
monitoring technologies. According to Mr. Uhr, the approval 
system currently requires compliance with highly detailed EPA 
methods that often specify the use of specific procedures and 
analytical instrumentation. He emphasized that if the 
prescribed methods are not followed precisely, results will not 
be acceptable to auditors, the company or municipality which 
has contracted the test, the state environmental agency or the 
EPA regional and national offices. Mr. Uhr suggested more 
reliance on a target, instead of ``cookbook'' style methods, to 
reach an environmental goal with the most effective 
instrumentation and techniques. Mr. Uhr stated that adopting a 
performance-based system will allow EPA personnel to focus on 
truly new technology and the scientific quality of data. In 
addition, he echoed the environmental technology industry's 
contention that performance-based methods will increase 
laboratory productivity, improve the quality of testing and 
data, speed decision making based on monitoring, and reduce 
overall environmental monitoring and compliance costs. Mr. Uhr 
further explained that performance-based methods will increase 
the export market for U.S. environmental products and reduce 
the burden on the states for reviewing data. He commended EPA's 
efforts to evaluate the use of performance-based monitoring 
methods to replace the current system, but noted there is 
inconsistency among the program offices, and no deadline for 
completing a review of the benefits of converting to a 
performance-based system or how that transition should be 
accomplished. Mr. Uhr encouraged legislation to ensure 
coordination and uniformity across all environmental programs 
and to address issues related to the administration, 
enforcement, education and acceptance of the new system.
    Ms. Power testified in support of the establishment of a 
strong national policy, as well as removal of regulatory 
barriers, to foster innovative technologies and prevent the 
development of American technologies by foreign competitors. 
She expressed concern that neither currently pending laws, nor 
the statutory and regulatory reforms relating to hazardous 
wastes, will improve or facilitate the research, development 
and commercialization of innovative environmental technologies 
in the United States. Ms. Power highlighted reform options that 
will benefit the environment and encourage innovative 
technologies, including: (1) eliminating RCRA technical and 
procedural standards for site remediation; (2) opening of the 
voluntary cleanup market of 500,000 sites; (3) enhancing lender 
liability to attract new capital into the market; and (4) 
reforming remedy selection based on reasonably anticipated 
risks and actual or planned land use. In addition, she 
encouraged site-specific flexibility to select the best 
environmental technology ``without any pre-determined, absolute 
mandate choice that does not incorporate the facts.'' In 
support of performance-based monitoring, Ms. Power cited a 
recent national Academy of Sciences study reporting that EPA 
and other federal agencies involved in analytical work need to 
move from an ``all-or-nothing equivalency approach to a 
screened iterative approach.'' Ms. Power recommended earmarking 
significant portions of cleanup funds to speed the pace of 
cleanup and create incentives for the development of innovative 
environmental technologies. She also encouraged more reliance 
upon professional peer review organizations to prevent an anti-
competitive environment favoring only a few vendors 
commercializing their new technologies.
    Mr. Carroll testified on behalf of the national Association 
of Manufacturers and addressed the multiple layers of 
environmental regulation and bureaucratic rigidity stifling the 
development of new environmental technologies. According to Mr. 
Carroll, the permitting process lacks certainty at the state 
level where companies must make a significant investment 
preparing and submitting a proposal for approval. He explained 
consulting businesses and entire law firm departments are 
employed to work through the complicated application process 
consuming capitol that could be invested in cleanup 
technologies. From the application process, said Mr. Carroll, a 
proposal goes through a lengthy review process at EPA during 
which many applications are returned with recommendations for 
alternative technologies, different equipment, or even 
different sizes. According to Mr. Carroll, the rigidity of the 
current process, as well as concepts such as the best available 
control technology (BACT) and lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER), resist the application of new technologies and should 
be reviewed. He recommended a regulatory system requiring 
compliance with reasonable environmental standards that will 
allow investors to select technologies and submit applications 
with a better understanding of when their investment can truly 
go to work. Mr. Carroll pointed out that in the past 
environmental regulators have relied upon quick-fix cleanup 
devices that rapidly reduce overall emissions to comply with 
clean air standards, but said that these approaches can be 
extremely costly with little or no environmental gain. Further, 
he explained that although the remaining air pollution problems 
require use of cheaper, reliable, common sense technologies, 
successful quick-fix cleanup devices remain an obstacle to new 
technologies of potential benefit to the United States and 
throughout the ever-increasingly industrialized world. In 
addition to problems with the approval process for innovative 
technologies, Mr. Carroll highlighted the lack of coordination 
between Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency and 
conservation programs and EPA standards. He emphasized that 
Clean Air Act goals and requirements should be directly 
connected to a national energy strategy.

4.3(s)--Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV): Assessment 
              of Program Goals, Activities and Priorities

                             July 30, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-75

Background
    On July 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held an oversight hearing entitled, ``Partnership 
for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV): Assessment of Program 
Goals, Activities and Priorities,'' to receive testimony from 
Federal Government, industry and academia representatives on 
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) 
program. The focus of the hearing was on the PNGV program's 
goals, Federal Government management of the program, the role 
of involved agencies, funding, accomplishments to date, 
priorities, and the level of confidence in meeting technical 
schedules and milestones. In addition, representatives of the 
national Research Council Standing Committee To Review The 
Research Program Of The Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles (PNGV Standing Committee) were asked to present the 
results of their annual reviews of the PNGV program and 
evaluate the program's responsiveness to the NRC committee's 
recommendations.
    Witnesses in the first panel included: the Honorable Lionel 
S. Johns, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science 
and Technology Policy, The White House; Mr. Robert M. Chapman, 
Chairman, PNGV Government Technical Task Force, U.S. Department 
of Commerce; Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Assistant Director for 
Engineering, national Science Foundation; and Mr. Thomas J. 
Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation 
Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Department of Energy.
    The second panel consisted of: Mr. Robert F. Mull, PNGV 
Director of Ford Motor Company, accompanied by Mr. Peter M. 
Rosenfeld, PNGV Director for the Chrysler Corporation and Dr. 
Ronald E. York, PNGV Director for General Motors; Mr. Trever O. 
Jones, Chairman of the Board (retired), Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 
and Chairman, PNGV Standing Committee, National Research 
Council; Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, President, Energy Technology 
Collaborative, Inc., and Member, PNGV Standing Committee, 
National Research Council; and Professor Daniel Sperling, 
Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of 
California, Davis.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Johns offered testimony identifying the need for, 
nature of, and benefits from, the PNGV program. He emphasized 
that efforts to improve internal combustion engine technology 
and enhance the performance of exhaust-related components are 
not sufficient to achieve fuel economy and pollution reduction 
that satisfy national energy and environmental goals. Mr. Johns 
stressed that the development and application of new 
technologies to improve automotive fuel efficiency and 
emissions will allow significant benefits to the United States 
by creating a healthier global environment, reducing our 
reliance on oil, improving the United States' balance of trade 
and national security, extending the life of the world's high-
end petroleum resources, increasing the competitiveness of the 
U.S. auto industry, opening new markets across the globe and 
protecting high-wage jobs. According to Mr. Johns, these 
potential benefits prompted the convergence of the Federal 
Government and the U.S. automakers to develop energy-efficient 
and environmentally-compatible vehicles. The PNGV program, 
established in 1993, includes the Federal Government, the Big 
Three U.S, automakers, seven federal agencies (including 18 
national laboratories), universities and automotive suppliers 
in PNGV research. Mr. Johns said that PNGV participants share 
the cost of PNG projects using a variety of arrangements 
including direct funding of university research, funding of 
cost-shared research with industry, and government-industry 
cooperative research arrangements. He explained that the 
government's share of funding is larger for high-risk projects 
with great technical risks or distant returns, but industry 
contributes a larger share of funding for technologies with a 
clear, near-term market. Mr. Jones defended government funding 
for the PNGV program by highlighting the auto manufacturers' 
difficulty in making capitol investments that support PNGV 
goals, but do not correspond with consumer demands.
    Mr. Chapman presented testimony on government and industry 
progress during the first year and a half of the PNGV program. 
Mr. Chapman emphasized that the PNGV program does not operate 
as a single project with a specific budget. Instead, he said 
that the program includes a variety of ongoing research 
projects found to support PNGV goals with funding distributed 
to a variety of federal agencies and laboratories, roughly one-
third of which is directly granted to the auto industry. He 
stated that the management assignments of the involved 
government agencies that have contributed to the program's 
structure: (1) policy direction by the Office of the Vice 
President; overall interagency coordination by the Department 
of Commerce; (2) management of the definition of the overall 
architecture of the vehicle systems by the Department of 
Energy; and (3) peer review for independent confirmation of 
priorities and resource commitments by the national Research 
Council. Mr. Chapman also stated that efforts are being made to 
bring others into the process, stimulate ideas, and encourage 
other collaborative arrangements with industry, government, and 
academia. He indicated that selection of critical path 
technologies, expected to be completed by December 1997, will 
allow the program to identify the most promising advanced 
technologies for achieving the PNGV goal of three times 
improvement in fuel efficiency. According to Mr. Chapman, these 
technologies will be applied to concept vehicles expected to be 
developed as prototypes during the period 2002-2004.
    Dr. Bordogna explained NSF's involvement and investment in 
the PNGV program. He stated that NSF, through its general 
promotion of progress in science and technology, has funded 
research and education programs which have led to advances in 
automotive technology that will be critical to how private 
industry will manufacture the next generation of automobiles. 
Dr. Bordogna indicated that NSF program directors have 
estimated that approximately $54 million of NSF support in FY 
1995 was for projects with the potential to improve the future 
design, production, use, disposal and recycling of automobiles, 
their accessories or components. He believes research in the 
area of automotive technology is a natural avenue for industry 
and university cooperation which has become more important in 
the current climate of industry downsizing. According to Dr. 
Bordogna, PNGV fulfills a specific national need, but also 
achieves a more generic end for NSF in creating an industry-
academe partnership, spurred by government, that encourages a 
movement toward a new avenue for pursuing national priorities. 
He explained that most of the PNGV projects involve individual 
university researchers or small groups of faculty along with 
graduate and undergraduate students, but also includes a number 
of small business innovation research (SBIR) projects, as well 
as university-industry collaborative projects and centers.
    Mr. Gross testified on DOE's role in the PNGV program. He 
explained that through the Offices of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Energy Research, and Defense Programs, DOE 
has been an important participant in PNGV and has provided the 
majority of federal resources. According to Mr. Gross, DOE's 
mission responsibilities, including reducing our reliance on 
imported oil, increasing the efficiency of energy consumption 
and reducing the pollution resulting from energy use, are 
essential to achieving the PNGV goal of a three-fold 
improvement in fuel efficiency. In addition, Mr. Gross 
explained that 12 DOE laboratories are among 20 federal 
laboratories whose resources and capabilities are essential to 
PNGV efforts to reach the 80-mile per gallon goal. However, Mr. 
Gross pointed out that recent costs associated with the 
worldwide energy and environment situation are not well 
reflected to consumers in the price of fuel. As a result, 
consumers put much less emphasis on fuel economy allowing the 
industry to continue making big profits in producing less fuel 
efficient automobiles, such as those of the sport utility 
class. In order to avoid government controls on fuel prices and 
efficiency standards, Mr. Gross emphasized the value of the 
program's efforts to improve fuel economy and reduce the demand 
for petroleum.
Panel 2
    Mr. Mull, accompanied by Mr. Rosenfeld and Dr. York, 
testified on role, management approach, and relationship of the 
Big Three U.S. automakers and their collaborative research 
organization, USCAR, with the Federal Government as 
participants in the PNGV program. According to Mr. Mull, the 
USCAR believes that although the market does not presently 
demand high fuel efficiency vehicles, PNGV research goals are 
in the public's broad interest and should be developed through 
an industry-government partnership. He explained the 
government's traditional role in support of national priorities 
has been to undertake long-term, high-risk basic research, such 
as PNGV-related research, which is essential to auto 
manufactures who must conduct R&D more focused to meet the 
demands of their customers. However, Mr. Mull indicated the 
working relationship of the USCAR and the government has 
brought mixed experiences, including the continuing challenge 
of dealing with the complex Federal Government. He stated that 
although considerable progress has been made in aligning the 
research done in federal agencies and labs with that of auto 
manufacturers and their suppliers, the program must still 
overcome enormous technical and administrative challenges.
    Mr. Jones testified on the results of the NRC's annual 
reviews of the PNGV program and the program's responsiveness to 
the recommendations. Mr. Jones reported that the PNGV program 
has addressed and accepted the twenty recommendations contained 
in the Committee's Phase II report and announced the guidelines 
adopted by the NRC Standing Committee. First, he indicated the 
Committee's acceptance of the vehicle performance goals and 
objectives of the program. Second, he explained that the 
Committee would not prematurely recommend termination of any 
PNGV-selected R&D areas. Third, Mr. Jones indicated the NRC 
Committee has devoted limited time to goals one and two, as 
these goals offer significantly less risk than goal three and 
neither has quantitative objectives. In addition to the 
guidelines, Mr. Jones indicated the NRC Committee's belief that 
sound engineering and analysis is fundamental to the success of 
PNGV and mandatory to the economic application of the R&D 
effort and funds. However, he noted that the initiation of 
systems analysis at USCAR was almost a year late in getting 
started. He cautioned individual USCAR partners in 
classification of their in-house systems models as competitive 
technology. According to Mr. Jones, this may defeat a primary 
objective of the PNGV by increasing the degree of redundancy 
and result in a reduction of R&D leverage per dollar invested. 
Mr. Jones offered the Committee's view of the potential of 
major technologies under consideration and development by the 
PNGV program. He noted the rating of the Direct Injected 
Compression Ignition, or diesel-fueled engine, as having the 
highest probability of meeting the PNGV objectives.
    Dr. Hirsch addressed the problems with the PNGV program 
management contained in the Committee's March 1996 report. He 
noted a recommendation contained in the first and second 
reports which states that industry partners in the PNGV lack a 
single technical director in the USCAR and are unable to use 
the leverage of an integrated organization in pursuit of 
program goals. According to Dr. Hirsch, any of the current 
program difficulties could all be addressed more effectively if 
the USCAR members of the PNGV formed an integrated working 
group under a single technical director to provide direction 
and leadership to the many federal organizations supporting 
PNGV, rather than being a team in name only. He explained that 
management problems within the PNGV program are a result of the 
loose confederation of projects on the government side of the 
program as well as individuals who are given responsibilities, 
but lack authority. He also indicated the Committee's concern 
that the government management arrangement has little or no 
ability to participate actively in technology down selection in 
1997 or to redeploy funds from less significant projects to 
more promising ones. In addition, he indicated the Committee's 
suggestion for regular program reviews to be scheduled in the 
PNGV plan, which currently lacks such review either by the 
participants or through independent reviews.
    Professor Sperling testified with concern for the current 
structure of the PNGV program. He expressed his belief that 
unless it is refocused and reorganized, the PNGV program will 
not enable the United States to lead in the development of 
economically and environmentally beneficial automotive 
technologies. Professor Sperling criticized the PNGV program 
for neglecting to target funds toward the most promising 
technologies and appropriate organizations. According to 
Professor Sperling, the 1997 technology selection requirement 
for the 2004 prototypes pushes the Big Three managers toward 
selecting modest enhancements of conventional technologies, 
such as the diesel engine, and away from more advanced 
technologies, such as riskier but potentially far more 
promising fuel cells. He emphasized that automakers have more 
incentive to develop and commercialize ``incremental'' 
technologies, regardless of government funding, due to low fuel 
prices, frozen CAFE standards, and their reluctance to share 
information on technological breakthroughs. Also, Professor 
Sperling stated that directing most PNGV-related government 
funds to the Big Three and their suppliers is not the most 
effective means of generating advanced technological 
development and commercialization and yields little return on 
significant government investment. Instead, to foster a more 
rapid acceleration of these technologies, he recommended 
directing more funding toward independent research centers and 
technology companies developing breakthrough technologies. 
Professor Sperling explained that in the past, the Big Three 
have effectively bought into technology developed by 
independent technology companies and he feels that practice 
should be continued.

4.3(t)--Funding the Department of Energy Research and Development in a 
                     Constrained Budget Environment

                             August 1, 1996

                    Hearing Volume No.104-77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This hearing is not yet available. It will be printed 
during the 105th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
    On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Funding the Department 
of Energy Research and Development in a Constrained Budget 
Environment,'' which concerned cost-sharing and cost-recoupment 
in DOE R&D projects. Under current and projected budget 
constraints, the use of creative methods either to fund or to 
defray the cost of funding DOE R&D programs will become 
increasingly important. Four methods used by DOE and its 
laboratories are non-federal cost-sharing, requiring repayment 
of its investment in cost-shared technology development, 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), and 
licensing agreements.
    This hearing focused on the various cost-sharing measures: 
(1) defining their specific strengths and weaknesses and their 
potential for reducing DOE's budget; (2) out-year funding 
requirements for cost-shared agreements and CRADAs; (3) formal 
regulations, policies, criteria and procedures which govern 
such methods; (4) the status of various DOE cost-shared 
programs; and (5) candidates for future cost-shared/recoupment 
programs.
    Panel one included: Mr. Henson Moore, former Deputy 
Secretary of Energy, President and CEO, American Forest and 
Paper Association; Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for Energy, 
Resources, and Science Issues, Resources, Community, and 
Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO); Mr. Gregory H. Friedman, Deputy Inspector General (IG) 
for Audits, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Roger A. Lewis, 
Senior Advisor, Office of Strategic Computing and Simulation, 
U.S. Department of Energy.
    Panel two included: Dr. Daniel Hartley, Vice President for 
Laboratory Development, Sandia national Laboratory; Dr. Ron 
Cochran, Executive Officer, Lawrence Livermore national 
Laboratory; and Dr. Charles Gay, Director, national Renewable 
Energy Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1
    Mr. Moore stated his belief `` . . . that the value of 
Federal investments in technology R&D is maximized when 
agencies are made to insist on strong financial partnerships 
with non-federal participants.'' He stated, however, that 
although considerable lip service is paid to cost-sharing and 
recoupment, as Deputy Secretary of Energy he met with 
considerable resistance from within the Department, from 
industry participants and from Congress when he tried to ``put 
teeth'' into cost-sharing and recoupment contracts. While 
foreign companies take advantage of technology readily 
available at our national labs, he said, U.S. companies are 
often wary of the government because of its bureaucracy and 
lack of business mentality. Further, at DOE he said that he 
found ``a very loose, soft program department-wide,'' when it 
came to repayment. He explained that in order for government-
industry partnerships to work effectively--and more 
importantly, for the taxpayers to see a return on their 
investment--DOE must act in a more businesslike fashion, and 
government and industry must work as partners, share in risk 
and reward, and operate with regular ground rules and set 
procedures. Mr. Moore specifically recommended involving 
industry early in project development, which would give them a 
greater stake in seeing projects through to successful 
completion. He noted, however, that at present laws such as the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 and most DOE-industry contracts 
contain highly subjective provisions and broad opportunities 
for waivers, thereby yielding negligible, if any, return. In 
response to criticism, while at DOE, that recoupment would 
hamper participation and slow down programs, he stated that, 
``if [these programs are] really good, people will pay their 
share and will get involved in this.''
    Mr. Li commented on the recent GAO review of DOE's cost-
sharing/recoupment policies and focused on two basic points. 
First, he stated that only four of DOE's many cost-shared 
technology projects contain repayment requirements--and all 
four through royalty/licensing agreements. Second, he stated 
that repayment offers significant advantages and that drawbacks 
can be mitigated. Mr. Li asserted that a serious repayment 
policy would allow the Federal Government to recover some of 
its investment in successfully-commercialized technologies. 
Though DOE claims that such policies create administrative 
burdens and disincentives to corporate involvement, Mr. Li 
stressed that flexible repayment, structured with business 
concerns in mind, would alleviate such problems. Further, he 
said, repayment requirements might discourage inferior 
programs.
    Mr. Friedman stated that the Inspector General (IG) has 
audited many DOE cooperative programs, and he used the IG's 
June 1996 audit of the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCT) as a 
case study. According to the report, although CCT's goal is to 
recover 100 percent of taxpayer investment, DOE has severely 
limited its ability to recover these funds. He explained that 
the agreements lack thorough economic analysis and contain 
numerous exemptions and waivers based on wide-ranging false 
assumptions. For example, he said that DOE provided a blanket 
exemption on all foreign sales because of a ``general belief'' 
that foreign sales would be difficult to document and would be 
outweighed by domestic sales. Mr. Friedman stated, however, 
that a 1994 report, co-sponsored by DOE, concluded not only 
that the overseas market was promising for clean coal 
technologies, but that it was expanding faster than the 
domestic market. The audit also found that DOE has no 
verification/accounting plan to keep track of domestic sales. 
The IG additionally found that DOE has reduced repayment rates 
for numerous projects to far below industry/market standards; 
and finally, he stated that DOE ignored a 1991 GAO report which 
outlined a number of suggested improvements to DOE's programs. 
In addition to CCT, the IG has audited various CRADAs at the 
national laboratories and reached similar conclusions--lack of 
economic analysis and a wide-spread lack of procedures to 
account for industry contributions, technology sales, etc. In 
conclusion, Mr. Friedman delineated the IG's recommendations 
which included a formal accounting procedures and use of 
economic analysis in making changes to cooperative agreements. 
He stated that DOE seems open to suggestion concerning the CCT 
audit, but defended its actions concerning CRADAs at the 
national labs.
    Mr. Lewis talked generally about DOE's various cost-sharing 
programs and stated that approximately $1-1.5 billion of R&D 
activities are cost-shared. He stated that cost-sharing can be 
built institutionally into large-scale programs, or simply 
written as part of agreements between DOE and corporations who 
are using the R&D and its resultant technology. He stated that 
CRADAs and other cost-shared activities are successful promote 
technology with greater market potential and that DOE does not 
want to hinder this potential or industries' incentives to 
participate in such projects, so the Department often grants 
waivers and reduced payment plans to promote greater private 
sector participation. Mr. Lewis also explained that licensing 
fees are another method DOE seeks to promote cost-sharing, 
especially through specific technologies at the national 
laboratories. He stated that DOE can recoup initial R&D costs 
by granting commercial licenses on DOE-patented inventions and 
can also collect royalties later. However, he commented that 
under federal law, most licensing fees will go to individual 
inventors, and therefore will not play a significant role in 
cost-reduction. In general, Mr. Lewis characterized cost-
recoupment as problematic. He stated that while cost-reduction 
may be implemented on a case-by-case or contract-by-contract 
basis, requiring a universal recoupment standard would pose 
significant costs and create barriers to government-industry 
collaboration.
Panel 2
    Dr. Hartley prefaced his remarks by explaining that while 
licensing, CRADAs, and other specific cost-sharing agreements 
are important and ``useful,'' the macroeconomic benefit of 
cooperative R&D vastly outweighs individual program savings and 
eventual payback. He continued, however, that this in no way 
diminishes the importance of government-industry partnerships, 
which are key to accomplishing labs' missions and meeting the 
needs of the nation. Dr. Hartley suggested DOE implement 
flexible cost-sharing and payback plans, rather than their 
current practice of broad waivers, and warned against a blanket 
policy. He emphasized that the most important aspect of 
continued cooperation is providing incentives that are mutually 
beneficial to both labs and industry.
    Dr. Cochran discussed the evolving mission of the national 
labs--long-term, high-risk R&D--in the context of their 
changing relationship with industry and shrinking federal 
budgets. He explained that although recent legal changes have 
expanded lab-industry cooperation, the labs' focus must remain 
on research, not extension into commercial development. Dr. 
Cochran expressed support of continued growth of government-
industry cooperation to reduce federal program costs. 
Specifically, he favored licensing agreements whose profits 
would be funneled directly into lab R&D accounts, rather than 
back to the general fund or the DOE. He also suggested an 
expansion of cost-avoidance programs, where a lab develops 
technology, and industry applies it and sells the finished 
product back to the lab at a fraction of the development cost.
    Dr. Gay explained that he had worked in both the public and 
private sectors, and stated that DOE has a history of funding 
exploratory R&D that benefits both individuals/industry and the 
nation as a whole. He continued that cost-sharing projects 
should seek to optimize the goals of each side, and when 
developing cooperative programs, federal and industry roles and 
risk should be balanced as well. Federal R&D, said Dr. Gay, is 
often directed to long-term/high-risk R&D, and in his opinion, 
the national labs and DOE as a whole should look to the market 
for direction of its goals. Similarly, he said, due to the 
complex nature of market competition, industry must have an 
incentive to ``blaze a trail'' into new technology areas. In 
terms of specific program development, Dr. Gay supported 
upfront cost-sharing, rather than royalties, licensing, etc. He 
stated that upfront agreements best ensure that: (1) DOE 
realizes full benefits (e.g., fewer chances exist for after-
the-fact waivers, exemptions, payment reductions, etc.); (2) 
only high-quality projects are undertaken; (3) industry has a 
serious commitment to the project and, therefore, has the 
greatest incentive to develop technology quickly and see the 
project through to completion; and (4) a formal framework that 
defines the nature of the agreement is established early in 
project planning. He concluded that this upfront method would 
also yield the greatest end results because both the Department 
and industry have the greatest incentives to bring projects to 
a successful commercial end, thereby generating profits, jobs, 
taxes, etc. Dr. Gay also noted that DOE was currently 
considering such methods to find the most appropriate cost-
sharing mechanisms; their report is due in October 1996.

              4.4(a)--Fiscal Year 1996 NASA Authorization

                     February 13 and March 16, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-8

Background

    On February 13, 1995, and March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics held hearings entitled, ``Fiscal Year 
1996 NASA Authorization,'' to review the budgets of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), and the 
Office of Space Commerce (OSC).

Summary of Hearings

February 13, 1995

    Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, testified that 
the Fiscal Year 1996 budget request was robust and maintained 
funding for NASA's priorities including the International Space 
Station, the Space Shuttle, aeronautics, and technology. Goldin 
noted that the budget estimates were not received by the agency 
until January 19, 1995. An agency-wide analysis that will 
detail specific reductions will be complete by mid May or early 
June, but Goldin mentioned that major cuts will likely come 
from infrastructure.
    Mr. Frank C. Weaver, Director of OCST at the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), testified that DOT is currently updating 
regulations concerning commercial launches and the operation of 
commercial launch sites to encompass new space transportation 
systems. He noted OCST's efforts in the area of space launch 
infrastructure. Mr. Weaver said that OCST is working closely 
with the U.S. private sector; existing Department of Defense 
(DOD) and NASA launch sites; emerging non-federal spaceports in 
California, Florida, New Mexico and Alaska; and interested 
state governments to develop capabilities to support a variety 
of launch vehicle options.
    Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of OSC at the 
Department of Commerce, testified regarding the exciting new 
opportunities that await human civilization because of the 
commercialization of space including global mobil 
communications, remote sensing, and the use of global 
positioning satellites.

March 16, 1995

    This hearing reviewed in detail NASA program budgets with 
testimony from non-agency witnesses. Specifically, there were 
six panels of witnesses that reviewed: (1) Restructuring NASA; 
(2) International Space Station and Space Shuttle; (3) Reusable 
Launch Vehicles (RLV); (4) Aeronautics and Technology; (5) 
Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE); and (6) Space Science.

Panel 1: Restructuring NASA

    Mr. David H. Moore, Principal Analyst for the Congressional 
Budget Office's Natural Resources and Commerce Division, 
suggested that NASA could reduce its budget by narrowing its 
focus. He testified that a more narrowly defined mission will 
permit the agency to make better choices about what programs to 
fund and what programs to abandon when faced with the prospect 
of additional large cuts in the outyears of the agency's 
budget.
    Mr. Wolfgang Demisch, of Bankers Trust, noted that NASA is 
an organization with a dual role. First, it is to be a cradle 
of innovation to serve industry and our country. Second, NASA 
is to be a source of inspiration for people, especially young 
people. Mr. Demisch stated that any restructuring that is 
undertaken by the agency should preserve and enhance these 
objectives.
    Mr. Rick Tumlinson, President of the Space Frontier 
Foundation, discussed the Space Frontier principles that should 
be applied to NASA as it prepares for the future: (1) Space is 
a place, not a program; (2) In free enterprise democracies, 
opportunities are exploited by individuals or groups in the 
form of companies and private institutions; (3) Frontiers are 
not opened by governments for the people but by the people 
enabled by their governments; and (4) Without extremely low-
cost, reliable and regular access to space, there can be no 
frontier development of space.
    Mr. Gerald M. May, Assistant Director for the National 
Legislative Commission at the American Legion, believes that 
the specific goals and objectives of the U.S. space program 
should be based on adoption of a permanent national space 
policy which allows clear and definable progress in security, 
science, and education. Mr. May also noted that this policy 
cannot be planned accurately without predictable funding levels 
for outyear budgets.

Panel 2: International Space Station and Space Shuttle

    Mr. Richard H. Kohrs, Director, Center for International 
Aerospace Cooperation, stated that he believed Shuttle safety 
will not be compromised under the current projected budget 
reductions. However, Mr. Kohrs emphasized that NASA must be 
slow and deliberate when making any change that may affect 
safety and the Shuttle program.
    Mr. Norman R. Parmet, Chairman of the Aerospace Safety 
Advisory Panel, testified that there is room for reductions in 
the Shuttle program, but warned that safety should be the one 
constant in any changing budget scenario.
    Dr. Hans Mark, Professor of Aerospace Engineering and 
Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin, 
stated that the Space Shuttle should be run as an operational 
vehicle and not as a developmental enterprise. He agreed with 
previous witnesses that safety should be of primary 
consideration to the Shuttle program and argued that the 
operation of the Shuttle should be transferred to a single 
prime contractor.
    Dr. Maxime A. Faget, founder of Space Industries, Inc., 
testified that streamlining the Shuttle program by shrinking 
the organizational contractors could actually help to improve 
safety and reduce costs at the same time.
    Ms. Lori Garver, Executive Director of the National Space 
Society, stated that the International Space Station should not 
be viewed as just another step in a long-term government space 
activity but as the opening wedge for large scale, non-
government activity in space.

Panel 3: Reusable Launch Vehicles

    Mr. Robert G. Minor, President, Space Systems Division of 
Rockwell International, testified that affordable space access 
is an essential ingredient of economic prosperity in the 21st 
century. To address international competition in the global 
marketplace, the United States must actively pursue the next 
generation of space transportation vehicles.
    Mr. Jerry Pournelle, from the Citizen Advisory Council on 
National Space Policy, suggested that the RLV program should 
think long term and focus on a plan that: (1) builds a vehicle 
that can be tested; (2) costs $1 billion; and (3) can be built 
in less than four years.
    Mr. Bob Citron, President and CEO of Kistler Aerospace 
Corporation, maintained that a privately owned company could 
design and build a full-scale RLV with no government funding. 
He said that Kistler Aerospace is hopeful that when a full-
scale, privately owned RLV is operational, that the government 
will not have stifled competition by making long term 
procurement arrangements with other launch vehicle providers 
involved in the X-33 program.

Panel 4: Aeronautics and Technology

    Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of Aerospace and Science Policy at 
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 
testified regarding the need for the national wind tunnel 
complex. He stated that although the investment cost of the 
national wind tunnel complex is considerable, the cost of not 
developing the facility must also be kept in mind with regard 
to global competition. Dr. Grey suggested that private industry 
and government should share in the costs of the development of 
the complex.
    Mr. Robert Spitzer, Vice President of Engineering at 
Boeing, advocated the continued support of NASA's research in 
aeronautics to provide the technologies needed to promote 
industry.
    Dr. Scott Pace, Chair of the Policy Committee at the 
National Space Society, discussed barriers to the development 
of space including immature technologies and government 
policies, and maintained that the National Space Society is 
working to address both issues to aid in the development of 
space.
    Mr. Charles W. Hayes, National Program Manager for Cray 
Research, noted that supercomputers help make the United States 
the world's leader in aerospace technology. He also said that 
the ability for the United States to continue to compete and 
lead in this area is dependent upon the cooperation of 
government and industry, particularly NASA and industry, to 
help develop the fundamental technologies that will maintain 
our position as the world leader in the future.

Panel 5: Mission to Planet Earth

    Dr. James G. Anderson, Professor, Department of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, discussed the 
importance of airborne observations.
    Mr. Eric J. Barron, Director of the Earth Systems Science 
Center at Pennsylvania State University, discussed the need to 
study the effect of human activities and greenhouse gasses on 
the environment.
    Mr. Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director of Information Resource 
Management/National Security and International Affairs at the 
General Accounting Office, testifying specifically on the Earth 
Observation System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), stated 
that NASA has not adequately defined the needs of the large and 
diverse user community. Mr. Brock added that NASA is investing 
heavily in near-term development instead of critically needed 
research and prototyping.
    Dr. Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
reviewed the benefits of using small satellites within the MTPE 
program.
    Dr. Arthur Charo, Senior Analyst, International Security 
and Space Program, Office of Technology Assessment, testified 
that a coordinated, multi-agency approach to remote sensing, 
especially satellite-based remote sensing, could save money 
while ensuring the creation of a long-term program that would 
monitor the earth's environmental health.

Panel 6: Space Science

    Dr. Francis Everitt, Gravity Probe B Office, Hansen 
Experimental Physics Lab, discussed the Gravity Probe B mission 
and its goal of proving Einstein's general theory of 
relativity.
    Dr. William Boynton, Chairman of the Space Science Working 
Group at the University of Arizona, discussed the educational 
opportunities that NASA provides for students around the 
country.
    Dr. Dan Lester, Research Scientist for the Department of 
Astronomy and McDonald Observatory at the University of Texas 
at Austin, noted that the U.S. astronomy community has very 
carefully set priorities and that the requests for the Space 
Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and the Stratospheric 
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) are the end result 
of that process.
    Mr. David Gump, President of Luna Corporation, testified 
that NASA should change the discovery program rules to allow 
more commercially-led mission participation.

    4.4(b)--The Space Shuttle Program in Transition: Keeping Safety 
                               Paramount

                           September 27, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-20

Background

    On September 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``The Space Shuttle 
Program in Transition: Keeping Safety Paramount.'' The Space 
Shuttle program was the principle development program 
undertaken by NASA during the 1970's. This space transportation 
system was intended to use, to the maximum extent possible, a 
reusable components systems approach in order to reduce the per 
pound to orbit cost. The design which was authorized is a 
reusable orbiter which is propelled into low-earth orbit (LEO) 
by two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) augmented by the Orbiter's 
main engine, all of which are mounted on an expendable external 
fuel tank. Once aloft, the SRBs are jettisoned and recovered at 
sea, while the Orbiter completes its mission and returns to 
either an east coast or west coast recovery site. At this site, 
it lands much like a conventional aircraft and then is 
reprocessed and returned to the launch site for its next 
mission. The first launch of the Space Shuttle took place in 
April 1981.

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. Littles, NASA's Director of Human Space Flight, 
testified that the government should change its role to that of 
supervisor and auditor, because of the proven success and 
experience of the Space Shuttle program. He indicated that the 
audits must be detailed, channels of communication must remain 
open, and the safety process must continue to evolve to ensure 
a successful transition. During the questioning, Dr. Littles 
specified the priorities for his department: (1) safety; (2) 
meeting the mission requirements; and (3) reducing costs.
    Mr. Fragola, Vice President of Science Applications 
International Corporation, certified that NASA has reduced 
launch risk. He discussed the advantage of risk assessment 
studies as tools in keeping the Shuttle program safe.
    Dr. Johnstone, Director of the Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel, discussed the potential problems associated with worker 
morale and Shuttle safety. However, he stated that the 
transition could be safe as long as the changeover was 
performed meticulously. Dr. Johnstone also noted that the 
program could ``lightly'' shed additional costs and still 
maintain overall program safety.
    Dr. Hans Mark, from the Department of Aerospace Engineering 
at the University of Texas at Austin, reiterated that safety is 
the responsibility of all employees. He said that most 
accidents were the result of human error and that it was 
important not to overload workers. A key point of his testimony 
was the need of retaining experienced employees during the 
changeover. During questioning, Dr. Mark stated that the morale 
problems would be significantly reduced when NASA made final 
decisions on the specifics of the transition process.
    Lt. Gen. Stafford, of Stafford, Burke, and Hecker, 
discussed the ability of the private airline industry to 
maintain safety standards and inspections without causing 
significant wear and tear on the aircraft. He concluded that, 
``reduced layers of management will not increase safety 
hazards, if done properly.''

 4.4(c)--The X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle: A New Way of Doing Business?

                            November 1, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-28

Background

    On November 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``The X-33 Reusable Launch 
Vehicle: A New Way of Doing Business?'' In order to develop the 
next generation of reusable space launch vehicles, NASA 
initiated the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Program in its 
Office of Space Access and Technology. The purpose of the 
program is for NASA to provide private industry with new and 
enabling technology under cooperative development agreements. 
It is intended that there be sufficient technological risk-
reduction so that industry can develop the next generation of 
reusable space launch vehicles based on the business viability 
of the launch system rather than NASA sponsorship.
    This program represents an entirely new approach to the 
acquisition of space launch services. If successful, the RLV 
program will ``buy-down'' the technological risks facing 
private developers of the new system, who would then be 
expected to privately finance full-scale development of a 
privately-owned, privately-operated fleet of new economical 
launch vehicles. In this scenario, NASA would not enter into a 
prime development contract for development and certification of 
the new launchers, but would serve as a customer of such a 
system.
    Technologically, the NASA-sponsored phase of the RLV 
development must succeed at removing key obstacles to the 
firms' ability to lower operational costs by perhaps an order 
of magnitude. Development of revolutionary technologies to cut 
the ``dry'' and fully-fueled weight of the launcher such that 
only one propulsion stage is needed to ferry payloads into 
orbit is at the heart of the program. Launching with fewer 
stages means fewer time-consuming pre-launch costs, lower post-
mission recovery costs, and reduced ``turnaround'' time. In 
addition to achieving this fundamental simplification, work has 
begun on system architectures and advanced avionics that are 
intended to operate the launchers like an airline, reducing 
time spent on the ground for payload integration and 
maintenance.

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. John E. Mansfield, NASA's Associate Administrator of 
the Office of Space Access and Technology, testified that the 
United States is lagging in space technology development 
because the country still uses technology developed in the 
1950's. He reported that overseas competition has devastated 
the domestic launch industry so that the United States has only 
30% of the international launch market. For these reasons, Dr. 
Mansfield maintained that the RLV program is one of NASA's top 
priorities, but warned that the program is on a tight schedule 
and has little money for reserves in the current funding 
profile.
    Col. Gary Payton (retired), NASA's Director of Advanced 
Space Transportation, indicated that the United States was in 
dire need of cheap space transportation and the ability to 
demonstrate new technology for space transportation.
    Mr. Robert Minor, President, Space Systems Division of 
Rockwell International, believes that the RLV is the right 
program for the future of space transportation. He supports the 
X-33 program and stated that the X-33 will provide the 
technical data needed to build the full-size RLV. Mr. Minor 
discussed possible funding changes to the X-33 program 
including a front-loaded funding profile that includes more 
money in the earlier phases of development and the necessity of 
a second prototype and test flights.
    Mr. Charles Ordahl, Vice President and General Manager, New 
Space and Defense Programs at McDonnell Douglas, testified 
about the benefits of an RLV. He indicated an RLV would open 
new commercial markets and introduce a new class of military 
launch vehicle.
    Mr. Jack Gordon, President of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works 
discussed the obstacles to a successful RLV program. Mr. Gordon 
reiterated the need for ``market assurance'' of the RLV because 
of the $5 billion cost of development and he expressed the need 
for more government funding in the early stages of the X-33 
program.
    Dr. Ray Williamson, from the Space Policy Institute at 
George Washington University fears that the RLV program is 
being oversold. He indicated that the success of the program 
will ultimately be based on reduced costs for space 
transportation, not the technological feasibility of an RLV. He 
expressed the need for new space transportation markets and 
inquired as to whether savings in launch costs would be passed 
on to the consumer or would be eaten up by the industrial 
developer of the vehicle because of the large cost of RLV 
program development.

    4.4(d)--The Space Shuttle Program in Transition: Keeping Safety 
                           Paramount, Part II

                            November 9, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-27

Background

    On November 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``The Space Shuttle 
Program in Transition: Keeping Safety Paramount, Part II.''

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. Wayne Littles, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space 
Flight, discussed the process for restructure and transition of 
the Space Shuttle program. Dr. Littles stressed that continued 
program safety was the ``primary and overriding requirement'' 
for the transition. He reiterated the priorities for the Space 
Shuttle Program: (1) fly safely; (2) meet the manifest; and (3) 
reduce costs. Dr. Littles noted that costs for the Shuttle 
program have been reduced by 24% since 1992, while maintaining 
a safe flight rate and meeting the customers' requirements. He 
quoted the Functional Workforce Review (FWR) that concluded: 
first, no areas of the budget were reduced where safety was 
compromised, and second, more reductions could be made without 
compromising safety. Dr. Littles reviewed the principles for 
Space Shuttle reorganization as recommended in the Kraft 
Report: (1) achieve more focused responsibility and 
accountability of contractors; (2) strengthen audit/oversight 
of contractor work to increase safety; (3) reduce operations 
costs; (4) focus the government workforce on research and 
development; and (5) establish a framework for possible 
eventual privatization. United Space Alliance (a Rockwell/
Lockheed Martin consortium) has been selected as the single 
prime contractor for the Shuttle program. Dr. Littles explained 
that the process of reorganization will be separated into three 
different phases. In phase one, United Space Alliance would 
take control of contracts already being operated and controlled 
by private sector contractors. During phase two of the 
reorganization, United Space Alliance will learn, and assume 
responsibility for projects that are currently maintained by 
NASA. Finally, phase three stipulates that projects currently 
in the ``research and development'' stage at NASA, will 
continue to remain under the jurisdiction of NASA and would be 
phased into a single prime contract after all research and 
development on these projects has been completed.

4.4(e)--Shuttle Single Prime Contract: A Review of NASA's Determination 
                              and Findings

                           November 30, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-36

Background

    On November 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Shuttle Single Prime 
Contract: A Review of NASA's Determination and Findings.'' 
Declining NASA budgets have forced the agency into major 
restructuring efforts in order to continue programs while at 
the same time avoiding the closure of NASA centers. 
Accomplishing this goal will require an overall reduction in 
agency personnel. The agency has commissioned a series of 
reviews by both internal and independent teams to provide 
recommendations for reaching the requisite budget goals while 
avoiding any compromise to program safety. An internal NASA 
study, the Shuttle Workforce Review, recommended that 3,200 
government and contractor jobs could be eliminated from the 
nearly 30,000 member Shuttle workforce without jeopardizing 
safety of flight. These cuts would be in addition to ongoing 
reductions, which have achieved a 35% reduction compared with 
the Shuttle program's 1992 baseline.
    The Space Shuttle Management Independent Review Team was 
formed by the NASA Administrator in November 1994 and chaired 
by Dr. Christopher Kraft, to provide independent 
recommendations to supplement internal reviews. The study, now 
referred to as the Kraft report, sought to evaluate the current 
processes and procedures for conducting Space Shuttle 
operations at the NASA space centers and associated contractor 
facilities in order to provide recommendations to the 
Administrator to establish a more efficient operational 
structure.
    The Kraft report made a series of recommendations on 
efficiency, cost savings, and improved service to customers 
without jeopardizing safe operation of the Shuttle.
    The most significant Kraft report recommendations are: (1) 
relinquish the operational responsibility of the program to a 
prime contractor; (2) reduce NASA's involvement in daily 
operations of the Shuttle; and (3) minimize modifications to 
the Shuttle fleet to only those which would improve safety or 
otherwise reduce operating costs.
    In following the recommendations of the Kraft report, NASA 
is in the process of consolidating Space Shuttle program 
contracts into a ``single prime'' contract. This ``single 
prime'' concept, which was first used by the Space Station 
program, is intended to collapse the fee structure (profits 
paid to contractors) while rewarding the single prime 
contractor with additional fee incentives for achieving cost 
reduction goals. Under a single prime contract, the firm chosen 
would obtain general control over the day-to-day operations of 
the Space Shuttle program, while ultimate authority to certify 
and fly the system would continue to be held by the Federal 
Government.
    On August 21, 1995, NASA held an industry briefing to lay 
the groundwork for the consolidation of some 85 separate 
contracts under a single prime contract. Initial letters of 
intent, due to the agency by September 14, 1995, were submitted 
by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, United Space Alliance (a Lockheed 
Martin and Rockwell consortium), and the Bamsi Corporation from 
Titusville, Florida. The consolidation will occur over the 
course of one to three years though there will be some 
contracts of shorter duration which will be exempt and others 
involving developmental work which will remain under the 
auspices of NASA managers.
    On November 7, 1995, Congress was abruptly notified by the 
NASA Administrator that a Determination and Findings was being 
released which recommended termination of competition for the 
contract and pursuit of a sole source contract with United 
Space Alliance. The Administrator's primary rationale was that 
the time required for further competition would jeopardize the 
realization of program cost savings in order to remain on 
schedule for construction of the International Space Station.

Summary of Hearing

    Daniel S. Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, testified that 
Congress was notified as soon as he accepted the Source 
Evaluation Board's (SEB) recommendation regarding the selection 
of the single prime contractor. Mr. Goldin explained the 
timeframe for the decision to name United Space Alliance (USA) 
as the single prime contractor: on Nov 3rd and the morning of 
the 6th, he met with the SEB Chairman. The meeting with the 
leadership of the Science Committee occurred on November 7th. 
He said that safety and the desire to stick to the schedule is 
what drove NASA's decision to choose a single prime contractor. 
Administrator Goldin explained that selecting USA was the only 
way to achieve the goals and schedules set by NASA and 
Congress. USA now holds 69% of the value of the Shuttle-related 
prime contracts. He stated that, of the four companies 
expressing interest in becoming the single prime contractor, 
only USA has the necessary experience base and existing 
operational structure to minimize schedule and safety risks. 
Mr. Goldin noted that a delay of only two years could cost as 
much as $2 to $4 billion. He reiterated the need for a safe 
transition to a single prime contractor. An inexperienced 
contractor team working to unrealistic schedules could 
negatively impact safety. With regard to space 
commercialization, Mr. Goldin explained that a sole source 
contract will not impact the development and commercialization 
of space. USA would be responsible for supporting the Space 
Station, including: training, flight preparation, and execution 
of ``what's needed'' to operate the Space Station. USA would 
have no connection to research done aboard the Space Station or 
product development that may result from that research. In 
closing, Mr. Goldin commented that 84% of the Human Space 
Flight and related science budget will be awarded on a 
competitive basis in 2002.

                      4.4(f)--NASA Posture Hearing

                             March 28, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-51

Background

    On March 28, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its annual ``NASA Posture Hearing'' on the 
Fiscal Year 1997 budget request. The President's budget 
contains outyear estimates that are not in sync with what 
NASA's current slate of programs will actually cost in the 
outyears. One set is a total annual NASA budget from OMB that 
declines to $11.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2000. NASA took no 
steps to reduce any programs as a result of OMB's cuts, so its 
budget runout looks like the Fiscal Year 1996 budget ($13.168 
billion). The President's Fiscal Year 1997 budget makes none of 
the hard choices that are necessary to bring the agency down to 
a funding level of $11.6 billion in fiscal 2000. In last year's 
budget resolution conference report, Congress started the 
downsizing process in Fiscal Year 1996 to take the agency to 
$12.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2000. The White House has stated 
its five priorities for NASA which are to be protected from 
budget cuts: (1) Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE); (2) Space 
Station; (3) High Speed Research and Advanced Subsonic 
Technology in the Aeronautics program; (4) High Performance 
Computing and Communications; and (5) the New Millennium 
Initiative. According to the list, space science is not 
considered a ``protected priority'' and reflects large 
reductions in the outyear budget.

Summary of Hearing

    According to NASA's Administrator, Daniel S. Goldin, the 
agency asked for stable funding through Fiscal Year 1997. The 
Fiscal Year 1997 budget request was at the same level in the 
Fiscal Year 1996 VA/HUD appropriation conference report--$13.8 
billion. He stated that Fiscal Year 1997 budget stability will 
enable NASA to continue to restructure in an orderly, well-
reasoned manner; deliver a space and aeronautics program that's 
relevant, balanced and stable; and protect the human dignity of 
employees and contractors. It appears however, that NASA is not 
ready to accept the outyear numbers in the proposed budget. 
Goldin maintains that the outyear budget is ``not chiseled in 
stone and I'm not taking precipitous action'' to carry out the 
cuts. A statement by OMB is included in NASA's Fiscal Year 1997 
budget request, ``The outyear numbers should not be considered 
final policy numbers. They are going to be refined further by 
the Administration as it reviews possible savings (in the form 
of spending reductions or new fees) in all agencies. Once 
identified, these saving will contribute to the outyear numbers 
for NASA.'' Goldin noted that since 1993, NASA has reduced its 
outyear budget plan by 36% (saving taxpayers nearly $40 
billion) by rescoping programs, eliminating low-priority 
efforts, reducing support contracts, and conducting two 
employee buyouts.

              4.4(g)--Fiscal Year 1997 NASA Authorization

                             April 17, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-56

Background

    On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1997 NASA 
Authorization.'' The hearing consisted of six panels of 
witnesses with detailed testimony regarding various NASA 
programs including: (1) Zero Base Review; (2) Space Technology; 
(3) Space Science; (4) Aeronautics; (5) Human Exploration and 
Development of Space; (6) and Outreach and Education.

Summary of Hearing

Panel 1: Zero Base Review

    Last year, in response to the President's $5 billion cut in 
NASA's projected budget (NASA's contribution to the Clinton tax 
cut), the agency initiated the Zero Base Review (ZBR) to reduce 
expenditures through efficient, streamlined agency management. 
Currently, the ZBR has only identified about $4 billion in 
savings, most of which will not be realized until Fiscal Year 
1999 or Fiscal Year 2000. In conjunction with the ZBR, NASA is 
transferring many program responsibilities from headquarters to 
its field centers. The purpose of this panel was to discuss ZBR 
as an agency effort that will both affect NASA's ability to 
reduce costs and its ability to continue creating and using new 
technology in pursuit of the nation's scientific, technical, 
commercial, and national security interests.
    Mr. Richard J. Wisniewski, NASA's Deputy Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Space Flight, testified that 
the ZBR has met the President's challenge of $4 billion in 
budget reductions from Fiscal Year 1997 through Fiscal Year 
2000. He stated that the ZBR has been successful in 
fundamentally changing the way that NASA does business by: 
reducing infrastructure; defining NASA center ``role 
assignments'' (missions and areas of excellence); establishing 
full-cost budgeting/accounting principles; transferring 
responsibility to field centers; and improving science 
programs.
    Dr. Anthony W. England, of the Space Studies Board, 
discussed the impact of budget reductions on space science. His 
testimony included recommendations that: (1) Science Institute 
planning should be part of a larger science plan that considers 
how national space goals will be attained by the sum of all 
NASA science activities; and (2) that ``program management'' 
activities should be split between headquarters and the field 
centers.
    Dr. W.D. Kay, Associate Professor for Political Science at 
Northeastern University, praised Administrator Goldin's efforts 
at successfully restructuring and reducing costs at NASA.

Panel 2: Space Technology

    This panel dealt principally with the creation of new 
technology for conducting NASA's science and space missions. 
NASA is developing advanced technology in several areas that 
will help take the United States into the next century of space 
activity. Unfortunately, the perception sometimes exists that 
NASA is the only source of new and innovative space technology. 
Largely as a result of government investments in NASA and the 
Department of Defense (DOD) during the Cold War, new and 
innovative technologies are flowing from the National Security 
laboratory system and the private sector as well as NASA. 
Greater use can be made of these technologies in order to 
reduce the costs of NASA activities and in order to create new 
capabilities for the civil space agency.
    Col. Gary Payton, USAF (retired), Director of NASA's Office 
of Advanced Space Transportation, testified about the agency's 
program to develop technologies for a Reusable Launch Vehicle 
(RLV) that will prove significantly less costly to operate than 
the Space Shuttle. Col. Payton, a former astronaut, served 
previously as Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization's Technology Directorate, which is the source of 
many new DOD-related space technologies. At this hearing, Col. 
Payton testified that the DC-XA test vehicle had been 
completely rebuilt using new lightweight technologies that 
could possibly be used in the X-33 program. The DC-XA is 
expected to begin flight testing soon. He also updated Members 
on the status of NASA's program for new thermal protection 
systems that would increase vehicle flexibility and lower 
costs, possibly for use on both the RLV and Space Shuttle.
    Maj. Gen. Lance Lord, USAF, Director of Plans for the U.S. 
Air Force Space Command, testified about the relationship 
between NASA and the USAF in developing new technology. NASA 
and the USAF are in the process of working out arrangements for 
personnel exchanges and are creating technology planning groups 
with members from both agencies in order that individual 
programs have access to expertise available in both DOD and 
NASA and to ensure that costly duplication is avoided. Finally, 
Maj. Gen. Lord noted that the USAF was leveraging several NASA 
programs, such as the Clark Remote Sensing Technology 
Demonstrator, against some USAF mission requirements.
    Dr. Rick Fleeter, President of AeroAstro Inc., testified 
about the possibility of using microsatellites to perform more 
specialized space missions at a considerably lower cost than 
those of currently available satellites (these satellites tend 
to be very large). Dr. Fleeter noted that current 
microsatellite technology is in a position roughly comparable 
to that of the computing industry in 1976, meaning that 
industry and government are just starting to experiment with 
microsatellites and that we can look forward to explosive 
growth of this technology over the next two decades. Dr. 
Fleeter suggested that NASA's current approach to satellite 
constellation design was not appropriate for promoting 
microsatellite development. Using the computer industry 
analogy, he suggested that NASA's efforts to make satellites 
cheaper were similar to industry's efforts to make mainframe 
computers cheaper in the late 1970s when what was really needed 
was the philosophical change that created the desk-top 
computer.
    Dr. Ray Morgan is Vice President of AeroVironment, Inc., a 
California-based company participating in NASA's Environmental 
Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program to 
build and operate a high-altitude, long-endurance, solar-
powered, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), essentially a pilotless 
airplane capable of flying continuously for thousands of hours 
in the stratosphere. Dr. Morgan indicated that such aircraft 
could act as virtual satellites for different environmental 
monitoring and research efforts because they had certain 
performance and cost advantages over satellites and manned 
aircraft for several different missions. Their performance 
advantages include: (1) no requirement for space qualification 
of instruments; (2) changeable payloads; (3) low cost; and (4) 
continuous, in situ measurement of environmental phenomenon.

Panel 3: Space Science

    The Fiscal Year 1997 NASA budget request for Space Science 
declines 9% from last year and reflects a total decline of 21% 
from Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2000. The purpose of this 
panel was to discuss the consequences of budget reductions in 
space science and compare big science missions with NASA's 
current emphasis on ``cheaper, faster, better.''
    Dr. Anneila Sargent, Chair of NASA's Space Science Advisory 
Committee, maintained that NASA would have to cut missions if 
the requested budget decline were to actually come to fruition. 
In her testimony, Dr. Sargent stated, ``space science in the 
twenty-first century seems to be in jeopardy.''
    Dr. John ``Jeff'' Hester, lead investigator on the Hubble 
Space Telescope (HST) for the images of the Eagle Nebula, 
mentioned his concern about the direction NASA is going with 
``faster, better, cheaper'' missions. Dr. Hester noted that 
some space astronomy projects require large, expensive 
spacecraft in order to maintain mission quality. Without 
adequate funding for these basic research, big science 
missions, the United States risks losing its scientific 
advantage as the world's leader in space.
    Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, from Lucent Technologies and formerly 
of the Space Studies Board, stated that the space program has 
become fragmented and has lost synergy. His testimony urged 
that a bipartisan commission be set up to review the space 
program in its entirety.
    Dr. Holland Ford, of Johns Hopkins University, stated that 
the declining budget will inevitably curtail both large and 
small space programs.
    Dr. Louis Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of The 
Planetary Society, stated that the budget numbers are causing 
serious concerns and the outyear numbers are ``disastrous.'' He 
also pointed out that MTPE has a solid constituency of Senators 
and the Administration; whereas the constituency for space 
science is the general public, and they are the ones that need 
to be represented.

Panel 4: Aeronautics

    The purpose of the Aeronautics panel was to review the 
focus of NASA's aeronautics research programs in the next 
decade. The Fiscal Year 1997 budget for Aeronautic Research and 
Technology is divided into five areas: (1) Research and 
Technology Base; (2) High Performance Computing and 
Communication (HPCC); (3) Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation; (4) 
High Speed Research (HSR) program; and (5) Advanced Subsonic 
Technology (AST) program. The budget figures submitted for 
Fiscal Year 1997 reflect little change from the Fiscal Year 
1996 VA/HUD conference report (H. Rept. 104-812). The major 
item of interest was the extension of the termination date of 
the AST program from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2004 and 
an increase of $205 million in total costs of the program. 
This, combined with the scheduled completion of the HSR program 
in Fiscal Year 2002, led to an interest in what the agency 
would propose as a new direction for its aeronautics research 
program. Under the Administration's budget request, the AST 
program increases from $169 million to $187 million in Fiscal 
Year 1997. Last year, the House authorized this program at $133 
million (an $8 million increase from Fiscal Year 1995). The VA/
HUD conference report restored a portion of the funding sought 
last year, which boosted the program to its current level ($169 
million). The Committee argued that the AST program invested 
primarily in ``applied research'' which yields only incremental 
advances in mature technologies.

Panel 5: Human Exploration and Development of Space

    Human Exploration and Development of Space is one of the 
strategic enterprises in NASA. The challenge it faces is the 
successful and timely construction of the International Space 
Station while undertaking significant management restructuring, 
including the initial steps toward substantially private 
operation of the U.S. Shuttle, the primary workhorse in Space 
Station assembly.
    Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's Associate Administrator for the 
Office of Space Flight, testified that the International Space 
Station was on schedule despite a recently publicized concern 
with the Node 1 pressurization test. The test was delayed until 
the analytical model could be validated by a low pressure test, 
which was successfully conducted. Mr. Trafton noted NASA is 
entering the most critical stages of Space Station development 
in Fiscal Year 1997, when most of the U.S. hardware elements 
are at the critical design and integration stage. He emphasized 
that performance to date has laid an excellent technical and 
business foundation for entering these critical phases, and 
expressed full confidence in NASA's ability to meet the 
technical and fiscal challenges that would be confronted in 
Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 1998.
    Mr. Kent Black, Chief Executive Officer of the United Space 
Alliance (USA), testified that NASA recently novated its 
existing contracts with Lockheed Martin and Rockwell, 
transferring them, unchanged to USA. This ``early start'' 
agreement was intended to assure continuity in Shuttle 
operations while full Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC) 
negotiations proceeded between NASA and USA. The full SFOC 
contract amount, which is a subject of negotiations, was not 
disclosed during the hearing.
    VADM Robert F. Dunn (retired), representing NASA's 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), discussed the work of 
ASAP with respect to NASA's restructuring and consolidation 
efforts.

Panel 6: Outreach and Education

    NASA interacts with the broad, non-aerospace public in 
several ways, including its educational programs at 
universities and in grades K-12, and with its technology 
transfer programs, which seek to shift federally-developed 
technologies to U.S. commercial interests. In recent years, 
questions have been raised about the effectiveness of both of 
these programs within NASA, including their ability to leverage 
non-NASA dollars and to maximize the return on program costs.
    Mr. Jim Pagliasotti, Executive Director of the Aerospace 
States Association (ASA), noted that this state government-
based organization had developed an educational program that 
successfully leveraged state dollars to increase the private 
funding for space education in grades K-12. He argued that NASA 
does not do a very effective job of partnering with state and 
local governments to maximize the educational benefits of 
NASA's spending on space education because the agency sometimes 
leaves these government organizations out of its planning 
process and disproportionately focuses on school systems which 
are physically near one of NASA's regional centers. He 
recommended that Congress and NASA consider a pilot program to 
out-source some of NASA's educational programs, resources, and 
responsibilities to state-based organizations in a manner 
consistent with the current practice of transferring power from 
Washington back to the states.
    Dr. Joel Snow, Director of the Institute for Physical 
Research and Technology, testified about Iowa State 
University's (ISU) experience in managing large federal science 
programs and described the University's model for transferring 
technology from these programs to the private sector. According 
to information provided by Dr. Snow, ISU has been much more 
effective in leveraging its research budget for commercial 
applications than NASA, largely because ISU takes a different 
approach than NASA. Dr. Snow suggested that NASA consider 
adopting their approach.

                   4.4(h)--U.S. Space Launch Strategy

                             June 12, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-59

Background

    On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Space Launch Strategy.'' The 
purposes of the hearing were to: (1) Examine the recent launch 
trade agreements with China, Ukraine, and Russia; (2) Examine 
what the U.S. launch industry requires to be competitive in the 
commercial launch market; and (3) Examine the role of the 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation with respect to the 
launch trade agreements and the office's role in improving the 
U.S. launch industry's competitive position.

Summary of Hearing

    Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, stated that it has 
been 25 years since the United States has developed a major new 
launch vehicle or rocket engine and that cost to orbit must 
come down to $1,000 per pound for U.S. launch vehicles to be 
competitive in the world market. Mr. Goldin maintained that 
NASA's primary space launch role is to develop and demonstrate 
pre-competitive next-generation technology that will enable the 
commercial launch industry to provide truly affordable and 
reliable access to space, namely through the RLV program.
    Mr. Robert Davis, the Deputy Under Secretary for Space from 
DOD, testified that DOD has a long history of supporting space 
commercialization by procuring commercial launch vehicles and 
making its launch infrastructure (Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg 
AFB) available to launch commercial payloads. He discussed 
current DOD policies to invest funds upgrading and 
standardizing U.S. launch ranges and noted that the Evolved 
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) will further support the 
health of the U.S. launch industry.
    Mr. Frank Weaver, Associate Administrator for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation, indicated that it was clear 
that the launch industry was changing from a market driven by 
institutional scientific and national security demands, to one 
powered by private sector initiatives. Mr. Weaver said that his 
agenda for the near-term included issuing updated spaceport/
launch site regulations to aid in the development of commercial 
space launch sites in the United States.
    Mr. Don Eiss and Catherine A. Novelli, both Deputy 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representatives (USTR), testified that the 
goal of U.S. government commercial space policy is to support 
and enhance U.S. competitiveness in commercial space while 
protecting U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. 
They testified that U.S. goals and objectives for our bilateral 
space launch agreements include: (1) providing access for U.S. 
satellite manufacturers to launches on foreign vehicles from 
countries whose economies are in transition; (2) providing 
safeguards against unfair or disruptive practices by foreign 
space launch providers in those transitional economies; and (3) 
ensuring that the agreements are sufficiently flexible to take 
account of changing market conditions such as fluctuations in 
demand.
    Dr. Brian Dailey, a Vice President with Lockheed Martin, 
noted that there is growing competition among domestic and 
international suppliers in the launch industry. He testified 
that Lockheed Martin does support maintenance of an overall 
trade framework. However, he believes that trade agreements 
should focus on unreasonably low pricing and other unfair trade 
practices as opposed to quotas.
    Mr. Stanley Ebner, Senior Vice President at McDonnell 
Douglas, agreed with testimony from prior witnesses noting that 
the USTR does not enforce pricing provisions in trade 
agreements effectively. He testified that the number of 
launches (around 50) allowed under the trade agreements with 
Russia, Ukraine, and China have created an unanticipated risk 
to McDonnell Douglas' investment in the Delta III program.
    Mr. David Montanaro, Vice President for Strategic Relations 
at Teledesic Corp., testified that the dilemma the United 
States faces is how to support the development of new 
capability without rewarding and encouraging anticompetitive 
practices. He reiterated that reducing the cost to access space 
will fuel more space-based solutions which, in turn, will fuel 
more demand for launch.
    Mr. Edward O'Connor, Executive Director for the Florida 
Spaceport Authority, discussed proposals for federal support 
for spaceports in the form of joint ventures, such as the 
transition of Cape Canaveral into an ``international 
spaceport,'' and the use of USAF range support services to aid 
in spaceport development ventures. He was also concerned about 
the lack of ``clear guidance'' for spaceport licenses from the 
FAA.
    Mr. Pat Ladner, Executive Director for the Alaska Aerospace 
Development Corp., addressed the difficulties for spaceport 
development because of DOT's failure to issue regulations for 
launch site operators and financial responsibility regulations. 
He maintained state governments are capable of formulating 
adequate environmental impact and safety studies required by 
the FAA for licensing.
    Mr. Donald D. Smith, Executive Director for the Western 
Commercial Space Center, stated that in order to compete, U.S. 
launch providers need the Federal Government to provide a 
single agency to regulate the industry, fund the 
infrastructure, and manage space traffic control.

                   4.4(i)--NASA's Uncosted Carryover

                             July 18, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-60

Background

    On July 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing entitled, ``NASA's Uncosted Carryover.'' The 
hearing reviewed a General Accounting Office (GAO) study on the 
problem of uncosted carryover funds within NASA programs. 
Specifically, GAO concentrated on four key goals: (1) determine 
why MTPE carried forward such a large portion of its budget in 
uncosted funds; (2) compare MTPE's uncosted carryover with that 
of other programs, such as Space Science, the Space Station, 
and the Space Shuttle; (3) determine how NASA plans to reduce 
uncosted balances; and (4) determine how uncosted carryover 
balances were treated in the NASA budget.

Summary of Hearing

    Mr. Thomas J. Schulz, Associate Director, Defense 
Acquisitions Issues, National Security and International 
Affairs Division of GAO, testified that it was important to use 
information on carryover balances when considering NASA's 
request for new budget authority. He said that GAO will 
continue to review NASA's budget requests. Mr. Schulz stated 
that while assessing NASA's requests for new budget authority 
and determining what adjustments, if any, to make to that 
request, the focus should be on the total resources NASA has 
available for the next fiscal year, not just the amount 
requested. In closing, he noted that NASA has shown that it is 
paying more attention to the carryover balances. However, the 
agency has not yet reached the point where it fully understands 
individual program carryover balances and what each program's 
carryover threshold could or should be.
    Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, welcomed the 
opportunity to work with GAO to review carryover balances 
within NASA programs. He said that NASA was also concerned 
about the increase in levels of uncosted carryovers, mentioning 
that NASA had formed a team headed by Chief Financial Officer 
Arnold Holz prior to the GAO investigation. Mr. Goldin 
maintained that in some cases, carryover balances were 
necessary for various programs. For example, he said it is 
critical that science programs or any research and development 
(R&D) program have a certain level of carryover. R&D work is 
very dynamic and Goldin said that it was absolutely necessary 
that NASA have funds on hand to avoid slipping program 
schedules when technical issues changes arise. Mr. Goldin also 
argued carryover balances were necessary in certain programs 
because of inherent delays in the appropriations and 
apportionment processes. In closing, Goldin maintained that 
carryover funds are used in these instances to ensure funding 
and continuity of programs.

         4.4(j)--Space Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996

                             July 31, 1996

                         Hearing Volume 104-61

Background

    A commercial space roundtable was held on March 5, 1996, to 
review a draft of the Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 
1996 and H.R. 1953, the Space Business Incentives Act. The 
roundtable featured representatives from corporations whose 
principal business is government contracting; entrepreneurs 
whose firms are developing space-related goods and services 
without regard to federal outlays and programs; economists; 
analysts; venture capitalists; and Congressional and Executive 
Branch leaders. The roundtable format was chosen as the best 
forum in which to promote a free-flowing exchange of 
information, ideas, suggestions and criticisms regarding the 
commercialization of space. The purpose was to discuss 
legislative ideas that could actually improve the business 
environment for investing in commercial space activities. After 
the commercial space roundtable, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a formal hearing on the ``Space 
Commercialization Promotion Act of 1996,'' that allowed Members 
to review the provisions of the proposed legislation.

Summary of Hearing

    Mr. Lionel S. Johns, Associate Director for Technology at 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated that a 
strong, stable U.S. commercial space industry is vital to the 
nation's future. In order to develop the commercial space 
industry, Mr. Johns suggested that the United States must 
modify the regulatory framework to accommodate the emergence of 
spaceports as a resource in space transportation. He said that 
the Administration shared the Subcommittee's desire to 
encourage commercial spaceports, and indeed the 
Administration's space transportation policy specifically 
encourages private sector, state, and local investments in U.S. 
launch systems and infrastructure.
    Lt. Gen. Spence M. Armstrong (retired), NASA's Associate 
Director for Human Resources and Education, discussed post-
employment restrictions and portability of benefits for the 
entity that was awarded the single prime contract for the Space 
Shuttle program. He also mentioned NASA's desire for buyout 
authority at the $50,000 level in order to avoid a reduction in 
force (RIF) at the agency.
    Mr. Gil Klinger, Principle Assistant Under Secretary of 
Defense for Space at DOD, testified that DOD is committed to 
enabling and assisting the commercial space sector. Mr. Klinger 
noted that DOD has already accomplished much through 
streamlined acquisition procedures; decreased military 
specification; and increased use of commercial products and 
services.
    Dr. Brian Dailey, Vice President, Business Development for 
Space & Strategic Missiles Sector at Lockheed Martin 
Corporation, maintained that it was important for the United 
States to be a leader in the field of remote sensing, therefore 
Lockheed Martin supports the proposed legislation because it 
will help facilitate many of the commercial ventures for U.S. 
industry.
    Dr. Scott Pace, Policy Analyst for the Rand Corporation, 
discussed the President's policy on the Global Positioning 
System (GPS), released March 29, 1996, which provided the kind 
of policy framework and clarity that U.S. industry requires. In 
addition, he said that it's important to look forward to the 
next step, which is the creation of a supportive international 
framework for the use of GPS. Dr. Pace stated the it is 
imperative that the United States speak with a single voice 
that integrates both the security and economic interests that 
the United States has in wider international acceptance of GPS.
    Mr. Mark Brender, National Radio and Television News 
Directors' Association and ABC News Producer, also commented on 
the President's policy on GPS noting specific restrictions on 
remote sensing for reasons of national security and threats to 
foreign policy. Mr. Brender said that he was concerned that the 
language regarding remote sensing in the President's policy and 
the draft of the commercial space bill was overly broad and 
very vague. He argued that shutter control orders based on 
foreign policy concerns could be considered unconstitutional 
and that the remote sensing industry should be protected by the 
First Amendment.

                         4.4(k)--Life on Mars?

                           September 12, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-64

Background

    On August 7, 1996, NASA announced the possibility of past 
life on Mars due to the recent examination of a meteorite, 
ALH84001. This meteorite was discovered in the Allan Hills ice 
field of Antarctica in 1984 by a scientific research team led 
by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Roberta Score, a 
geologist at NSF, is credited for spotting the meteorite. The 
green meteorite contrasted starkly against the patch of blue 
ice where it was found. The meteorite was brought to the JSC 
Meteorite Processing Laboratory. Its possible Martian origin 
was recognized in 1993. It was then given to a team of 
researchers at the Johnson Space Center and Stanford University 
for further analysis. On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Life on 
Mars?'' The hearing reviewed the evidence regarding the 
possibility of primitive life on Mars and future missions to 
explore the red planet.

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, NASA's Associate Administrator for 
Space Science, discussed NASA's systematic plan for the step-
by-step robotic exploration of Mars. The first step is to map 
the territory in order to identify the most interesting and 
scientifically beneficial areas of the planet. After conducting 
the aerial survey, robotic scouts would conduct a landed survey 
to analyze various aspects of the planet's surface. The final 
step would involve returning samples from Mars to Earth.
    Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford (retired), of Stafford, Burke, 
and Hecker, reviewed key technologies that are necessary to 
successfully undertake the exploration of Mars. He said that 
the realization of Mars exploration is dependent upon two 
fundamental technologies: (1) the restoration of a heavy-lift 
launch capability; and (2) the redevelopment of a nuclear 
thermal rocket.
    Dr. David S. McKay, Assistant for Exploration, Earth 
Science and Solar System Exploration Division at the Johnson 
Space Center, discussed four clues which lead to the claim that 
life once existed on Mars: (1) the origin of the meteorite 
(from Mars) and the carbonate globules within it; (2) the 
presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; (3) the presence 
of iron and other compounds that are typically produced by 
bacteria; and (4), the microscopic pictures that look like 
bacterialized fossils.
    Dr. Richard N. Zare, Chair of the National Space Board, 
Department of Chemistry at Stanford University, testified that 
the findings from the meteorite, ALH84001, were made possible 
by recent technological advances in high-resolution scanning 
electron microscopy and laser mass spectrometry. This equipment 
identifies, on a minute scale, images that once were unable to 
be detected. Dr. Zare reiterated that researchers found a 
number of features in globs of carbonate within the meteorite 
that can be interpreted as suggesting past life.

  4.5(a)--GAO Report on Cholesterol Measurement Testing Standards and 
                                Accuracy

                           February 14, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-4

Background

    On February 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``GAO Report on Cholesterol Measurement 
Testing Standards and Accuracy.'' High levels of serum 
cholesterol are correlated with an increased risk of coronary 
heart disease, which is the leading cause of death among the 
U.S. population. In 1985, the National Institutes of Health 
initiated the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), 
which promotes screening for cholesterol among the general 
population and the reduction of cholesterol through medical and 
dietary interventions. There are currently some 4-5 million 
Americans receiving cholesterol-lowering drugs; in addition, as 
much as 15% of the population is practicing some form of 
dietary modification. The total cost of cholesterol tests, 
treatments, diets, and programs may exceed $10 billion 
annually. Many aspects of the nation's cholesterol agenda have 
been controversial, due in large part to scientific 
uncertainties concerning the determinants of cholesterol levels 
and the causes and prevention of heart disease. In 1992, the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight requested the General Accounting 
Office to conduct a series of studies on the measurement of 
cholesterol, the role of cholesterol in heart disease, the cost 
and efficacy of cholesterol-lowering drugs and the validity of 
the NCEP. Cholesterol Measurement: Test Accuracy and Factors 
That Influence Cholesterol Levels is the first GAO report in 
response to this request and it stated that cholesterol 
measurement is potentially subject to significant inaccuracies.
    One panel of witnesses represented both the General 
Accounting Office and the National Institutes of Health. Mr. 
Kwai-Cheung Chan, Director of Program Evaluation in Physical 
Systems Areas, GAO, and Dr. Claude Lenfant, Director, National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH testified.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kwai-Cheung Chan, GAO, stated that, ``instrument 
measurement error and day-to-day variations from biological and 
behavioral factors make it highly unlikely that individuals can 
`know' their cholesterol levels based on a single 
measurement,'' therefore cholesterol levels should be viewed in 
ranges instead of absolute fixed numbers. It is very difficult 
to accurately measure cholesterol, but under controlled 
conditions measurements are reasonably accurate.
    Dr. Claude Lenfant, NIH, testified that the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) agrees with the GAO report 
with regard to the need for standardization among laboratories. 
However, ``the problem in actual laboratory performance may be 
overstated.'' Both NHLBI and GAO believe that desk-top 
analyzers used in doctors' offices provide unsatisfactory 
results in measuring cholesterol. He stated that it is 
important to continue to educate individuals with information 
about cholesterol as well as encourage improvements in 
cholesterol measurements.

 4.5(b)--Technology Administration/National Institute of Standards and 
                               Technology

                             March 23, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-5

Background

    On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technology Administration/National 
Institute of Standards and Technology.'' This hearing was held 
to review the Technology Administration (TA)/ National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) budget request for 
Fiscal Year 1996. Witnesses provided specific testimony on 
NIST's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership (MEP). The ATP is designed to improve the 
nation's competitiveness through grants for industrial research 
on ``generic, pre-competitive'' technology. The Budget 
Committee's illustrative spending cuts include the elimination 
of ATP funding. The MEP provides technical assistance to small 
and medium sized firms through an extension of network centers.
    The hearing was structured in three panels. Witnesses on 
the first panel, which discussed support for the FY 96 budget, 
included: Dr. Mary Good, Under Secretary of Technology and Dr. 
Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST.
    The second panel, which addressed industry concerns, 
included: Mr. Carlson, President, Perceptron, and a 
representative of the Auto Body Consortium; Mr. Caisse, 
President and CEO of Cubicon, Inc.; Mr. Gibson, President X-Ray 
Opticals; Ms. Conner, Vice President of Marketing and Sales, 
Crystallume; Ms. Blitz, Research Fellow, American Enterprise 
Institute; and Dr. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies, 
Cato Institute.
    The third panel consisted of: Ms. Pounds, Director of 
Massachusetts Manufacturing Partnership, Bay State Skills 
Corporation; Mr. Reddy, President, National Coalition for 
Advanced Manufacturing; and Mr. Rhoades, President, Extrude 
Hone Corporation.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Dr. Mary Good testified in support of the FY96 budget 
request of $1.36 billion for the Technology Administration 
(TA). She stated that federal involvement is crucial to promote 
private-sector innovation, and noted that TA is the only 
federal entity supporting the civilian technology base. She 
also stressed the importance of technology in the ever 
increasing global marketplace and the need for all U.S. 
businesses to be globally competitive.
    Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST, also testified in 
support of the FY96 budget request. She stated the reason 
NIST's budget has grown so rapidly recently is to bridge the 
widening gap between private and public investment in 
technology. NIST's role, she explained, is to support 
investment in long-term, risky, infrastructural technologies, 
driven by industry, and allocated on a competitive basis.

Panel 2

    Mr. Carlson, President, Perception, testified about the 
importance of the ATP program in being a catalyst for bringing 
together the research universities, the innovation of the 
technology companies, and the major corporations. Because of 
this they are now competitive with the Japanese.
    Mr. Cassie, President and CEO of Cubicon, Inc., spoke about 
the need for ATP investments in high risk technologies, too 
risky for venture capitalists to fund, but crucial to stimulate 
economic growth and provide monumental rewards.
    Mr. Gibson, President of X-Ray Opticals, testified 
regarding the importance of ATP in the success of his small 
company. He stated, because he was without a prototype, 
financing would not have been available without ATP.
    Ms. Conner, Vice President Marketing and Sales, Crystallume 
(an ATP recipient), testified about the importance of 
government funding for the successful start-up of high-risk 
technologies, but she stressed that ATP should be changed to 
operate more like the free market.
    Ms. Beltz, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 
questioned the need for ATP, asking if the government is 
uniquely qualified to promote competitiveness in high-risk 
technologies. She stated venture capital is surging, questioned 
the ability of government to predict market potential for 
technologies, and stressed the need for setting priorities in 
this time of downsizing.
    Dr. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies, Cato 
institute, testified against government funding of the ATP 
program and noted that the free market works well. He stated 
the bureaucrats are not better suited than private investors at 
picking winners and losers and noted the record of government 
directed investment is not good.

Panel 3

    Ms. Pounds, Director, Massachusetts Manufacturing 
Partnership, Bay States Skills Corporation (an MEP affiliate), 
testified about the importance of the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program. She explained the role of MEP, saying the 
centers provide a wide range of services to small 
manufacturers, including teaching them ways to manufacture 
products faster and cheaper, in order to receive the best 
return on their investment and capture foreign markets.
    Mr. Reddy, President, National Coalition for Advanced 
Manufacturing, said in order to bring advanced manufacturing 
technologies to all industrial bases, efforts of the private 
sector and the Federal Government need to be combined. He said 
federal dollars are a powerful way to stimulate other 
investment.
    Mr. Rhoades, President, Extrude Hone Corporation, testified 
that manufacturing accounts for 20% of U.S. GNP, and 98% of 
manufacturers are small companies which in the last few decades 
are the only manufacturing sector with job growth. Referring to 
his own company, he stated that with the help of MEP, Extrude 
Hone Corp. has doubled their percentage of profit on sales, and 
83% of Pennsylvania firms involved in MEP reported sales gains 
since their initial involvement.

        4.5(c)--FAA Research and Acquisition Management Hearing

                              May 16, 1995

                        Hearing Volume No. 104-9

Background

    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``FAA Research and Acquisition Management.'' 
The oversight hearing was held to examine the Federal Aviation 
Administration's (FAA) research and acquisition management. 
Over the past decade, major FAA modernization projects, 
centered around the Advanced Automation System (AAS), have 
experienced problems with costs, schedules, and performance. 
Although the FAA began efforts to modernize the Air Traffic 
Control (ATC) in 1981, limited progress has been made despite 
14 years of efforts and the expenditure of several billion 
dollars. Witnesses provided specific testimony on FAA's long-
standing internal management and cultural impediments to 
improving acquisition processes. The FAA has historically been 
criticized for its bureaucratic, ``process over substance'' 
culture and inability to timely field technically complex 
systems. FAA has recently reorganized its research and 
acquisition organization as a result of several internal and 
external reviews following the problems associated with the 
development of the AAS.
    The hearing was structured in two panels. Witnesses on the 
first panel were Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Associate Director 
for Transportation Issues, and Mr. Kevin Dopart, Senior 
Analyst, Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program. 
The witness on the second panel was Dr. George L. Donohue, 
Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisition.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Mr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Associate Director, 
Transportation and Telecommunications Issues, at GAO, testified 
regarding the problems in FAA's research and development 
programs. He stated FAA has R&D funds over $800 million, 
without including NASA and DOD resources. He addressed FAA's 
problems in developing and deploying systems in the R&D area, 
citing many examples of projects which are excessively behind 
schedule and above budget. In addition, he spoke about FAA's 
recent reorganization of its R&D and acquisition programs. He 
said the change incorporates integrated products into the R&D 
process, but he pointed out, although the product teams are a 
move in the right direction, FAA has not included the end users 
in the process.
    Mr. Kevin P. Dopart, Senior Analyst, Energy, Transportation 
and Infrastructure Program, of OTA, testified regarding OTA's 
study on Federal Research and Technology for Aviation. He 
suggested Congress may want to encourage more fundamental 
research within FAA's long-term safety research programs. He 
also spoke about the ATC system and how chronically delayed 
implementation of new technologies has been. He stated, 
``Bridging cultural gaps is essential for effective ATC 
development . . . FAA needs stronger and more stable leadership 
and an R&D that is more operationally focused.''

Panel 2

    Mr. George L. Donohue, Associate Administrator for Research 
and Acquisition, of the Federal Aviation Administration, stated 
FAA's RE&D activities were crucial in helping the United States 
develop the safest and most efficient aviation system in the 
world. He noted that FAA is facing a big challenge with today's 
rapidly changing technology, and that a new organizational 
structure has been put in place to help deal with the changes. 
He testified that FAA is transforming its acquisition process 
by purchasing commercial items when possible. He also said he 
agreed with GAO and OTA on many of their statements.

     4.5(d)--Federal Technology Transfer Policies and our Federal 
Laboratories: Methods for Improving Incentives for Technology Transfer 
                        at Federal Laboratories

                             June 27, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-13

Background

    On June 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology and the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Federal Technology Transfer Policies and our Federal 
Laboratories: Methods for Improving Incentives for Technology 
Transfer at Federal Laboratories,'' to receive testimony 
regarding the transfer of technology from federal laboratories. 
(See also page 90.) The hearing explored the effectiveness of 
our federal technology transfer laws and methods in which they 
may be improved. Witnesses also provided comments on the 
circulated draft text of H.R. 2196, the ``The Technology 
Transfer Improvement Act of 1995,'' proposed by Mrs. Morella.
    The hearing was structured in three panels. Witnesses on 
the first panel gave a historical overview of federal 
technology transfer policies and discussed the methods of 
technology transfer. Panel two witnesses included 
representatives of the Department of Energy laboratories which 
have engaged in technology transfer activities. Panel three 
witnesses included representatives of companies which have 
developed new products and applications with federal 
laboratories.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Mr. Joe Allen, Director of Training, Marketing and Economic 
Development at the National Technology Transfer Center, 
commended Mrs. Morella on her legislation. He identified three 
key components of the legislation: (1) it is market-driven; (2) 
there are incentives for laboratories and scientists; and (3) 
intellectual property is given to companies who commercialize 
the technology. He stated our ultimate goal should be linking 
federal laboratories, universities, and state and local 
business assistance programs strategically with U.S. industry 
in locally led initiatives.
    Dr. Robert Templin, President of Virginia's Center for 
Innovative Technology, stated that assessing the return on 
investment from technology transfer is difficult, but crucial. 
He said we must look at jobs, companies, and competitiveness to 
determine its value. Dr. Templin also commented on the need to 
get authority to the local laboratories so the labs can enter 
into agreements, allowing them to be more responsive to market-
driven needs.
    Ms. Tina McKinley, Chair of the Federal Laboratory 
Consortium at Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 
testified to her support for the legislation, and indicated it 
will contribute to the speed and effectiveness of federal 
technology transfer. She explained that all technology is 
different and volatile. She said flexibility is necessary, 
laboratories have to be able to select from a range of 
mechanisms depending on the situation. She added, ``The fact is 
technology transfer, like politics, is local.''
    Mr. John Preston, Director of the Technology Development of 
MIT, representing the Association of University Technology 
Managers stated that we must use technology transfer to remain 
competitive internationally. The net effect of our sluggishness 
to commercialize technology, he added, is that American ideas 
and inventions are adopted by foreign competitors rather than 
U.S. companies. He said we should, ``even the playing field by 
creating industrial research competitiveness that rivals what 
our foreign competitors are doing.'' He stated that there is a 
critical need for new approaches to technology 
commercialization, and that we need to have the courage to 
lower the bureaucracy that stifles entrepreneurship.

Panel 2

    Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, Vice President, Laboratory 
Development, Sandia National Laboratory, testified on the 
uniqueness of the nation's DOE laboratories as ``multi-problem 
solvers'' for U.S. industry, which is what industry seeks and 
what the labs can best deliver. Ambassador Robinson feels the 
process by which technology partnerships are developed should 
be streamlined to improve efficiency. In response to criticism 
that technology partnerships were giveaways to individual 
companies, he stated that SNL is increasingly working with a 
consortia of U.S. companies. Also, SNL is now involved with 
medium and small size firms, an area Ambassador Robinson would 
like to see expanded. He stated that the national labs benefit 
by seeking ways their long-term goals can be leveraged by 
industry's aims.
    Mr. Ronald W. Cochran, Laboratory Executive Officer, 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, testified that 
industrial partnering is vital to the future success of LLNL's 
programs. He stressed that continued Congressional leadership 
is essential to further refine the technology transfer system 
and keep it viable. Mr. Cochran also expressed support for Rep. 
Morella's bill as a way to build on past experience with 
industrial partnering. He also stated the labs must have many 
options available when seeking out technology partnerships and 
to listen to industry as the best way to gauge the 
effectiveness of partnerships.
    Mr. Richard Marczewski, Manager, Technology Transfer 
Office, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, testified that 
CRADA's are only one mechanism used by NREL to transfer 
technology and that the labs should have a variety of 
mechanisms at their disposal to bring technology to the market. 
He further stated that NREL plans to increase their use of 
licensing in the future and will actively seek access to 
foreign markets by acquiring foreign patents. Although Mr. 
Marczewski feels NREL should aggressively pursue partnering 
opportunities, he feels the labs' core competencies should not 
be compromised in the process.
    Dr. Peter Lyons, Director, Industrial Partnership Office, 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified that reducing the 
global nuclear danger is LANL's central mission and LANL must 
utilize the best sources of domestic science and technology to 
meet such a multi-faceted goal. Therefore, Dr. Lyons feels 
alliances with industry are very important to sustain and to 
expand that base of domestic science and technology. He feels 
partnerships with industry help LANL's core competencies and 
agrees with the need for flexibility in finding ways to work 
with industry. He voiced support for provisions within Rep. 
Morella's bill which strengthen the CRADA mechanism. Dr. Lyons 
also urged for the continued funding of the Technology Transfer 
Initiative as, he feels, it is vital for future partnerships 
LANL enters.
    Mr. William Martin, Vice President, Office of Technology 
Transfer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, testified that Rep. 
Morella's bill is a ``win-win'' situation for government and 
the private sector. Mr. Martin stated that federal agencies 
must fulfill their missions as assigned by Congress and what 
should be addressed at this time is how to improve the process 
of technology transfer. One improvement which should be made, 
according to Mr. Martin, is to make industry better aware of 
the applicability of government developed technology. Further, 
he expressed a need to get industry involved earlier in the R&D 
process and reduce bureaucratic barriers to technology 
transfer.

Panel 3

    Mr. Michael Ury, Vice-President of Fusion Lighting, 
asserted that without the help from the DOE and Lawrence 
Berkeley Laboratory, successful of development of sulfur lights 
would be too risky to embark on and not as timely. He said the 
government should have a role in developing high energy 
lighting. Currently, he stated, only one major lamp company is 
U.S.-owned. He said one of the benefits from DOE's involvement 
in lighting has been to stimulate a higher level of investment 
by the lighting companies in new technology.
    Mr. Tom Fortin, Vice-President and CFO of Rio Grande 
Medical Technologies, Inc., testified that without the 
technology transfer link to Sandia National Laboratory his 
company would not have had the opportunity to produce the 
noninvasive glucose monitor for diabetics. He stated that this 
small collaboration has shown that technology transfer from 
federal laboratories can make contributions toward solving real 
world problems.
    Mr. William Elkins, Chairman of Life Enhancement 
Technologies, stated that government labs need to have 
incentives to get the job done. Labs need to recognize who they 
serve, he argued, and increasing incentives for labs is 
essential.

 4.5(e)--Maintaining Our International Competitiveness: The Importance 
           of Standards and Conformity Assessment on Industry

                             June 29, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-12

Background

    On June 29, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Maintaining Our International 
Competitiveness: The Importance of Standards and Conformity 
Assessment on Industry,'' to receive testimony regarding the 
importance of standards and conformity assessment on industry. 
The United States has a very decentralized standards system, 
not controlled by any one entity. A multitude of organizations 
are in the standards-setting and conformity assessment process. 
While there is no single government agency that is responsible 
for standards policy, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) is the leading agency expert in the area of 
technology standards and industry standardization issues. 
Witnesses discussed recommendations made in the National 
Research Council's report, released March 1995, entitled, 
``Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade in the 21st 
Century.''
    The hearing consisted of two witness panels. The first 
panel included witnesses from the National Research Council, 
NIST, and the American National Standards Institute. Witnesses 
on the second panel were representatives from United States 
industry. They discussed the private sector's involvement in 
the standards-setting and conformity assessment process.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Dr. Gary Hufbauer, Senior Fellow at the Institute for 
International Economics, testified as Chairman of the National 
research Council's International Standards, Conformity 
Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project Committee. The 
Committee was responsible for the research and development of 
the report. He stated that the Committee looked at two areas: 
the voluntary consensus standard setting system and conformity 
assessment, and the system for measuring and certifying 
conformance to standards. While the report found that the 
standards development process works well, the NRC recommended 
several changes in the conformity assessment system. Dr. 
Hufbauer said the conformity assessment system has unnecessary 
duplication among federal and local governments. The 
Committee's recommendations, he explained, give the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology the lead role by 
assigning them the responsibility of phasing out federally 
operated conformity assessment activities and asking them to 
work with state and local governments to eliminate duplicative 
accreditation systems.
    Ms. Amy Marasco, Vice President and General Counsel of the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), stated that the 
OMB Circular A-119 needs Congressional backing to be effective. 
She said it is in the best interests of the nation to require 
federal employees to participate in the voluntary consensus 
standards process and require federal agencies to adopt 
voluntary consensus standards whenever it is practical and 
feasible.
    Dr. Belinda Collins, Director of Standards at NIST, 
testified that the Federal Government's role in the standards 
process is to be both a partner and a participant with the 
private sector. She stressed that NIST is looking forward to 
coordinating activities in the standards process, but that NIST 
should not be ``policing'' activities. She stated that 
recognizing NIST as the lead agency for coordinating conformity 
assessment activities is a positive step there has not 
previously been any federal agency assigned to that task, and 
conformity assessment is much more of a decentralized 
complicated activity than standards development.

Panel 2

    Dr. Louis Dixon, Automotive Safety and Engineering 
Standards of Ford Motor Company, testified about the importance 
of efficient conformity assessment. He said manufacturers and 
consumers are significantly affected by the cost of redundant 
conformity assessment activities. He added, ``Where 
certifications are required, certifications should be based on 
one assessment, from one location, and should be acceptable 
anywhere in the world.''
    Mr. Gerald Ritterbusch, Manager of Product Safety and 
Environmental Control at Caterpillar, Inc., testified regarding 
changes needed in the conformity assessment process. He stated 
the public sector should handle assessment and accreditation, 
and the Federal Government can step in at the recognition 
level. Government support, he said, is absolutely essential.
    Mr. Walter Poggi, President of Retlif Testing Laboratories 
and representing ACIL, stated he was testifying as a small 
businessman and that he disagreed with some of the NRC's 
recommendations. He said he does not think it is practical for 
every federal agency to stop performing conformity assessment 
activities and indicated it is counter to the international 
trend. He also felt the standards development process is slow, 
costly and discriminates against small business.
    Mr. Stephen Oksala, Director of Corporate Standards at 
Unisys Corporation, said he agreed with most of the NRC's 
recommendations and stressed the importance of industry 
leadership in the standard development partnership. He said, 
``Move the standards and conformity assessment infrastructures 
from the public to the private sector, and let the Federal 
Government concentrate on supporting that process through 
participation, recognition, and harmonization.''
    Mr. Rod Lee, Senior Vice President of Lithonia Lighting, 
and representing the National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (NEMA), provided testimony regarding the lighting 
fixture industry as an example of a government agency mandating 
a standards policy and not using the voluntary consensus 
standard system. He stated that the government is mandating 
that lighting equipment be provided in modular, metric 
increments. He explained that the manufacturer's current 
standardized tool cannot produce the hard metric fixture, 
required by government regulation, and it will be extremely 
expensive to adhere strictly to the federal guidelines. In 
addition, he added, the lighting industry does not believe 
there is any value added to the industry in adopting 
nonstandard equipment only for the government, while the 
private sector has not indicated any demand for the hard metric 
fixtures.

4.5(f)--Cyberporn: Protecting Our Children from the Back Alleys of the 
                                Internet

                             July 26, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-16

Background

    The Subcommittees on Basic Research and Technology met 
jointly on July 26, 1995, to explore the ramifications of 
cyberporn in our society. This hearing, entitled, ``Cyberporn: 
Protecting Our Children from the Back Alleys of the Internet,'' 
began as the first in a series of hearings focusing on the 
Internet and issues affecting high performance computing and 
communications, and the information highway. (See also page 
95.)
    The Internet has become the gateway for information, 
education, and entertainment. As more and more users 
participate on the Internet, it is also becoming a forum where 
children have been exposed to obscene and pornographic 
material. This access to pornography has greatly disturbed 
parents, Congress, and the American public. This proliferation 
of pornographic and obscene materials available on the Internet 
is one of most difficult issues confronting Internet use. 
Before identifying a new role for government, the hearing 
provided for a discussion of methods already available in the 
private-sector marketplace to allow users and on-line service 
providers to control the types of materials coming into homes, 
schools, and businesses. The hearing also provided Members with 
a full understanding of solutions already available before 
upcoming Congressional consideration of new government 
regulation or new criminal laws regarding pornography and the 
Internet.
    The hearing was composed of two witness panels. Witnesses 
on panel one represented commercial on-line Internet providers 
who have been developing new technologies to block access to 
pornography. These efforts include making available screening 
software, such as SurfWatch, which prevents the computer on 
which it's loaded from accessing sites on the Internet known to 
contain sexual content. This software works by matching a 
potential Internet destination to a proprietary list of 
forbidden sites. For example, an attempt to browse through a 
pornographic Web page results in a screen reading, ``Blocked by 
SurfWatch.''
    Panel two witnesses, comprised of various legal entities, 
discussed prosecuting child pornography and distributors of 
obscene material across state lines, which is already illegal 
under federal law. Since this is a new medium, there may be 
difficulties and peculiarities involved in its prosecution.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Mr. Tony Rutkowski, Executive Director, Internet Society, 
testified that the Internet has grown from an enormous, 
creative grassroots environment. Legislation already in place 
is sufficient, according to Mr. Rutkowski, because only a small 
percentage of the overall traffic flow on the Internet is of an 
objectionable nature. Because of its very size and scope, he 
stated that the Internet would be almost impossible to police--
that such traditional regulation would invariably create more 
damage, especially in terms of international involvement and 
the complexities of multiple jurisdictions at that level. He 
emphasized an important fact which cannot be ignored--the 
Internet is ``poised to emerge as a major backbone of the 
global economy.''
    Ms. Ann Duvall, President, SurfWatch Software, Inc., 
describes the Internet as a ``pioneering community'' which 
serves as a social tool, as well as a technological tool and it 
was in this interest that SurfWatch was born. Though she feels 
that it is unusual for a technological product company to be 
involved as a solution to the societal hazards presented by the 
Internet, she recognizes that private industry will have a 
large role to play in the spectrum of troubleshooting 
techniques for the Internet, responding to the evolution 
generated by Internet's rapid development. She acknowledges the 
importance of parental control in choosing the information they 
deem appropriate for their children to view. Thus, the 
SurfWatch Manager database is ideal for unsophisticated users 
because of the frequent updates to the database and the simple 
design of the system. She reiterated Mr. Rutkowski's stance 
that government regulation might destroy the global 
opportunities afforded by the Internet, especially in light of 
the fact that 30% of the sites blocked by SurfWatch originated 
outside United States jurisdiction. She emphasized that 
parental guidance and education are the best tools with which 
to monitor the Internet and safeguard our children.
    Mr. Steven Heaton, General Counsel and Secretary, 
Compuserve, stressed that the key to securing the Internet lies 
in customizing personal computers, because that is the primary 
point of convergence of all on-line activities. Compuserve is 
evaluating the use of several software technologies as 
solutions to be applied for this purpose, including SurfWatch, 
NetNanny, Cybersitter, and Internet-In-A-Box. This allows 
freedom of choice for parents, educators, etc., to decide what 
is acceptable and unacceptable information to access. He states 
that Compuserve's goal is to empower users, specifically 
parents, through education and technology. He observed that 
existing obscenity laws are more than satisfactory in dealing 
with the criminal element whose specialty is concentrated in 
``computer media'' and that the role of government should be in 
educating users to the risks and benefits of the online 
environment, to legislate the policy of individual 
responsibility in this arena, and to encourage development of 
new technologies in cyberspace.

Panel 2

    Mr. Kevin Manson, Legal Division of the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), testified regarding his 
operation of CYBERCOP, a non-governmental, not-for-profit 
Bulletin Board System, whose mission is ``networking and 
education on the electronic frontier.'' He stated that law 
enforcement is rapidly finding itself overtaken by technology 
of the future. He said the solution to problems associated with 
computer-porn will be found in new partnerships between 
business and law enforcement.
    Mr. Mike Geraghty, Trooper, New Jersey State Police, stated 
that pedophiles are using the Internet as a new means to 
distribute information. He said the laws are already in place 
to assist in catching computer criminals, it is the training of 
law enforcement personnel that needs to be addressed. He 
explained that it is crucial for law enforcement to keep up 
with the technology.
    Mr. Lee Hollander, Assistant States Attorney, Naples, FL, 
testified that the law is developing in this area. A lot of 
issues must be considered, he added, including the Fourth 
Amendment Search and Seizure, obscenity laws, and 
jurisdictional issues.

 4.5(g)--The Impact of Government Regulatory, Tax and Legal Policy on 
               Technology Development and Competitiveness

                           September 28, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-18

Background

    On September 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a hearing entitled, ``The Impact of Government Regulatory, Tax 
and Legal Policy on Technology Development and 
Competitiveness,'' to receive testimony regarding government 
policy instruments and their impact on technology development, 
commercialization and competitiveness. Regulatory, tax and 
legal policies strongly affect the private sector's ability to 
take technology to the market and create jobs, wealth and a 
higher standard of living.
    The hearing consisted of two panels. Witnesses included 
representatives from major R&D companies and selective policy 
groups.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Mr. Philip Howard, author of the Death of Common Sense, 
testified regarding the burdens of regulation on industry. He 
said that the law and regulations have not adjusted to the 
changing needs of technology. He spoke about three specific 
problems affecting technology including: the lack of a coherent 
antitrust policy for technology; outdated laws for intellectual 
property; and government contracting rules. Risk is half of 
life, Mr. Howard said, but our system today allows one to sue 
just because a risk they are pursuing doesn't pan out. He added 
that judges today don't view their job as safeguarding 
reasonableness.
    Dr. Allan Mendelowitz, of the General Accounting Office 
(GAO), stated without increasing productivity the country 
cannot sustain over the long run a rising standard of living. 
He testified that when regulation is used to achieve public 
policy objectives it imposes costs on the economy in the goods 
that are produced. He added that is it essential the government 
carefully consider the impact of regulatory activity on 
productivity, efficient use of resources, and ultimately the 
standard of living for Americans. Regulations, he said, have as 
direct, and as significant of an impact as the direct 
expenditure programs of the government.

Panel 2

    Dr. Judith Giordan, Vice-President of Research & 
Development at Henkel Corporation, testified that regulation 
needs to assist the full innovation process. She said the tax 
credit is an important tool to improve productivity, but not 
the means to an end. She stressed the importance of training 
programs to help create a positive feeling about science, and 
also the importance of funding university research.
    Mr. Jesse Greene, Vice-President and Corporate Treasurer of 
Eastman-Kodak Company, commented on the importance of 
flexibility in regulations so manufacturers have the ability to 
meet the market needs. He suggested that by making the R & E 
tax credit permanent and for a higher percentage rate the 
credit would have a much bigger influence on major research and 
development projects. Mr. Greene stated that if the United 
States wants to sustain its research and development it is very 
important for Congress to recognize the need for incentives. 
Companies, he added, are under high pressure to move overseas 
because of tax incentives and market opportunities.
    Dr. Francis Kapper, Director of Advanced Government 
Programs at Corning Incorporated, testified regarding the lost 
opportunity costs of regulation which are rarely calculated. 
Congress should look at product liability, he said, it greatly 
affects a company's long-term investment decisions.
    Dr. Daniel Garner, President of Cellmark Diagnostics, 
testified about the importance of regulation in some areas, but 
also stressed the negative effects of regulation. Currently, he 
stated, it takes his company an average of 12 years and $400 
million dollars to bring a product to market. He said 
streamlining the regulation process would be most important to 
Cellmark. He also stated that product liability is a major 
discouragement to investing in the United States.
    Dr. Thomas Lenard, Senior Fellow, Progress and Freedom 
Foundation, spoke specifically about the high-technology 
sectors of the medical industry and environmental technologies. 
He stated that in these areas the government has a single 
gateway for market entry, and this creates an adverse incentive 
for innovation. If regulations are made reasonable, he said, it 
will help diminish the time required to bring a product to 
market and that will provide a strong incentive for more R&D. 
He stated that the current regulatory framework adversely 
affects innovation, especially where technological 
opportunities are the greatest.
    Mr. Andrew Wyckoff, Program Director at the Office of 
Technology (OTA), spoke about the importance of regulation for 
assuring the public of the safety of new innovations, such as 
airplane equipment. He commented on the recent study done by 
OTA which concluded that the R & E tax credit worked reasonably 
well at incenting R&D. But, he added that the type of R&D it 
generates is R&D the company is already doing, it does not 
change the allocation of R&D.
    Mr. Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 
testified about the negative impact our tax system has on 
innovation. American firms are not short-sighted, he said, 
except when the government policies drive them that way. He 
said it is common for capital to be taxed two, three and four 
times under our current tax system.

   4.5(h)--The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards Program: An 
                  Oversight Review From Its Inception

                            October 18, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-21

Background

    On October 18, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Awards Program: An Oversight Review From Its Inception,'' to 
receive testimony from industry witnesses regarding the 
effectiveness and the future of the Malcolm Baldrige National 
Quality Awards Program. This program was developed by Congress 
in 1987. It is administered by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), with assistance from the 
private sector. The program raises awareness of quality 
management by recognizing United States companies that have 
successful quality management systems. Two awards are given in 
the following categories: manufacturing; service; and small 
business. NIST is test piloting two additional categories in 
the health care and education industries. H.R. 2405, the 
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, authorized 
the program for Fiscal Year 1996 at $3.4 million which equals 
its current budget. The hearing was structured into two panels.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Dr. Joseph Juran, Juran Institute, testified about his 70 
years experience in the field of managing for quality. He said 
the United States is in a quality crisis because we are being 
outperformed by the Japanese. He added that Japan would not be 
an economic superpower with their quality revolution. The Juran 
Institute provides grants to NIST for the Baldrige Award.
    Mr. John Hudiburg, former CEO of Florida Power and Light, 
and Director of the Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige Award, 
stated that ``modest investment'' by the U.S. Government, in 
the Baldrige awards, has brought American industries up to 
world-class levels. Since Mr. Hudiburg has been involved with 
the Malcolm Baldrige Awards program from the beginning, he has 
seen bipartisan support for this program. He said much of the 
support comes in the form of volunteers who receive training 
from the Malcolm Baldrige Awards office and then take the 
knowledge back to their own companies.
    Mr. Ray Stata, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Analog 
Devices, stated the Malcolm Baldrige Awards has been imperative 
in strengthening U.S. competitiveness. He made recommendations 
to broaden the Malcolm Baldrige Award program's 
responsibilities and rename the program, as well as extending 
the program out to small and medium-size enterprises. He felt 
NIST could do more to increase awareness of the importance of 
the Malcolm Baldrige Awards.
    Mr. William B. McBee, Director, Corporate Quality, 
Armstrong World Industries, winner of the 1995 Malcolm Baldrige 
Award, testified that Armstrong won the award this year because 
it has taken the Baldrige criteria and applied it to their 
Quality Improvement Process thereby creating world class 
standards. He stated that NIST does an excellent job in keeping 
the standards up to date. Armstrong has a facility in Chairman 
Walker's district.
    Mr. Martin Mariner, Director, Quality, Corning 
Incorporated, also 1995 Malcolm Baldrige Award winner, stated 
that the Baldrige self-assessment criteria helped to identify 
areas that Corning had to improve upon in order to be a world 
class competitor. By adopting this way of doing business, he 
said, they not only improved quality but have improved growth, 
market-share, employee base, etc. He spoke of supporting the 
education and health care pilots since the award has such a 
positive impact on the country's business community.

Panel 2

    Mr. Curt Reimann, Director of Office of Quality Programs, 
testified that NIST is working to increase private and public 
sector volunteerism, and contributions. The Baldrige Award 
evaluation process has given the world a method to compare and 
assess organizational performance. He stated, ``The explosive 
growth and diversification of the Baldrige Award have changed 
what we do and how much we do.'' By making applicants pay for 
the whole program, he said, it would completely miss the 
program's purpose and operational strategy. He added that it 
would not be fair to make a few donors pay for the benefits of 
the many participants. The program has been non-partisan since 
it began, he stated, and the current fee system works now 
because the fees are commensurate with the benefits.
    The Honorable Clarence J. Brown, former Deputy Secretary of 
Commerce, testified since Malcolm Baldrige was a strong 
supporter of private funding, he would not want an award in his 
name to be funded by taxpayer dollars. He stated that most 
universities only teach management courses in the curriculum, 
instead of production. He said business schools should teach 
production methods and share their findings with others.
    Ms. Ellen Gaucher, Senior Associate Director of University 
of Michigan Hospitals, stated her involvement in the Malcolm 
Baldrige Award program has increased quality at the hospital 
where she works. She added that if the results from the 
business arena can be duplicated in the health care field, then 
Americans will get a better quality health care that is more 
cost effective.
    Mr. John P. Evans, Professor at University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill, testified that the Malcolm Baldrige 
Award is helping improve education just with its test pilot. 
Many organizations are sharing the information they are 
learning. Having the President and Department of Commerce 
associated with the award, he stated, increases the prestige 
associated with receiving the award.

      4.5(i)--Medical Technology Development and Commercialization

                            November 2, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-26

Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology met on November 2, 1995, to 
explore next-generation medical technologies and examine tax, 
antitrust, regulatory and other legal and governmental policies 
as they relate to medical technology development and 
commercialization. The hearing, entitled, ``Medical Technology 
Development and Commercialization,'' was followed by a 21st 
Century Medical Technologies Fair highlighting cutting-edge 
developments in health care technologies.
    The hearing consisted of a Congressional panel and two 
witness panels.
    Witnesses on panel one represented various sectors of the 
medical technology industry and discussed the impact of 
government policies on medical technology development and 
commercialization.
    Panel two witnesses discussed next-generation medical 
technologies incorporating telemedicine, micro-robotics, 
``smart'' devices and 3D imaging.

Summary of hearing

Congressional Panel

    Congressman George W. Gekas (R-PA), co-Chair of the 
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, testified regarding 
restrictions FDA placed on importing medical devices already on 
the market overseas. He added that these import hurdles have 
nothing to do with how the product works, and they cause 
foreign firms to reconsider developing manufacturing plants in 
the United States. He also addressed the need for product 
liability reform.
    Congressman Bill Baker (R-CA), testified regarding FDA's 
role to protect society, not prevent society from technologies 
that may not work for everyone. He stated, ``We want to be 
protected, we just don't want the government saying to us, if 
it works for you, I'm sorry it didn't work for everyone, you 
can't be protected.'' As an example, Mr. Baker testified 
regarding Sensor Pad,  a device women can use for breast self-
examinations. Even though the device is not marketed as a 
replacement of a mammogram, he said, the FDA has delayed the 
device for 10 years, stating the device would give women a 
false sense of security because it is not as accurate as a 
mammogram.

Panel 1

    Dr. Peter Chevalier, Vice-President and Chief Quality and 
Regulatory Officer at Medtronic Inc., testified as a patient 
and a businessman. He said he was unable to get the best 
technology for his heart condition in the United States, even 
though the technology was available in Europe. He stated the 
delays come from the process of reviewing data for medical 
device and drug clearance. He added that the gap between 
commercial availability of new therapies in Europe and the 
United States often exceeds 3 years. He indicated that current 
regulations in the United States have forced many companies to 
move their R&D and manufacturing overseas.
    Mr. David Holveck, President and CEO of Centocor Inc., said 
FDA's classification of medical devices are not consistent with 
the risk compared to the benefits. He stated that in a 
competitive global market U.S. companies are at a disadvantage 
due to regulations which are very different from the rest of 
the world. He said over-regulation of the domestic 
biotechnology industry limits the access of American patients 
to the most cutting-edge technologies.
    Mr. Alan Magazine, President of Health Industry 
Manufacturers Association (HIMA), testified that while he is 
not in favor of eliminating the FDA, he does believe great 
reforms are needed. He said it is crucial that manufacturers, 
especially small businesses, have some sense of when they can 
go to market. Currently, he stated, the timing is very 
inconsistent and can often take many, many years. He discussed 
FDA's ``zero-risk mentality''--they allow no approval without 
absolute proof no risk exists. However, he said, science is not 
absolute, therefore potential risks should be balanced with 
potential benefits.
    Mr. J.J. Finkelstein, President and CEO of Cyromedical 
Sciences Inc., testified regarding his companies difficulties 
in getting FDA approval of a simple medical accessory. He 
stated the company spent over three years and thousands of 
dollars obtaining clearance for a simple accessory, and as a 
patients result unnecessarily received sub-optimal care. He 
said the FDA is unable to develop and implement sound policy.
    Mr. Richard Pops, CEO of Alkermes Inc., provided the view 
of a small biotechnology company. He said the biotechnology 
industry is one of the most research-intensive industries, and 
typically invests $250 to $400 million in a drug before ever 
receiving any profit. He explained that small biotechnology 
firms develop drugs for diseases that have unmet clinical needs 
and are difficult to treat. He added that Europe has generally 
had a much more ``generous attitude'' towards new drugs to 
treat these types of diseases since patients are living with a 
very poor quality of life or dying.
    Dr. Jeffrey Brinker, Director of Intervential Cardiology at 
Johns Hopkins Hospital, has served as a mediator between 
industry and the FDA many times. He stated the FDA has the 
responsibility to protect the public and insure that devices 
and drugs are safe and effective. He said a lot of the problems 
industry has with the FDA are results of industry shortcomings. 
He stated many of the difficulties could be overcome through 
communication.

Panel 2

    Dr. Harvey Eisenberg, Chairman and CEO of Health Services 
Corporation; Dr. Ian Hunter, Associate Professor at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Steven Jacobsen, 
Professor at the University of Utah; and Mr. Kenneth Kaplan, 
Architect and Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology testified as a group working to 
revolutionize the national health care industry through 
advanced technology development. They said technology can 
support major advances in the quality of health care and 
reduction of cost on a national scale, but many Americans have 
limited access to advanced health care because of economic or 
geographic constraints. They discussed the importance of 
developing a plan and strategy to achieve the accelerated 
development and implementation of advanced medical 
technologies.

  4.5(j)--An Industry Perspective of Federal Aviation Administration 
                    Research & Development Programs

                            December 7, 1995

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-38

Background

    An initial hearing, entitled, ``An Industry Perspective of 
Federal Aviation Administration Research & Development 
Programs,'' was held on May 16, 1995, regarding the FAA's 
acquisition management. According to the testimony provided, it 
appeared that the major issues are not the budgeted money or 
how it is allocated, but FAA's long-standing internal 
management and cultural impediments to improving their 
acquisition process. Major improvements to the National 
Airspace System (NAS) will require fundamental changes in FAA's 
acquisition management.
    The hearing was structured into two panels. The first panel 
consisted of representatives from industry. Panel two witnesses 
represented the Federal Government.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Dr. John J. Fearnsides, Senior Vice President and General 
Manager of the MITRE Corporation, testified that the FAA needs 
more than acquisition changes. He said FAA should examine its 
decision making process from the top management down and create 
an integrated product team in small steps. He stated that the 
FAA needs to bring technology into the field instead of just 
investing in it.
    Mr. Robert J. Stevens, of Loral Federal Systems, stated 
that his company is ``absolutely on schedule'' with the 
restructuring of the display system program. By October of 
1998, he said, the new software and hardware will be 
operational at the Seattle test sight. He mentioned the need 
for IPT's to ensure quality from the top down.
    Mr. J. Roger Fleming, Senior Vice President of Air 
Transport Association, testified that the FAA has no sense of 
urgency about the current problems it faces and therefore needs 
more accountability. Money is not the only problem, he stated 
the FAA needs to direct its resources to the highest priority 
programs. He also said the Administrator needs to take the 
initiative to eliminate unsuccessful programs. He suggested 
that the FAA simplify its regional establishments and make 
adjustments in its personnel and procurement procedures.
    Mr. Sigbert B. Poritzky, former member of the FAA R&D 
Advisory Committee, stated that decisions must be made ``hands 
on,'' in a timely manner by dedicated upper level management 
personnel using more than one element. He testified that it is 
imperative the FAA display a willingness to work together and 
innovate. To understand how the organization operates, he 
suggested, qualified experts should be rotated to the different 
divisions to demonstrate how important it is to work together.

Panel 2

    Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, Office of Aeronautics--National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), testified that the 
FAA and NASA are working jointly to develop technology for air 
traffic control. He stated that they are pursing environmental 
topics like weather and noise reduction. He testified that for 
NASA to be an equal partner of the FAA, a clear unified 
strategy needs to be established.
    Dr. Alan R. Thomas, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, stated that the FAA needs to focus R&D on 
operations and the process used to get from one to the other. 
He said if he could make changes at the FAA, he would use a 
quality management approach to give the customers what they 
want and address the internal coordination issue.
    Mr. William ``Bud'' Laynor, National Transportation Safety 
Board, testified that his organization relies on FAA for 
information regarding R&D. He said the FAA needs to address 
issues as they arise instead of putting them off. He also said 
the more planning should go into the budget, and he would like 
to see better coordination and stability in management.

  4.5(k)--Rail Safety Oversight: High Technology Train Control Devices

                             March 30, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-55

Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology and the Subcommittee on 
Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
held a joint hearing entitled, ``Rail Safety Oversight: High 
Technology Train Control Devices,'' on March 30, 1996, to 
receive testimony regarding advanced train control systems 
(ATCS). Witnesses discussed advanced train technologies and 
their practicality and availability in preventing train 
accidents and collisions. The hearing included testimony 
regarding the priorities for future research, development, and 
applications of train control technologies.
    The hearing consisted of two panels. Witnesses on the first 
panel represented government agencies. The second panel 
included witnesses from railroad organizations.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Ms. Jolene Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), testified that the FRA is committed to 
supporting the development of advanced train control (ATC) 
technology. She said to move ATCS forward FRA has developed a 
partnership approach with the railroad industry by challenging 
the railroads to help with the development of ATC technologies. 
Ms. Molitoris stated that the FRA is partnering with the 
Federal Highway Administration to ensure positive train control 
(PTC) issues are included in the intelligent highway systems 
initiative. In addition, the FRA is working with the Coast 
Guard and the Department of Defense to broaden coverage of 
global positions systems (GPS) for PTC. She also added that the 
FRA is currently involved in three testing locations.
    Mr. James Hall, Chairman, National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB), stated that with the recent increase in railroad 
accidents there has been a reawakening in railroad safety. He 
said the railroads are safe, but could be safer and we should 
take this opportunity to improve rail safety. He testified 
regarding three areas where immediate action should take place: 
(1) the 1907 Hours of Service Act should be modified so the FRA 
has authority to regulate the hours of service for railroad 
employees--fatigue is a problem; (2) action needs to be taken 
to reduce the regulatory backlog at FRA; and (3) ATCS that will 
provide positive train separation (PTS) need to be put in 
place. He added that PTS has added advantages besides safety--
increased rail line efficiency and utilization, savings in fuel 
use, reduced wear on equipment, and maintenance savings. Mr. 
Hall also said reforming of radio frequencies, which the FCC is 
considering, may cause interference and will negatively impact 
the safety of rail communications.

Panel 2

    Mr. Edwin L. Harper, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Association of American Railroads (AAR), stated that AAR is 
concerned that, ``Government . . . may impose some 
inappropriate mandate that could dispose or constrain the 
private investment and R&D policy that has proven its worth.'' 
He testified that it would be a mistake for railroads to invest 
in PTS, and that government should set levels of safety 
performance based on risk assessment. He stated that currently 
four PTS projects are in development in North America and 
hopefully these projects will answer the technical questions 
about PTS and its commercial viability.
    Mr. Dennis Sullivan, Chief Operating Officer, National Rail 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), said the Washington to Boston 
corridor will have the most advanced safety system in North 
America, which is an adaptation of European technology. He 
stated that the northeast corridor moves about 1,000 trains a 
day, thereby making it the busiest track. The current 
Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system, he testified, needs 
to be improved in high-speed rail. He said the biggest safety 
problem is grade-crossing accidents, but when the high-speed 
rail project is completed only 12 grade-crossings will be left 
on the northeast corridor.
    Mr. Daniel Froth, Executive Director-Commuter Rail, 
American Public Transit Association, stated that despite the 
recent accidents the railroads have one of the best safety 
records in all of transportation. He testified that, ``to 
improve safety, commuter railroads need a comprehensive 
research effort similar to that of the AAR that specifically 
involves and benefits commuter rail operations.'' He said 
Congress needs to take the lead on commuter research and 
development by providing federal funds to study prevention of 
accidents, instead of crashworthiness. Lastly, he commented 
about the difference between commuter operations from both 
freight and Amtrak operations.
    Mr. W.D. Pickett, President, Brotherhood of Railroad 
Signalmen (BRS), testified that Amtrak utilizes more of the 
available technology than other rail users. He stated, ``If the 
FRA and rail industry are really serious about safety, instead 
of touting positive train separation or positive train control, 
the application of proven cab signal and speed control 
equipment would be installed.'' PTS or PTC, he stated, are 
still concepts which have flaws that need to be worked out 
before they could be placed into actual use.
    Mr. Dean P. Huntsinger, General Manager, Rockwell Railroad 
Electronics, testified regarding Rockwell's involvement in 
developing ATC technologies. He said that Rockwell, partnered 
with Burlington Northern Railroad, developed over ten years ago 
an ATCS test in Northern Minnesota called ARES. The testing 
found that having a positive train control system can reduce 
human error from 100 to 1. Mr. Huntsinger said the technology 
is available today, and added that Rockwell and Burlington 
Northern have been active in trying to market it.
    Mr. William L. Matheson, Technical Director of Advanced 
Railway Systems, GE-Harris, explained that GE-Harris formed a 
railway electronics joint venture last year to develop 
electronic systems to assist in management of traffic flow 
through the rail network. He said the joint venture, with 
Burlington Santa Fe and Union Pacific, recently began 
developing a PTS system. He testified that a pilot PTS system 
will be installed this summer on an 800 mile track in 
Washington. He explained that this area was chosen because it 
includes track operated by both the Burlington and the Union 
Pacific and contains many types of signaling systems. He said 
the pilot system demonstrates the combining of resources from 
many groups who are working to achieve the goals of improved 
safety and productivity on the railroads. However, he added 
that at this point it is premature to mandate this technology 
until it has been fully tested and proven.

4.5(l)--Authorization Hearing of the Technology Administration/National 
             Institute of Standards and Technology for FY97

                             April 16, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-14

Background

    On April 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Authorization Hearing of the Technology 
Administration/National Institute of Standards and Technology 
for FY97,'' to receive testimony regarding the Fiscal Year 1997 
budget for the Technology Administration (TA) and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    The tragic death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown forced the 
postponement of the previously scheduled field hearing at NIST, 
and to lessen the burden on NIST's staff during this time of 
mourning, the hearing was rescheduled and consisted of a single 
panel with one witness, Dr. Arati Prabhakar, accompanied by Mr. 
Gary Buchula.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST, stated that two 
major factors are shaping our economy: globalization of the 
marketplace; and the rapid pace of technological change. She 
testified because of these changes companies are shifting to 
narrower and more focused research and development, and smaller 
manufacturers are having a harder time keeping pace. Dr. 
Prabhakar stressed the importance of the Office of Technology 
Policy and the Technology Administration because of their 
``unique'' programs. She stated that NIST receives only about 1 
percent of the $70 billion the Federal Government spends on 
R&D. She added, ``I believe that there is no other part of the 
[federal] investment that delivers more economic bang for the 
buck.'' She explained that NIST has four major programs: the 
laboratories which provide a common language measurement to 
support manufacturing and commerce; the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP); the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP); and 
the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award Program. The requested 
funding for construction, she added, is necessary to support 
NIST's basic research laboratory mission.

  4.5(m)--Federal Aviation Administration--Research, Engineering, and 
    Development Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization and Management Reform

                             April 18, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-46

Background

    On April 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Federal Aviation Administration--Research, 
Engineering, and Development Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization and 
Management Reform,'' to receive testimony regarding the 
President's FY97 budget request for FAA Research, Engineering 
and Development (RE&D), and to review the management reform 
initiatives directed toward improving FAA's RE&D activities. 
The hearing consisted of one witness panel.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable David R. Hinson, Administrator, Federal 
Aviation Administration, testified that after reviewing the 
proposed bill he firmly believes that, ``the management and 
organizational changes made over the past year in conjunction 
with the new acquisitions management system that went into 
effect on April 1st, fully address the Committee's concerns.'' 
He stated the first key to the new organization system is IPT's 
(Integrated Product Teams) which bring together representatives 
from various disciplines. The second element is early 
involvement of customers and aviation representatives to help 
define, develop and implement requirements. The third element 
is the introduction of corporate level oversight mechanisms 
which include continual independent reviews and evaluations of 
all major acquisition programs. He said that since beginning 
the streamlining process, internal regulations and directives 
governing acquisition have been reduced by 50 percent. He also 
stated that the FY97 request for RE&D is $195.7 million--a five 
percent increase above the 96 appropriation. This amount he 
said will enable the FAA to continue R&D in several critical 
areas including aircraft and airport safety, air traffic 
control, and hazardous weather.
    Dr. George L. Donohue, Associate Administrator, Research 
and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration, testified 
that significant progress has been made with the new 
acquisition management system. He noted progress in the area of 
requirements, and the simplified procurement procedures, as 
well as the cradle-to-grave responsibility and accountability 
by IPT's. He stated that one of the ``big cultural changes for 
the FAA is to try work their systems around what can be bought 
affordably rather than to state their procedures and then have 
to develop something to meet their procedures.'' He testified 
that market surveys are now used to develop a listing of 
qualified vendors instead of having full and open competition 
which required a lot of staff time dealing with individuals who 
would like to become manufacturers, but had no demonstrated 
track record. Now previous performance is used as criteria for 
contractor selection. He stated that he is the FAA's 
acquisition executive and he is ``accountable for the success 
of the acquisition process, the training of FAA professionals, 
and the deliverance of their product.'' He is also responsible 
for the management team which equip the IPT's. The new 
management system, he stated, will enable the FAA to make a 
smooth transition from air traffic control to air traffic 
management.

    4.5(n)--Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at the 
             National Institute of Standards and Technology

                              May 2, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-43

Background

    On May 2, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
first of a series of hearings to receive testimony regarding 
the laboratory programs at NIST. The hearing, entitled, 
``Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology,'' reviewed 
NIST's mission of promoting the nation's economy by working 
with industry to develop technology, measurements, and 
standards. This hearing focused on evaluating the Physics 
Laboratory (PL) and the Chemical Science and Technology 
Laboratory (CSTL) by examining each in a separate panel.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Katharine Gebbie, Director, Physics Laboratory, NIST, 
testified that, ``Physics is at the heart of what is the very 
core of all physical measurements and standards: voltage, 
length, time, frequency, temperature, the measurements and 
standards that the United States mandates to be a federal 
responsibility.'' She stated that by providing measurements 
services and support for the electronics, optical, and 
radiation technologies the Physics Laboratory is able to 
support the United States industry, government, and scientific 
community. To anticipate future needs of time and frequency 
measurements, she testified that the Physics Laboratory has a 
fundamental program in atomic cooling and trapping of atoms and 
icons. This program created the Bose-Einstein Condensate, a new 
form of matter that had been predicted seventy years ago but 
never observed.
    Dr. C. Kumar Patel, Vice Chancellor, Research Office, 
University of California, testified that the Physics Laboratory 
at NIST ``interfaces strongly with the academic and industrial 
scientific community.'' He cited four mechanisms that are 
connected with academic and industrial scientists, as well as 
Physics Lab scientists at NIST. The first is the Visiting 
Fellows Program which allows industrial scientists to utilize 
the NIST laboratories. He stated that Congressman Vern Ehlers 
was a member of this program in his prior career as a 
physicist. The second is the NIST Graduate Student Program 
which lets students do their theses while working with world 
class scientists. The third program is a Joint Experimental 
Activity between NIST scientists and academic faculty members 
which let the academic scientist use NIST experimental 
facilities. Fourth is the unique contribution that the Physics 
Laboratory makes to various academic and industrial R&D 
scientists through providing instrumentation calibration.
    Dr. Buhdatt Palliwal, Professor of Human Oncology, 
University of Wisconsin, testified that information received 
from NIST impacts about 1,000 cancer patients a year because 
all of the instrumentation, treatment machines, and radioactive 
isotopes which derive their fundamental calibration from the 
procedures and cooperation that NIST provides. He emphasized 
the critical example of credibility of measurement standards 
that are utilized in the mammography procedures. The 
implementation and standards have been high, he stated, due to 
the accountability and traceability through the national 
standards.
    Dr. Hratch Semerjian, Director, Chemical Science and 
Technology Laboratory (CSTL), National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, testified that the CSTL provides three 
``essential and unique functions for the Nation.'' First, CSTL 
provides the fundamental basis for the nation's measurement 
chemistry, chemical engineering, and biotechnology. He stated 
that by providing standard reference materials and calibration 
services, it ensures traceability of measurements. Second, CSTL 
provides accurate and reliable information in the form of data 
predictive tools to industries such as biotechnology, 
petrochemical, and semiconductor. Third, CSTL partners with 
industry and professional organizations to identify and address 
the next generation measurement needs of the United States 
industry. He also highlighted the work CSTL has done with 
cholesterol measurements and testing.
    Dr. Isiah Warner, Immediate Past Chair, National Research 
Council Board on Assessment of NIST Programs, testified that 
the panel found the CSTL programs to be of the ``highest 
technical quality,'' while addressing the critical national 
needs. He stated that one of the challenges the laboratory 
faces is the danger of losing critical expertise in areas where 
NIST has unique capabilities and responsibilities. Besides 
staff retiring the problem, he stated, is that many projects 
are carried out by non-permanent staff. The long-term effects 
of such personnel policies are uncertain. He also said the need 
for evaluative data continues to grow, the laboratory's current 
efforts are not sufficient to meet the growing demand.
    Dr. Rita Cowell, President, University of Maryland 
Biotechnology Institute, testified about the relationship 
between NIST and the CARB. She stated that the methods and 
standards are being developed to accurately characterize DNA 
profiles for forensic uses as well as DNA sequencing. As an 
example of the NIST/CARB partnership she mentioned the 
development of a biological macro molecule crystallization data 
base, which was one of the first NIST data bases to be put on 
the web with a searching capability. She testified that in a 
time of downsizing, it must be recognized that areas like 
biotechnology are growing, and therefore should not be cut off, 
but given room for growth.

4.5(o)--Solving the Year 2000 Software Problem: Creating Blueprints for 
                                Success

                              May 14, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-48

Background

    On May 14, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Solving the Year 2000 Software Problem: 
Creating Blueprints for Success,'' to receive testimony 
assessing the computer problems associated with a two-digit 
date field program, which is incorporated in virtually all 
government and private sector software. Witnesses from industry 
and government testified on the origin and extent of this 
potential computer catastrophe, and they discussed the 
government's role in correcting the problem. They also explored 
tools available in the private sector to correct the problem.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Peter de Jager, President/Owner of de Jager & Co., 
testified that the time available to correct the problem is 
fixed. The Year 2000 deadline is not negotiable and approaching 
quickly. In addition, the work must be done by December of 1998 
so the changes may be tested in 1999 and corrections made. 
Since it is a shared deadline, everyone is trying obtain the 
same expert assistance. We need to promote awareness and begin 
working now. He also pointed out that, ``regardless of how many 
programs you have to fix, the deadline is the same.'' He stated 
that sixty-five percent of North American businesses are 
unaware of this situation or have yet to address it. Also, he 
stated that the Gartner Group, an industry trend watcher, has 
been very conservative in their estimate of $30 billion to 
correct the systems. He stated that a government agency such as 
NIST needs to make a standard for others to follow.
    Mr. Dean Mesterharm, Deputy Commissioner for Systems, 
Social Security Administration (SSA), testified that, ``the 
solution to the problem is obvious but labor intensive.'' 
Implementing the corrections, he stated, sounds much simpler 
than it really is because there is no quick fix to the problem. 
The SSA is leading the Year 2000 Interagency Committee which 
had been trying to increase awareness of this urgent problem 
and suggest solutions for government agencies. SSA is leading 
the changeover by changing the formats of their major data 
databases and application software. He testified that SSA has 
already spent 100 manyears in effort to correct the dilemma, 
but they have about 500 manyears to go. He stated that SSA will 
shift funds in order to have enough money to address the 
problem. He stated that the challenge is greater in foreign 
countries where the level of awareness and automation is lower.
    Dr. Robert Hebner, Acting Deputy Director, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, testified that, ``the 
standard that NIST has promulgated was the Federal Information 
Processing Standard, which adopted the voluntary standard that 
has in it the four digit code.'' He stated that NIST does not 
anticipate a problem with noncompliance. Also, he emphasized 
the problem was more of a organizational nature than a 
measurement or standards issue. NIST sets the standard, but 
does not have an enforcement role. He stated that NIST was 
playing its role by raising awareness of the issue.
    Mr. Barry Ingram, Chief Technical Officer, EDS Corporation, 
testified that, ``systems that have significant needs for 
upgrades and modernization might best be suited for either 
selective re-engineering or redevelopment.'' He pointed out 
that companies should make an educated decision based on more 
criteria than just cost. He also stated that one of the biggest 
obstacles managers face is while the Year 2000 project is 
conducted, normal development maintenance efforts must proceed.
    Ms. Barbara L. McDuffie, IBM Program Director of Solution 
Provider Programs, testified that IBM feels that companies need 
to move more aggressively to make these changes on time. She 
emphasized that the biggest challenge is making computer users 
aware of the problem, as well as management strategies to 
correct the issue. IBM is currently offering a planning and 
implementation guide to help their customers address this 
situation in a timely manner.
    Mr. Marc Sokol, Vice President of Advanced Technologies, 
Computer Associates International, testified that the 
millennium date change can potentially cripple an 
organization's ability to execute its critical business 
function, thereby impacting everything from insurance 
calculations to electronic data transfer. He stated that, 
``selecting the right tools is an important step, but training 
is equally important.'' In order for companies to become more 
productive and address this problem they must take advantage of 
vendor-provided start-up services. Software tools help, he 
said, but there is no ``silver bullet.''

       4.5 (p)--Proposed Amendments to the Metric Conversion Act

                              May 16, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-50

Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing on May 16, 
1996, entitled, ``Proposed Amendments to the Metric Conversion 
Act.'' The Subcommittee reviewed H.R. 2779, the Savings in 
Construction Act of 1995, introduced by Congressman Cox. H.R. 
2779 allows for flexibility in the implementation of the 
current law by allowing ``soft metric'' conversion versus 
``hard metric'' conversion under certain specified terms in 
bidding for federally-assisted construction contracts. Using 
``soft-metric'' units the product itself remains the same size, 
but its dimensions are expressed in metric units. Therefore, it 
is considered a less costly and less intrusive way of meeting 
the goals of the Metric Conversion Act (P.L. 64-168).
    The hearing consisted of three panels. Congressman Cox was 
the first panel and testified in support of his bill.
    The second panel included representatives from the block 
and lighting industry. The witnesses discussed the need for 
flexibility in construction metrication by using ``soft 
metric'' versus ``hard metric'' measurements, especially where 
there are cases of adverse economic impact and barriers to 
competition.
    The third panel included individuals from the 
administration, industry, and metric community who testified 
regarding their concerns for the legislation.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    The Honorable Christopher Cox (R-CA), testified regarding 
his bill, HR. 2779, ``The Savings in Construction Act of 
1995.'' He said he is a strong supporter of metric conversion, 
and that metric is a vast improvement over the current U.S. 
system. He stated that the question today is not about 
converting to metrics, it is about whether the government 
should mandate that commerce must be conducted in round ``hard 
metric'' numbers. He explained that his legislation has been 
narrowly drafted to address only the unnecessarily burdensome 
application of the existing law regarding federal construction 
projects. He testified that his legislation will clarify the 
current law and enable construction projects to be finished 
more efficiently and quickly. He also stated that his 
legislation will assist in reducing the costs to small business 
and taxpayers.

Panel 2

    Mr. William Fabbri, Vice-President and General Manager of 
Lightolier, testified that when he started in the fluorescent 
lighting fixture industry over 2,500 companies existed, today 
due to automation and the capital investment required, six 
manufacturers now make over 80% of the fixtures sold. He said 
because of freight costs there are no imports or exports of any 
of these products outside of North America. He stated that his 
company would have no problem converting to ``soft metric,'' 
but ``hard metric'' would require their products to be three-
eighths of an inch narrower and three-quarters of an inch 
shorter. He explained that since all of his products are made 
with automated tooling ``hard metric'' would require a 
permanent change by retooling, which he estimated would cost 
the company $15 million. He added that because government jobs 
represent only 10% of his market, Lightolier could not justify 
spending the money to retool.
    Mr. Rod Lee, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Lithonia 
Lighting, testified on behalf of National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) regarding the ``hard metric'' 
requirement for bidding on federal projects. He stated that the 
lighting fixture industry cannot produce the ``hard metric'' 
fixtures using their current standardized tooling, therefore 
additional tooling is required to produce a non-standardized 
product for only one customer--the Federal Government. He said 
industry-wide adoption of hard metric will not make the 
lighting industry more competitive internationally, since 
exports are practically nonexistent due to shipping costs.
    Mr. Norbert Rappl, President of Comac Building Supply, 
stated that his concrete block company, which employs 25 people 
and has only one machine, studied the costs of converting to 
``hard metrics'' and found it would cost $183,000 to retool the 
plant. Moreover, he said the company would also have to keep 
double inventory, which he explained would cause errors in 
handling because the blocks would be so close in size. He also 
stated that due to the weight of the product they are confined 
to a 50-mile trading radius. He said his company could not 
afford to do the retooling and consequently could not bid on 
federally-assisted projects.
    Mr. Donald Emich, President of Binkley & Ober, stated that 
his concrete block company is in the same situation as Mr. 
Rappl's. He said there is no reality in exporting their 
products world-wide. He explained that the Canadians have been 
producing hard metric blocks for almost 20 years and still have 
to carry double inventories, and make investments for mold 
parts in both English and metric.
    Mr. Randall Pence, Director of Government Relations for the 
National Concrete and Masonry Association (NCMA), testified 
that NCMA supports the metric system, but is concerned with how 
we convert to the metric system. Currently, he stated, only a 
handful of block producers have the capability to make the 
``hard metric'' blocks. He said that the current law forces a 
niche market for federally-assisted construction projects, and 
eliminates small and medium-sized producers who cannot afford 
to immediately produce the blocks. He explained that this will 
result in a tremendous amount of single-souring for government 
projects, which runs completely counter to the current 
initiatives to expand competition in the procurement area of 
the Federal Government. He also said use of ``hard metric'' 
increases costs to the taxpayer by requiring production of a 
specialty product.

Panel 3

    Mr. Mark Bohannon, Counsel for Technology at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, presented the views of the Under 
Secretary of Commerce, Dr. Mary Good. He stated that the 
Administration's position is to support the procurement of all 
commercially available products and pursue a strong metric 
policy consistent with the international global marketplace. He 
said the Administration is concerned with H.R. 2779 because 
they believe it will prohibit the use of metric products in 
federal construction projects. He said the current law provides 
flexibility to exempt federal agencies from the use of metric 
when it is impractical or causes significant inefficiency, and 
therefore this legislation is not necessary.
    Mr. William Brenner, Director of the Construction 
Metrication Council, testified that almost all federal 
construction projects have come in under budget, and to date 
the government has had little trouble finding companies to 
produce the modular metric products at a reasonable cost. He 
said he would like to help develop an administrative remedy 
which would address the problems of the block and lighting 
fixture industries.
    Mr. Tom Cunningham, Senior Project Manager at R.M. 
Schoemaker, testified regarding the project his company is 
currently working on with the General Services Administration. 
He said the project is the largest metric construction contract 
ever in the United States, and currently is 95% complete. He 
said there hasn't been any extra costs or problems due to the 
metric requirements.
    Mr. David Wright, Vice President of United Masonry Inc. of 
Virginia, said his organization's first metric project is 
currently underway, and it was awarded at 1% below government 
cost estimates. He explained that the layout process using 
metric dimensions is actually simpler because metric uses a 
base measurement of ten units. He added that if they had used 
``soft metric'' in their current project, the cost of cutting 
the ``soft metric'' blocks, so they would fit around the ``hard 
metric'' door frames, would have exceeded any material cost 
premium from switching to metric.
    Ms. Lorelle Young, President of the U.S. Metric 
Association, testified that Congressional interference will 
only impede the conversion to metrics. Instead of addressing 
the problem it is attempting to solve, she stated, that H.R. 
2779 is ``overkill'' and attempts to regulate all construction 
products used in federal construction projects. She explained 
that there are exceptions within the current law, they just 
need to be discussed and used.

  4.5(q)--The Increasing Importance of International Standards to the 
         U.S. Industrial Community and the Impact of ISO 14000

                              June 4, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-52

Background

    On June 4, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Increasing Importance of International 
Standards to the U.S. Industrial Community and the Impact of 
ISO 14000.'' Effectively managing standardization policies can 
reduce trade barriers, increase profitability, and ensure a 
company's competitiveness. The International Standards 
Organization (ISO) is a non-governmental, worldwide 
organization, which develops voluntary, international 
standards. In 1993, ISO began constructing ISO 14000, a series 
of environmental management standards which provide business 
managers with a structure for managing environmental impacts.
    The hearing consisted of one panel. Witnesses included 
representatives from the government, standards developing 
organizations, and industry. Witnesses provided testimony 
regarding the international standards developing process. In 
addition, witnesses compared the development of ISO 9000 versus 
the development of ISO 14000.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Joseph Cascio, Vice President of Global Environment 
Technology Foundation, testified that ISO 14000 is a new 
approach to environmental protection. He explained that it 
expects organizations to take responsibility for their 
environmental aspects, rather than being directed by government 
agencies under the current command and control system. He said 
that all employees must be trained to exercise environmental 
care, and implementation requires top management involvement. 
He stated that making small and medium-sized firms aware of ISO 
14000 is his biggest concern. He explained that the standards 
were developed so they could be tailored for any size of 
organization, and that they, could in fact, have greater 
benefit for small and medium- sized firms because they have the 
greatest amount to lose from costly and inefficient systems.
    Dr. Belinda Collins, Director, Office of Standards Services 
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
testified that NIST is committed to working with the private 
sector and other agencies to ensure the United States develops 
international standards that meet our needs. She stated that 
the United States can expect harmonization of global standards 
and the free flow of goods, only by participating vigorously in 
the development of international standards. She said the United 
States was successful in getting the development of an 
international environmental management system standard by 
realizing early that environmental management systems were 
being developed in Europe and that they had the potential to be 
barriers to trade. She concluded that with broad participation 
of the United States, good relations between the public and 
private sector, and the close cooperation of other interested 
bodies, ISO 14000 can develop into a series of truly 
international standards.
    Mr. Sergio Mazza, President of the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI), stated that ANSI's international 
goal is to promote global standards that reflect U.S. 
interests. He testified that ANSI is the U.S. representative to 
the two major non-treaty international standards organizations: 
the International Standards Organization (ISO), and the 
International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC). He said the 
U.S. TAG's primary purpose is to develop and transmit via ANSI, 
the U.S. position on activities and ballots for ISO 14000. He 
explained that the U.S. TAG has more than 550 participants from 
both the public and private sectors, from large and small 
organizations. He detailed a variety of possible impacts ISO 
14000 could have on U.S. business: organizations could better 
manage their environmental efforts and show a commitment to 
environmental protection, insurance companies may lower 
premiums for those who have implemented the standard, it may 
become a condition of doing business in Europe, and standard 
implementation may factor into regulatory relief programs.
    Mr. James Thomas, President for the American Society of 
Testing and Materials (ASTM), stated that ASTM is one of the 
largest standards developing organizations in the world. He 
explained that ASTM administers the TAG to TC 207, the 
Technical Committee which is developing ISO 14000. He said the 
TAG's they have administered have had some good and some bad 
experiences with the ISO process. He said that voting within 
ISO is one nation, one vote and that Europe has 15 votes to our 
one, therefore, some standards coming out of ISO are based on 
European, not American, technology. He also said that many of 
the TAG members believe some ISO standards are based on 
political, not technical considerations. He added that U.S. 
industry should determine what standards developing process 
works for them, not the U.S. government. He said he believes 
ISO will be successful if three industry requirements are met: 
(1) their technical content is such that it actually leads to a 
reduction in the environmental pollution; (2) they offer a way 
for U.S. industry to meet all government environmental 
obligations under one program; and (3) they can be implemented 
at a reasonable cost.
    Ms. June Ling, Associate Executive Director of the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), testified that the ISO 
process is not the only means of developing international 
standards. She also recommended that the U.S. government 
consider facilitating the international recognition of U.S. 
technology through some underwriting of the distribution of 
U.S. consensus-based standards.
    Mr. Gerald Ritterbusch, Manager of Product Safety at 
Caterpillar, Inc. testified that as a global manufacturer, 
international standards are very important to his company's 
ability to market and service products around the world. He 
explained that ISO 9000 is a good standard, but that those who 
had the opportunity to make a profit from the standard, such as 
the registrars, made a strong push that organizations had to be 
registered to market their products. He said that the U.S. 
interests learned a lesson from ISO 9000, and therefore there 
has been active participation of U.S. industry in developing 
ISO 14000. He said that it is imperative we do not let the 
registration/certification community drive ISO 14000 like it 
did ISO 9000.
    Mr. Steven Bold, Manager Environmental Compliance Group at 
Continental Circuits Corp., stated that his organization is a 
member of the Institute of Packaging Electronics Circuits 
(IPC)--a 2,100 member organization that includes many small 
companies which manufacture printed circuit boards. Mr. Bold 
stated that certification will improve his company's 
environmental compliance, help identify waste elimination and 
reduction opportunities, reduce potential environmental 
liabilities, and improve the company's environmental ethics. He 
strongly supports allowing companies to self-certify their 
environmental management systems with ISO 14000 standards. Mr. 
Bold said third-party certification is extremely costly and 
would likely preclude small businesses from participating in 
ISO 14000.

    4.5(r)--Patent System and Modern Technology Needs: Meeting the 
                     Challenge of the 21st Century

                              June 6, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-54

Background

    On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Patent System and Modern technology Needs: 
Meeting the Challenge of the 21st Century,'' to review the 
Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) outline for incorporating 
technology into the reengineering plan thereby reducing the 
time, manpower, and applicant costs involved with the typical 
patent application. Testimony regarding the PTO's ability to 
identify and meet the future needs of applicants was received 
from the Patent Commissioner and industry representatives.
    The hearing was divided into two panels. The first panel 
consisted of Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman. He testified 
about the current situation the patent office faces as it 
enters the 21st Century. Panel two consisted of industry 
witnesses who provided testimony about the much need changes in 
the patent system.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Bruce Lehman, Patent Commissioner, testified that in order 
to meet patent applicant needs, the PTO has to design a better 
patent procedure to deal with the increased work load (up 13% 
last year) and decreased personnel. The following are the 
initial steps in the PTO reengineering plan: (1) Reduce the PTO 
processing time to 12 months or less for all inventions; (2) 
Establish industry sectors within the patent core; (3) Receive 
applications and publish patents electronically; (4) Exceed the 
quality expectations of the customer; and (5) Assess the fees 
that are commensurate with the services provided, depending on 
customer efficiency. He stated that by implementing these 
changes the PTO will be able better meet the rapidly changing 
needs of various technology fields. Even if the unions do not 
want the change, he stated that change is inevitable if the PTO 
is to continue operations. Maintaining global respect for 
American intellectual property is a constant process and he 
testified that the PTO does everything within its power to 
protect intellectual property rights of patent holders. 
Although the number of submarine patents is small, he testified 
that they are an immense problem that cause enormous damage to 
thousands of legitimate business people, as well as drain our 
economy.

Panel 2

    Mr. David Ostfeld, Attorney, Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, 
Johnson, and Williams, testified that one of the biggest 
dangers industry faces is the copying of intellectual property. 
He stated that the system needs to offer immediate protection 
to inventors thereby letting those competitors who wish to be 
in the marketplace a chance to independently develop. He said 
submarine patents are surprises, and for American businesses 
surprise is much worse then letting somebody get a couple of 
extra years on their patent. The PTO, he said, needs to focus 
more on the real users of the system--those who use the final 
patents.
    Mr. Mike Gruchalla, Inventor, AlliedSignal, stated that 
small inventors have to ``make a trade-off between completely 
protecting the product, or making a timely market entry.'' He 
testified the PTO needs to make the cost of obtaining a patent 
more consistent with the overall value of the patent in the 
marketplace. To assist inventors, he said, the PTO should let 
inventors file for patents electronically, and then publish 
patents electronically.
    Mr. Mauro Togneri, Vice President, MTS Systems Corporation, 
testified that the cost of protecting their intellectual 
property has become a high priority. His company estimates that 
a patent will cost them $100,000. The biggest expense will be 
covering the patent in foreign countries. He stated that 
foreign competitors have made identical copies of MTS's 
products and there was no way for them to protect it because of 
``the cost and time it takes to get a patent would have 
exceeded the value of the patent in the final analysis.'' He 
encouraged the PTO to expand their negotiations with other 
countries so patent applicants get more uniform coverage for 
less money.

4.5(s)--Environmental Regulation: A Barrier to the Use of Environmental 
                               Technology

                             June 20, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-63

Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology and the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, 
``Environmental Regulation: A Barrier to the Use of 
Environmental Technology,'' to receive testimony from the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives of 
the environmental industry on legal and regulatory barriers to 
the development and use of high technology products developed 
to protect and improve the environment. (See also page 182.) 
The discussion included suggestions for statutory and 
regulatory improvements that will allow EPA to increase the 
number and frequency of innovative technologies used in 
environmental protection and restoration. Testimony was 
presented by one panel.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. David M. Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, 
Planning and Evaluation for the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, testified that EPA has already initiated 
significant changes to reduce regulatory and policy barriers 
and increase incentives for technology innovation, without 
compromising environmental protection.
    Mr. Gardiner emphasized that innovative technologies 
benefit not only the environment, but also U.S. industry. 
According to Mr. Gardiner, the U.S. environmental industry 
accounts for annual revenues of $134 billion and demand for 
environmental technologies is projected to reach $300 to $500 
billion annually by 2000. However, he expressed concern that 
the United States could be left behind in the world 
environmental technology market if it does not strengthen its 
own position by enacting reforms to promote the development of 
new technologies. Mr. Gardiner indicated current internal and 
external impediments to the domestic market which include 
statutes, regulations, policies and procedures that favor the 
use of conventional, often less efficient or cost-effective 
technologies; reluctance on the part of private industry and 
the financial community to fund the development of new 
technologies; inability to obtain credible, independently 
verified data on the performance and cost of promising new 
technologies; and the lack of established information networks 
that provide users with awareness of (and easy access to) 
better, cleaner, safer and lower-cost technologies.
    Above all, Mr. Gardiner emphasized the importance of 
removing EPA's ``prescriptive'' environmental policy framework 
and building a successful partnership between government and 
industry for flexible, performance-based regulations. He 
explained EPA's Project XL will provide the cornerstone to 
streamlining the current system. Mr. Gardiner indicated support 
for the performance-based standards approach, like that 
mandated as part of the Clean Air Act, but opposes new 
legislation to reach that goal. Instead, he encouraged $80 
million in funding for the ETI in FY97. According to Mr. Walter 
Kovalick, Director of Technology Innovation for the Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the ETI's purpose is to 
provide project grants aimed at changing the infrastructure to 
encourage states to issue permits for use of innovative 
technologies.
    Mr. John Urh, Sales and Marketing Manager for CETAC 
Technologies, Inc., testified on the importance of stimulating 
the development and use of new environmental technologies for 
environmental measuring and monitoring. Mr. Uhr indicated that 
although analytical monitoring methods continue to improve, the 
current approval system inhibits and delays the use of new 
monitoring technologies. According to Mr. Uhr, the approval 
system currently requires compliance with highly detailed EPA 
methods which often specify the use of specific procedures and 
analytical instrumentation. He emphasized that if the 
prescribed methods are not followed precisely, results will not 
be acceptable to auditors, the company or municipality which 
has contracted the test, the state environmental agency or the 
EPA regional and national offices. Mr. Uhr suggested more 
reliance on a target, instead of ``cookbook'' style methods, to 
reach an environmental goal with the most effective 
instrumentation and techniques. Mr. Uhr stated that adopting a 
performance-based system will allow EPA personnel to focus on 
truly new technology and the scientific quality of data. In 
addition, he echoed the environmental technology industry's 
contention that performance-based methods will increase 
laboratory productivity, improve the quality of testing and 
data, speed decision making based on monitoring, and reduce 
overall environmental monitoring and compliance costs. Mr. Uhr 
further explained that performance-based methods will increase 
the export market for U.S. environmental products and reduce 
the burden on the states for reviewing data. He commended EPA's 
efforts to evaluate the use of performance-based monitoring 
methods to replace the current system, but noted there is 
inconsistency among the program offices and no deadline for 
completing a review of the benefits of converting to a 
performance-based system or how that transition should be 
accomplished.
    Mr. Uhr encouraged legislation to ensure coordination and 
uniformity across all environmental programs and to address 
issues related to the administration, enforcement, education 
and acceptance of the new system.
    Ms. Jan Power, President of Power and Associates Corp., 
testified in support of the establishment of a strong national 
policy, as well as removal of regulatory barriers, to foster 
innovative technologies and prevent the development of American 
technologies by foreign competitors. She expressed concern that 
neither currently pending laws, nor the statutory and 
regulatory reforms relating to hazardous wastes, will improve 
or facilitate the research, development and commercialization 
of innovative environmental technologies in the United States. 
Ms. Power highlighted reform options which will benefit the 
environment and encourage innovative technologies including 
elimination of RCRA technical and procedural standards for site 
remediation; opening of the voluntary cleanup market of 500,000 
sites; enhanced lender liability to attract new capital into 
the market; and remedy selection reforms based on reasonably 
anticipated risks and actual or planned land use. In addition, 
she encouraged site-specific flexibility to select the best 
environmental technology ``without any pre-determined, absolute 
mandate choice that does not incorporate the facts.'' In 
support of performance-based monitoring, Ms. Power cited a 
recent National Academy of Sciences study reporting that EPA 
and other federal agencies involved in analytical work need to 
move from an ``all-or-nothing equivalency approach to a 
screened iterative approach.'' Ms. Power recommended earmarking 
significant portions of cleanup funds to speed the pace of 
cleanup and create incentives for the development of innovative 
environmental technologies. She also encouraged more reliance 
upon professional peer review organizations to prevent an anti-
competitive environment favoring only a few vendors 
commercializing their new technologies.
    Mr. Peter A. Carroll, Vice President for Government Affairs 
at Solar Turbines, Inc., testified on behalf of the National 
Association of Manufacturers and addressed the multiple layers 
of environmental regulation and bureaucratic rigidity stifling 
the development of new environmental technologies. According to 
Mr. Carroll, the permitting process lacks certainty at the 
state level where companies must make a significant investment 
preparing and submitting a proposal for approval.
    He explained consulting businesses and entire law firm 
departments are employed to work through the complicated 
application process consuming capitol that could be invested in 
cleanup technologies. From the application process, indicated 
Mr. Carroll, a proposal goes through a lengthy review process 
at EPA during which many application are returned with 
recommendations for alternative technologies, different 
equipment, or even different sizes. According to Mr. Carroll, 
the rigidity of the current process, as well as concepts such 
as the best available control technology (BACT) and lowest 
achievable emission rate (LAER), resist the application of new 
technologies and should be reviewed. He recommended a 
regulatory system requiring compliance with reasonable 
environmental standards that will allow investors to select 
technologies and submit applications with a better 
understanding of when their investment can truly go to work. 
Mr. Carroll pointed out that in the past environmental 
regulators have relied upon quick-fix cleanup devices that 
rapidly reduce overall emissions to comply with clean air 
standards, but indicated that these approaches can be extremely 
costly with little or no environmental gain. Further, he 
explained that although the remaining air pollution problems 
require use of cheaper, reliable, common sense technologies, 
successful quick-fix cleanup devices remain an obstacle to new 
technologies of potential benefit to the United States and 
throughout the ever-increasingly industrialized world. In 
addition to problems with the approval process for innovative 
technologies, Mr. Carroll highlighted the lack of coordination 
between Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency and 
conservation programs and EPA standards. He emphasized that 
Clean Air Act goals and requirements should be directly 
connected to a national energy strategy.

    4.5(t)--Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at the 
             National Institute of Standards and Technology

                             June 25, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-62

Background

    On June 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
third in a series of hearings to receive testimony regarding 
the NIST laboratory programs. The hearing, entitled, 
``Oversight Review of Research Laboratory Programs at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology,'' reviewed 
NIST's mission of promoting the nation's economy by working 
with industry to develop technology, measurements, and 
standards. This hearing focused on evaluating Computer Systems 
Laboratory (CSL)/Computer and Applied Mathematics Laboratory 
(CAML) and the Electronics and Electrical Engineering 
Laboratory (EEEL) by examining each in a separate panel.
    Testimony was presented in two panels representing the 
respective laboratories.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Dr. Shukri Wakid, Director, Information Technology 
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
testified that by working to identify and prioritize industry's 
needs, NIST takes on a unique role that industry does not 
provide by developing tests to establish the commercial merit 
of research areas. He stated that the tests which NIST develops 
are open and pre-competitive. The tests are used to cross-
evaluate research, therefore, industrial researchers use NIST 
as a neutral technical ground to establish the merit of their 
work.
    Dr. Ralph Z. Roskies, Chair, National Research Council 
Panel for Information Technology, stated that the formal 
standards process seems to move too slowly in the information 
technology arena to be useful. He stated that NIST is moving 
from developing standards to conformance testing. This is a 
recognition of where NIST can play a useful role.
    Dr. Charles N. Brownstein, Executive Director, Cross-
Industry Working Team Corporation for National Research 
Initiatives, testified that most industries focus more on 
development than research, thereby, encouraging NIST and other 
federal agencies to support basic research or a neutral role. 
He testified since the United States is the only country that 
does not have a strategic single representative that works for 
our interest in international standards, it is better to have 
the technical people at NIST playing that role than diplomatic 
people attempting to play the role.
    Dr. Robert E. Hebner, Acting Deputy Director, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, testified that EEEL work 
is: laboratory-based, global, highly leveraged, unique, and 
industry focused. He stated that NIST's role is to look at what 
industry intends to do technically and help them make the 
desired advances.
    Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, Chair, National Research Council Panel 
for Electronics and Electrical Engineering, stated that 
although the project manager has many ideas, resources are 
consistently inadequate to pursue them all. In spite of this, 
he was impressed with NIST's decision making process. He 
expressed concern that critical areas of national importance 
may be missed in less-organized industries.
    Dr. James A. Glaze, Vice President, Technology Programs, 
Semiconductor Industry Association, testified that Roadmaps 
have proven to be essential for his industry despite concerns 
that Roadmaps may overly structure the future and stifle 
creativity. His industry primarily lays out the requirements 
and the needs as opposed to the methods. He stated that to 
remain competitive companies must participate at the pre-
competitive level since single company can not do by itself. 
Individual companies develop a competitive advantage based on 
design and performance.

             4.5(u)--Solving the Year 2000 Computer Problem

                           September 10, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-67

Background

    On September 10, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology, and 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee 
on Government Management, Information, and Technology, held a 
joint hearing entitled, ``Solving the Year 2000 Computer 
Problem,'' to receive testimony assessing the efforts made by 
states to address the year 2000 computer problem in state 
government systems, and to obtain a status report from the 
Office of Management and Budget on the ongoing efforts of 
federal agencies to address the problem. Computer experts and 
software industry representatives presented testimony on the 
extent to which personal computer systems will be affected by 
the year 2000 problem and the solutions available to personal 
computer users. The hearing was structured in two panels.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Mr. Harris Miller, President, Information Technology 
Association of America (ITAA), testified that the Year 2000 
software conversion is the largest and most complex global 
information management challenge society has ever faced. He 
stated that ITAA's Year 2000 Task Force has been working with 
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the private 
sector here and abroad to educate and help get started with the 
conversion programs. The first problem, he stated, is getting 
the attention of top management and making them understand the 
consequences of not addressing this issue immediately. As an 
example, he cited the efforts made by the securities industry 
to address this as a manageable problem. He noted that the 
testing phase is what increases the cost of fixing the line of 
code. When he described ITAA's certification program for 
personal computers and software, he noted that personal 
computers were a minor problem that could be easily fixed.
    Mr. Daniel D. Houlihan, First-Vice President and President-
Elect, National Association of State Information Resources 
Executives (NASIRE), testified that his organization has 
surveyed its members and discovered that all states are 
actively engaged in solving the computer problem. 25% reported 
they are already testing plans and implementing system changes. 
He stated the cost dimension of overhauling the state computer 
systems, which have between 300,000 to 97 million lines of code 
to convert, is proving to be most challenging. He noted that 
the state of Nebraska has added a 2 cent cigarette tax which 
will be used to correct the dilemma. He emphasized the need to 
have the Federal Government communicate to the states through a 
single mean such as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) in each 
agency. For example, the CIO of the Federal Department of 
Transportation (DOT) would communicate with the CIO of the 
State DOT.
    Mr. Larry Olson, Deputy Secretary for Information 
Technology, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, testified that states 
can not get distracted by the technical dimension of this 
challenge and miss the fact that this is a project management 
challenge. He stated that the states must make an effort to 
raise the awareness among the local governments, businesses and 
citizens in order to thoroughly address the problem. He 
testified that the three guiding principles that Pennsylvania 
has enacted to correct the dilemma are leadership, management, 
and education.

Panel 2

    Ms. Sally Katzen, Administrator of Office Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
testified that it would be difficult for OMB to provide a 
comprehensive report by the November 1 deadline imposed by the 
House Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations Report. She stated that more time was needed to 
assess all federal agencies progress in addressing the Year 
2000 issue. She estimated that by February, with the regular 
budget submissions, all agencies would have actual figures 
available. Chief Information Officers of each agency, she 
stated, will be responsible for fixing the Year 2000 problem in 
their agency.

 4.5(v)--Technological Advances in Genetics Testing: Implications for 
                               the Future

                           September 17, 1996

                       Hearing Volume No. 104-68

Background

    On September 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
the first House hearing on genetics testing in the 104th 
Congress. The hearing, entitled, ``Technological Advances in 
Genetics Testing: Implications for the Future,'' focused on the 
quality assurance of the testing procedures, accuracy standards 
for the testing, and future implications for its use. Testimony 
was received from three panels.

Summary of hearing

Panel 1

    Congressman Cliff Stearns, (R-FL), testified that he 
introduced H.R. 2690, the ``Genetic Privacy and 
Nondiscrimination Act,'' to prevent discrimination based on a 
person's genetic profile. He stated that genetic information 
must not be used or misused to deny access to health insurance. 
The bill will establish guidelines concerning disclosure and 
the use of genetic information.
    Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson, (R-CT), testified that if 
people learn their genetic status they can look for early signs 
of illness or disability and take preemptive action to minimize 
the onset of illness. She stated that people should not fear 
losing their health care coverage when they need it the most.
    Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter, (D-NY), testified that 
genetic research and therapy hold the promise to eradicate some 
of the most terrible and feared diseases know to humanity. 
However, the potential for misuse and abuse of this information 
is staggering. For these reasons, she introduced H.R. 2748, the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. 
She stated that this legislation will forbid insurance 
companies from denying or canceling insurance, and of changing 
the rates and conditions of policies based on genetics.

Panel 2

    Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director, National Center for Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, testified that 
until scientific knowledge is sufficient to ensure that the 
benefits exceed the risks, the clinical use of genetic testing 
should remain in a research area. Unless the test results are 
interpreted correctly, he stated, it is not wise to test 
individuals. He stated that laboratory testing has been going 
on for quite some time but the recent interest in genetic 
testing has been fostered because it is a predictive test that 
allows you to test the family, not just the individual.
    Ms. Mary Pendergast, Deputy Commissioner, Senior Advisor to 
the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, testified that 
the FDA currently has minimal involvement with genetic testing. 
She stated that FDA regulates the safety and effectiveness of 
diagnostic tests traditionally manufactured and commercially 
marketed as finished products, but in-house developed tests 
have not been actively regulated by the FDA.

Panel 3

    Ms. Carol Krause, Cancer Survivor, testified that one of 
the most important questions to ask with respect to the genetic 
testing issue is: ``Will the information from a genetic test 
help me make decisions to reduce my risk of getting cancer? 
And, if not, will it reduce my risk of dying from cancer?'' 
Although more data on the accuracy of tests is needed, she 
believes that genetic testing should be more widely available, 
in an appropriate laboratory setting, and not burdened by the 
FDA. She stated that genetic tests are tools that will help 
increase the odds.
    Ms. Karen Rothenberg, Director, Law & Health Care Program, 
University of Maryland, School of Law, testified that as new 
genetic tests proliferate, policy makers need to evaluate the 
development of legislative and regulatory strategies to address 
the concerns of discrimination. She questioned how the research 
community can ensure the public that these tests have value. 
She stated that genetic testing doesn't mean that more people 
have genetic disorders, it just means we can pinpoint the 
malignancies we know something about.
    Dr. Wayne Grody, UCLA School of Medicine, Member, NIH-DOE 
Task Force on Genetic Testing, testified that it would be 
difficult for federal regulations to completely assure quality 
and appropriateness of all genetic testing since it is such a 
rapidly changing technical area. He stated that acceptance, 
validation, and appropriate use of new tests should be left 
primarily to professional scientific peer groups, with FDA 
oversight of safety and effectiveness of manufactured test 
devices.
    Dr. Alan Goldhammer, Director, Technical Affairs, 
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), testified that BIO 
supports laws and policies that ensure products have value to 
patients and health care providers. BIO also believes oversight 
under the Clinical Laboratory Information Amendments (CLIA) can 
be strengthened by incorporating the guidelines that have been 
drawn up by professional scientific societies with expertise in 
the field of genetics and molecular biology.
    Ms. Christine Brunswick, Vice President, Breast Cancer 
Coalition, testified that there is a need to educate consumers, 
health care providers, and at-risk patient groups. She noted 
that the National Breast Cancer Coalition has made science 
education a priority. The Coalition believes that testing 
should be regulated by the FDA, and until sensitivity, 
specificity, and predictive values of the test are known, the 
FDA should not approve the testing.
    Dr. Jeffrey Cossman, Georgetown University Medical Center, 
Member of Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
Biology (FASEB), American Society for Investigative Pathology 
(ASIP) testified that strict quality assurance is needed to 
protect patient safety. In order to ensure public safety, 
national standards would be the best to regulate genetic 
testing, regardless of which agency does it. He explained the 
differences between genetic tests which reveal genetic 
components as compared to tests which reveal inherited 
components. How these test results are interpreted is very 
different. He stated that genetic testing can be assured 
through existing programs by extension of new regulations and 
on-site inspection of genetic tests.




                                    
