[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.