[House Report 105-847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                 Union Calendar No. 488

105th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 105-847
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                for the

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS





                            JANUARY 2, 1999


January 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               --------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE                    
53-706                     WASHINGTON : 1999





                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California 
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois               RMM*
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California         JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
JOE BARTON, Texas                    TIM ROEMER, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California              JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan**         ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
DAVE WELDON, Florida                 LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
MATT SALMON, Arizona                 ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
MARK FOLEY, Florida                  BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois            DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,       BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
    Mississippi                      NICK LAMPSON, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   LOIS CAPPS, California
MERRILL COOK, Utah                   BARBARA LEE, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania           BRAD SHERMAN, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,           VACANCY
    Washington
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
VACANCY
                    Todd R. Schultz, Chief of Staff
                    Barry C. Beringer, Chief Counsel
            Patricia S. Schwartz, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                 Vivian A. Tessieri, Legislative Clerk
              Robert E. Palmer, Democratic Staff Director

----------
*Ranking Minority Member.
**Vice Chairman.




                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 1999.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
The Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: 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 
105th 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,

                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Committee History................................................     1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science....    13
    1.1--P.L. 105-23, To amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy 
      Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields 
      Research and Public Information Dissemination Program (H.R. 
      363).......................................................    13
    1.2--P.L. 105-47, To authorize appropriations for carrying 
      out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal 
      years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes (S. 910/H.R. 
      2249)......................................................    15
    1.3--P.L. 105-85, National Defense Authorization Act for 
      Fiscal Year 1998 (H.R. 1119)...............................    17
    1.4--P.L. 105-108, United States Fire Administration 
      Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (S. 1231/
      H.R. 1272).................................................    20
    1.5--P.L. 105-135, Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 
      (S. 1139/H.R. 2261/H.R. 2429)--(Note H.R. 2429 was 
      incorporated as Title VII of H.R. 2261, House companion 
      measure to S. 1139)........................................    21
    1.6--P.L. 105-155, FAA Research, Engineering, and Development 
      Authorization Act of 1998 (H.R. 1271)......................    22
    1.7--P.L. 105-160, The National Sea Grant College Program 
      Reauthorization Act of 1998 (S. 927/H.R. 437)..............    23
    1.8--P.L. 105-178, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
      Century (H.R. 2400/H.R 860)................................    25
    1.9--P.L. 105-207, National Science Foundation Authorization 
      Act of 1998 (H.R. 1273/S. 1046)............................    26
    1.10--P.L. 105-234, Fastener Quality Act Amendments (H.R. 
      3824)......................................................    27
    1.11--P.L. 105-255, Commission on the Advancement of Women in 
      Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act (H.R. 
      3007)......................................................    28
    1.12--P.L. 105-261, Strom Thurmond National Defense 
      Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.R. 3616).........    28
    1.13--P.L. 105-303, Commercial Space Act of 1998 (H.R. 1702).    30
    1.14--P.L. 105-305, Next Generation Internet Research Act of 
      1998 (H.R. 3332/S. 1609)...................................    32
    1.15--P.L. 105-309, Technology Administration Act of 1998 
      (H.R.1274/S. 1325).........................................    34
    1.16--P.L. 105-383, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 
      (H.R. 2204/H.R. 4235--Title VI of H.R. 2204)...............    35
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    37
    2.1--Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act (H.R. 922).......    37
    2.2--Civilian Space Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 and 
      1999 (H.R. 1275/S. 1250)...................................    38
    2.3--Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
      Authorization Act of 1997 (H.R. 1276)......................    41
    2.4--Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development 
      Act of 1997 (H.R. 1277)....................................    42
    2.5--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
      Authorization Act of 1997 (H.R. 1278)......................    45
    2.6--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1903)...    46
    2.7--Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998 (H.R. 
      2544/H.R. 4859)............................................    47
Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    49
    3.1--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on 
      the Committee Print entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward 
      A New National Science Policy'' (H.Res. 578)...............    49
    3.2--To provide for the conveyance of certain property from 
      the United States to Stanislaus County, California (H.R. 
      112).......................................................    49
    3.3--Oceans Act of 1998 (H.R. 3445)..........................    50
    3.4--National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1998 (H.R. 
      3610)......................................................    51
    3.5--Year 2000 Preparedness Act of 1998 (H.R. 4756)..........    52
    3.6--Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998 (H.R. 
      4859/See H.R. 2544 in Chapter II)..........................    53
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
  Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee 
  Legislative Activities.........................................    55
    4.1--Committee on Science....................................    55
        4.1(a) February 12, 1997--The Status of Russian 
          Participation in the International Space Station 
          Program................................................    55
        4.1(b) March 12, 1997--The United States and Antarctica 
          in the 21st Century....................................    57
        4.1(c) May 14, 1997--Department of Energy Posture........    58
        4.1(d) July 23, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and 
          Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV, 
          Including The Results Of The Third International 
          Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................    59
        4.1(e) July 30, 1997--Demanding Results: Implementing the 
          Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)..........    59
        4.1(f) September 10, 1997--The Next Generation Internet..    61
        4.1(g) September 18, 1997--International Space Station, 
          Parts I-V..............................................    63
        4.1(h) September 24, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and 
          Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV, 
          Including The Results Of The Third International 
          Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................    69
        4.1(i) October 8, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and 
          Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV, 
          Including The Results Of The Third International 
          Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................    70
        4.1(j) October 29, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and 
          Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV, 
          Including The Results Of The Third International 
          Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................    72
        4.1(k) February 4, 1998--Road From Kyoto, Part I: Where 
          Are We, Where Are We Going, And How Do We Get There?...    74
        4.1(l) February 12, 1998--Road From Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto 
          and the Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
          Request................................................    75
        4.1(m) March 4, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    75
        4.1(n) March 5, 1998--The Road From Kyoto, Part III: 
          State Department Overview..............................    77
        4.1(o) March 11, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    78
        4.1(p) March 25, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    79
        4.1(q) April 1, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    81
        4.1(r) April 22, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    84
        4.1(s) May 6, 1998--International Space Station, Parts I-
          V......................................................    86
        4.1(t) May 14, 1998--National Science Policy Study, Parts 
          I-VII..................................................    87
        4.1(u) June 10, 1998--National Science Policy Study, 
          Parts I-VII............................................    90
        4.1(v) June 24, 1998--International Space Station, Parts 
          I-V....................................................    92
        4.1(w) June 25, 1998--China: Dual-Use Space Technology...    94
        4.1(x) August 5, 1998--International Space Station, Parts 
          I-V....................................................    97
        4.1(y) October 7, 1998--International Space Station, 
          Parts I-V..............................................    99
        4.1(z) October 9, 1998--The Road From Kyoto-Part IV: The 
          Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S. Energy Markets and 
          Economic Activity......................................   101
    4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research..........................   102
        4.2(a) March 5, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization for the National Science Foundation 
          (NSF), Parts I-III.....................................   102
        4.2(b) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization for the National Science Foundation 
          (NSF), Parts I-III.....................................   104
        4.2(c) March 18, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of 
          the United States Fire Administration (USFA)...........   106
        4.2(d) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization for the National Science Foundation 
          (NSF), Parts I-III.....................................   109
        4.2(e) April 24, 1997--National Earthquake Hazards 
          Reduction Program......................................   113
        4.2(f) September 25, 1997--Internet Domain Names, Parts I 
          and II.................................................   116
        4.2(g) September 30, 1997--Internet Domain Names, Parts I 
          and II.................................................   117
        4.2(h) March 31, 1998--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and 
          II.....................................................   119
        4.2(i) April 22, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
          Authorization Request: National Science Foundation.....   121
        4.2(j) May 21, 1998--External Regulation Of DOE Labs: 
          Status Of OSHA And NRC Pilot Programs..................   122
        4.2(k) July 23, 1998--The National Science Foundation's 
          Statewide Systemic Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way 
          to Improve K-12 Math and Science Education?............   124
        4.2(l) September 23, 1998--GAO Report On DOE National 
          Laboratory Management Reform...........................   126
        4.2(m) September 28, 1998--Remote Sensing................   128
        4.2(n) October 6, 1998--High Performance Computing.......   130
        4.2(o) October 7, 1998--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and 
          II.....................................................   133
    4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment..................   135
        4.3(a) March 6, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Office of 
          Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System 
          Acquisitions...........................................   135
        4.3(b) March 11, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency 
          Research and Development...............................   136
        4.3(c) March 12, 1997--The Science Behind the 
          Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed 
          Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
          for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III..........   137
        4.3(d) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine 
          Revitalization Act of 1997.............................   138
        4.3(e) March 19, 1997--FY 1998 Budget Request: Department 
          of Energy, Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal Technology 
          Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
          and, H.R. 363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy 
          Policy Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic 
          Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination 
          Program................................................   138
        4.3(f) March 20, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE)--
          Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety and Health; and 
          Environment Restoration and Waste Management (Non-
          Defense)...............................................   139
        4.3(g) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE), 
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research and 
          Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration (NOAA)..................................   140
        4.3(h) May 7, 1997--The Science Behind the Environmental 
          Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the 
          National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and 
          Particulate Matter, Parts I-III........................   141
        4.3(i) May 21, 1997--The Science Behind the Environmental 
          Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the 
          National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and 
          Particulate Matter, Parts I-III........................   142
        4.3(j) July 31, 1997--S.417, To extend energy 
          conservation programs under the Energy Policy and 
          Conservation Act through September 30, 2002............   143
        4.3(k) September 11, 1997--Preparing for El Nino.........   143
        4.3(l) October 7, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III..   144
        4.3(m) October 9, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III..   145
        4.3(n) November 6, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III.   146
        4.3(o) February 25, 1998--DOE FY 99 Budget Authorization 
          Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide For The Consolidation Of 
          The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable Energy, And 
          Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The 
          Hydrogen Future Act of 1996............................   146
        4.3(p) March 4, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request: 
          NOAA...................................................   147
        4.3(q) March 11, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D Budget 
          Authorization..........................................   148
        4.3(r) March 18, 1998--Diesel Technology for the 21st 
          Century................................................   149
        4.3(s) March 25, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
          Authorization Request for the Department of Energy, 
          Environmental Protection Agency Research and 
          Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration.........................................   150
        4.3(t) March 31, 1998--Electric Utility Deregulation: 
          Implications for Research and Development..............   150
        4.3(u) May 20, 1998--EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings: 
          Has EPA Met The Research Requirements Of The Clean Air 
          Act?...................................................   151
        4.3(v) June 17, 1998--The Human Genome Project: How 
          Private Sector Developments Affect the Government 
          Program................................................   152
        4.3(w) July 15, 1998--The Science of Risk Assessment: 
          Implications for Federal Regulation....................   153
        4.3(x) September 15, 1998--S. 1418, Methane Hydrate 
          Research and Development Act of 1998...................   153
        4.3(y) October 2, 1998--Here Comes La Nina: What To 
          Expect From the Weather in the Winter of 1998-1999.....   154
    4.4--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics...................   155
        4.4(a) March 4, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   155
        4.4(b) March 12, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   156
        4.4(c) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   157
        4.4(d) March 19, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   160
        4.4(e) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   161
        4.4(f) April 10, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA 
          Authorization, Parts I-VI..............................   164
        4.4(g) May 21, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, 
          Parts I-III............................................   165
        4.4(h) May 22, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, 
          Parts I-III............................................   168
        4.4(i) June 4, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, 
          Parts I-III............................................   169
        4.4(j) October 1, 1997--Space Shuttle Safety.............   171
        4.4(k) October 24, 1997--NASA's Study of Space Solar 
          Power..................................................   173
        4.4(l) October 30, 1997--Indemnification and Cross Waiver 
          Authority..............................................   176
        4.4(m) November 5, 1997--Status and Cost Overruns of the 
          International Space Station Program....................   179
        4.4(n) February 5, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request 
          for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
          Parts I-IV.............................................   185
        4.4(o) February 12, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request 
          for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
          Parts I-IV.............................................   187
        4.4(p) February 25, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request 
          for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
          Parts I-IV.............................................   189
        4.4(q) March 19, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request 
          for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
          Parts I-IV.............................................   191
        4.4(r) May 21, 1998--Asteroids: Perils and Opportunities.   194
        4.4(s) September 10, 1998--Delays in NASA's Earth Science 
          Enterprise.............................................   195
        4.4(t) September 29, 1998--U.S. Spacepower in the 21st 
          Century................................................   197
        4.4(u) October 1--NASA at 40: What Kind of Space Program 
          Does America Need for the 21st Century?................   199
    4.5--Subcommittee on Technology..............................   201
        4.5(a) February 11, 1997--Secure Communications..........   201
        4.5(b) February 27, 1997--Surface Transportation Research 
          Needs for the Next Century, Parts 1-2..................   202
        4.5(c) March 5, 1997--Biotechnology and the Ethics of 
          Cloning: How Far Should We Go?.........................   203
        4.5(d) March 13, 1997--Federal Aviation Administration 
          Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization...   205
        4.5(e) March 19, 1997--Funding Needs for the Technology 
          Administration and the National Institute of Standards 
          and Technology (NIST), Parts I-II......................   206
        4.5(f) March 20, 1997--Year 2000 Risks: What Are the 
          Consequences Of Information Technology Failure?........   207
        4.5(g) April 10, 1997--Funding Needs for the National 
          Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I 
          and II.................................................   208
        4.5(h) April 23, 1997--Surface Transportation Research 
          Needs for the Next Century, Parts I-II.................   209
        4.5(i) May 6, 1997--Technology in the Classroom: Panacea 
          or Pandora's Box.......................................   211
        4.5(j) June 12, 1997--Review of the President's 
          Commission's Recommendations on Cloning................   213
        4.5(k) June 19, 1997--Computer Security Enhancement Act 
          of 1997: To Amend The National Institute Of Standards 
          and Technology Act to Enhance The Ability Of The 
          National Institute of Standards And Technology To 
          Improve Computer Security, And For Other Purposes......   214
        4.5(l) June 24, 1997--The Role of Research & Development 
          In Improving Civilian Air Traffic Management...........   216
        4.5(m) July 10, 1997--Will Federal Government Computers 
          Be Ready For the Year 2000?............................   218
        4.5(n) July 15, 1997--Meeting The Needs Of People With 
          Disabilities Through Federal Technology Transfer.......   220
        4.5(o) July 22, 1997--The Prohibition of Federal Funding 
          of Human Cloning Research..............................   222
        4.5(p) September 4, 1997--Reauthorization of the Small 
          Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR)............   224
        4.5(q) September 25, 1998--Promoting Technology Transfer 
          by Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions.   226
        4.5(r) October 21, 1997--Technology to Reduce Aircraft 
          Noise..................................................   228
        4.5(s) October 28, 1997--Do You Know Who You Are Doing 
          Business With? Signatures in a Digital Age.............   230
        4.5(t) November 4, 1997--The Global Dimensions of the 
          Millennium Bug.........................................   233
        4.5(u) November 6, 1997--The Role of Computer Security in 
          Protecting U.S. Infrastructures........................   235
        4.5(v) February 4, 1998--FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on 
          the Air Traffic Control System.........................   238
        4.5(w) February 26, 1998--Review of the Fiscal Year 1999 
          Administration Request for the Technology 
          Administration and the National Institute of Standards 
          and Technology.........................................   240
        4.5(x) March 10, 1998--Review of H.R. 3007, The 
          Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and 
          Technology Development Act.............................   242
        4.5(y) March 12, 1998--Review of the Federal Aviation 
          Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Research and 
          Development Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000 
          Program................................................   243
        4.5(z) March 17, 1998--Facilitating Licenses to 
          Federally-Owned Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on 
          H.R. 2544, Technology Transfer Commercialization Act...   246
        4.5(aa) March 18, 1997--Year 2000........................   248
        4.5(bb) March 24, 1998--Educating Our Children With 
          Technology Skills To Compete In the Next Millennium....   250
        4.5(cc) April 28, 1998--International Standards, Parts I 
          and II.................................................   253
        4.5(dd) May 7, 1998--Aviation Manufacturing and The 
          Fastener Quality Act...................................   256
        4.5(ee) May 14, 1998--Y2K Effect on Energy Utilities.....   257
        4.5(ff) June 4, 1998--International Standards, Parts I 
          and II.................................................   260
        4.5(gg) July 21, 1998--Community Colleges in the 21st 
          Century: Tackling Technology...........................   262
        4.5(hh) August 4, 1998--Developing Partnerships for 
          Assistive and Universally Designed Technologies for 
          Persons with Disabilities..............................   265
        4.5(ii) August 6, 1998--Technology Development at the 
          Federal Aviation Administration: Computer and 
          Information Technology Challenges of the 21st Century..   267
        4.5(jj) September 17, 1998--Industrial Biotechnology: A 
          Solution for the Future?...............................   270
        4.5(kk) September 24, 1998--Year 2000: What Every 
          Consumer Should Know...................................   272
        4.5(ll) September 29, 1998--Aviation and the Year 2000...   274
        4.5(mm) October 2, 1998--Status of the District of 
          Columbia's Year 2000 Compliance Effort.................   278
        4.5(nn) October 8, 1998--Fastener Quality Act: Needed or 
          Outdated?..............................................   279

                                APPENDIX

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 
  1998...........................................................   283
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 
  1999...........................................................   305
Committee on Science: Analysis and Review........................   334
GAO Documents....................................................   395
List of Publications of the Committee on Science (105th Congress)   424




                                                 Union Calendar No. 488

105th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                105-847

=======================================================================



 
              SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                                _______
                                

January 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


    Mr. Sensenbrenner, 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 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 two and one-half 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Now named the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) (P.L. 100-418, Title V, Part B, Subpart A, Sections 5111 through 
5163, enacted August 23, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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 official name of the Committee from 
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.
    The start of the 105th Congress brought a change in 
leadership to the Committee on Science. Congressman F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican representing the 9th District 
of Wisconsin became the eighth Chairman. Sensenbrenner had been 
a member of the Committee on Science since 1981 and prior to 
his appointment as Committee head, served as Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
    During the 105th Congress, under Chairman Sensenbrenner's 
leadership, the Committee on Science worked in a bipartisan 
fashion to report out a record number of legislative 
initiatives focused on advancing U.S. interests in research and 
development. Throughout the 105th Congress, the Science 
Committee aggressively implemented the Government Performance 
and Results Act (GPRA/Results Act), legislation making federal 
agencies accountable for the money they spend.
    For Fiscal Year 1998, the Administration's budget proposal 
was only 1% over the Fiscal Year 1997 level for the research 
and development programs under the Committee's jurisdiction. In 
the Views and Estimates submitted to the Committee on the 
Budget, the Science Committee stated that investment in science 
is an investment in the future. Therefore, the Committee 
recommended an increase of 3% for FY98 over the FY97 spending 
levels. The Committee urged increased funding for basic 
research, scientific infrastructure, and for selected NASA and 
environmental programs. (See the appendix section for a copy of 
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 1998.)
    In addition, the Committee established the following 
criteria to guide its deliberative process: (1) Federal 
Research and Development should focus on essential programs 
that are long-term, high risk, non-commercial, cutting edge, 
well-managed, and have great potential for scientific 
discovery; (2) Federal R&D should be highly relevant to and 
tightly focused on agency missions, with accountability and 
procedures for evaluating quality and results; (3) Activities 
associated with evolutionary advances or incremental 
improvements to a product or process, or the marketing or 
commercialization of a product should be left to the private 
sector; (4) Where possible, international, industry and state 
science partnerships should be nurtured as a way to leverage 
the United States taxpayer's R&D investment; and (5) 
Infrastructure necessary for carrying out essential federal R&D 
programs needs to be prioritized consistent with program 
requirements.
    Critical analysis by the Committee on Science in the second 
session of the 105th Congress provided the first look at the 
Administration's R&D budget proposal and the newly proposed 
Research Fund for America (RFA) for fiscal year 1999. RFA was 
one of three new funds (the other two being Environmental 
Resources and Transportation) proposed that were not trust 
funds and were essentially reclassifications in the President's 
FY 1999 budget. The RFA was a $31 billion dollar proposal that 
combined new and existing programs, with the majority of RFA 
funds existing in already established federal R&D programs 
prior to the proposed RFA. Seventy-five percent of the RFA 
(from FY 1999 to FY 2003) was to be funded within the 
discretionary cap and the remaining 25% of the funding was to 
come from the tobacco settlement (15%), unspecified mandatory 
cuts (4%), new fuel taxes (1%), and cuts to Veterans' Health 
Care (5%). The major problems with RFA included:
          1. funding from uncertain tax increases;
          2. funding from uncollected monies from the proposed 
        tobacco settlement;
          3. proposed spending increases were outside the 
        discretionary caps established by the historic 1997 
        Balanced Budget Agreement.
    At numerous budget oversight hearings for fiscal year 1999, 
the Committee requested that the Administration provide impact 
statements for their respective agencies should the proposed 
tobacco settlement fail and uncertain revenues not be realized. 
The Committee recognized the potential harmful impact on United 
States R&D if these two revenue sources failed to materialize.
    The President's original request was for a 7.5% increase 
for the RFA, and in the end, Congress approved a 9.7% increase 
for agencies and programs included in the RFA through an 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 105-277). The 
result of the second session of the 105th Congress is that R&D 
now accounts for approximately 14% of discretionary spending.
    Of the $2.794 billion increase Congress approved for 
programs within the RFA, almost $2 billion or 70% was for NIH. 
NSF and DOE research programs received a 7.2% and 8.8% increase 
respectively. (See the appendix section for a copy of Committee 
on Science: Analysis and Review, February 26, 1998.)
    For Fiscal Year 1999, the Committee's Views and Estimates 
reflected their goal to substantially increase research and 
development funding, and urged a 4% increase for programs under 
the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee's request for 
increased funding reflected the continued support for the 
historic balanced budget agreement, and recommended the funding 
be within the agreed upon discretionary spending limits. In 
addition, the Science Committee restated their commitment to 
the goal of stable and sustainable research and development 
funding for the long term. (See the appendix section for a copy 
of Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 
1999.)
    While the Science Committee was the last to officially 
organize in the House, it became the first Committee to 
complete action on all of its two-year agency authorization 
bills during the 105th Congress. The Science Committee also 
became the first to pass legislation banning federal funds for 
human cloning research, as well as the first to get a computer 
security bill through the House. Another significant 
achievement of the Science Committee during the 105th Congress 
was the passage of legislation encouraging the development of a 
commercial space industry in the United States. The bipartisan 
Commercial Space Act of 1998 was a revolutionary piece of 
legislation opening up space for commercial use.
    Other significant legislative accomplishments included:
     Legislation passed by the House to assist small 
businesses and universities develop advanced technologies. 
(H.R. 2429)
     Legislation enacted into law which supports 
research and development programs to protect safety personnel 
and civilians from fires and earthquakes. (H.R. 1272)
     Exposure of the Administration's management 
failures in the ``Next Generation Internet'' (NGI) program, 
which led to the passage of a bill, revamping the 
Administration's proposal and allowing for faster 
communications for schools, businesses and communities.
     Legislation enacted into law authorizing 
appropriations through the fiscal year 1999 to study the 
barriers that women face in science, engineering and 
technology. The bill also directs the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) to conduct a study of the educational 
opportunities available to women who want to enter these 
fields.
     Chairman Sensenbrenner initiated amendments to the 
Fastener Quality Act, which saved taxpayers millions of dollars 
by eliminating redundant federal regulations.
    At the start of the 105th Congress, the Committee on 
Science was charged with the task of developing a long-range 
science and technology policy. Chairman Sensenbrenner appointed 
the Committee's Vice Chairman, Vernon Ehlers, (R-MI) to lead a 
study of the current state of the Nation's science and 
technology policy. The National Science Policy Study, entitled 
``Unlocking Our Future Toward A New National Science Policy'' 
was unveiled in September of 1998 and was endorsed by the Full 
House on Oct. 8, 1998, and serves as a policy guide to the 
Committee, Congress and the scientific community.
    Acting in accordance with the Committee on Science's 
jurisdiction over climate change issues, Chairman Sensenbrenner 
was chosen by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to lead the 
U.S. delegation at the Kyoto (Dec. 97) and Buenos Aires (Nov. 
98) global warming conferences. As any agreement would have to 
be ratified by the Senate and implementing legislation approved 
by the House, the Science Committee led delegation provided 
important oversight of the negotiations and will continue to 
provide guidance to the leadership and the country on global 
warming negotiations. Throughout the 105th Congress, the 
Committee examined the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol 
and the economic harm it could pose to businesses; as well as 
the science used to establish the regulatory framework for 
ozone and air quality strategies.
    As a result of the Committee's aggressive oversight agenda, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner was recognized for his outstanding 
oversight efforts by Majority Leader Richard Armey with the 
``Excellence in Programmatic Oversight Award''. The award is 
presented to members who hold federal agencies and programs 
accountable to American taxpayers.
    As the only standing committee chairman to receive the 
award, Chairman Sensenbrenner was honored for, among other 
things, exposing the Administration's failures in handling 
Russian participation in the International Space Station. 
Through nine hearings on the subject, the Chairman worked 
tirelessly on a bipartisan basis to require the Administration 
and NASA to develop clear-cut plans in dealing with Russian 
non-performance and delays. In an effort to prevent future cost 
growth and schedule delays, and direct NASA to solve systemic 
problems, Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4820, the Save 
the International Space Station Act of 1998 at the conclusion 
of the 105th Congress.
    The Science Committee examined a number of other issues 
during the 105th Congress including: monitoring the safety 
standards on the Russian Mir; national security and economic 
implications of alleged satellite technology transfers from 
Loral and Hughes to the Chinese; the Y2K problem; management 
problems at Brookhaven National Lab resulting in changes that 
have made the lab safer to the surrounding community; and 
enforcement of the Results Act with federal agencies.
    The leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner has produced 16 
measures signed into law, a proven track record with its 
aggressive oversight agenda, and a significantly reduced staff 
level, evidence that more was accomplished with less during the 
105th Congress.
     Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

    During the 105th Congress, 81 bills were referred to the 
Committee on Science; 27 bills were reported or discharged by 
the Committee; 28 measures passed the House; committee 
interests were conferenced in 3 bills; and, 16 measures were 
enacted.

1.1-P.L. 105-23, TO AMEND SECTION 2118 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 
    TO EXTEND THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS RESEARCH AND PUBLIC 
              INFORMATION DISSEMINATION PROGRAM (H.R. 363)

Background and summary of legislation
    Because of the prevalence of electricity in the day-to-day 
operation of society, it is impossible to avoid exposure to the 
electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced in the generation and 
transmission of electrical power. Unlike the hazards from 
shocks and burns by coming into contact with electrical 
currents, which have been known since the first application of 
electric current, the hazards of EMF's is a somewhat recent 
discovery. Concerns first arose during World War II with 
exposure to high-frequency radar systems and have steadily 
increased through the late 1970's when public attention became 
focused on possible adverse health effects to exposure to 
EMF's. Several studies have drawn correlations between the 
proximity of power lines and incidences of leukemia and other 
childhood cancer. While these studies have been proven to 
contain flaws, popular media focus on them has caused public 
concern to be peaked.
    Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), 
directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a 5-year cost-
shared program--the EMF RAPID Program--starting October 1, 1992 
and expiring December 31, 1997. The EMF RAPID Program 
objectives are to: (1) determine whether or not exposure to EMF 
produced by the generation, transmission, and use of electric 
energy affects human health; (2) carry out research, 
development, and demonstration with respect to technologies to 
mitigate any adverse human health effects; and (3) provide for 
the dissemination of scientifically-valid information to the 
public. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of 
Health and Human Services' National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences (NIEHS) are jointly responsible for directing 
the program, with the DOE being responsible for the research, 
development, and demonstration of new technologies to improve 
the measurement and characterization of EMF and the NIEHS has 
sole responsibility for research on possible human health 
effects of EMF. In addition, the act created two advisory 
committees to help guide the program. The Electric and Magnetic 
Fields Interagency Committee (EMFIAC) is composed mostly of 
employees of various federal agencies, while the National 
Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee (NEMFAC) is 
made up of members of state agencies as well and private sector 
employees and members of the public.
    Finally, the EPACT established a number of reporting 
requirements including: (1) the Director of the NIEHS reporting 
to EMFIAC and to Congress the extent to which exposure to EMF 
affects human health; (2) the EMFIAC reporting to the Secretary 
of Energy and Congress on its findings and conclusions on the 
effects, if any, and any actions that may be necessary to 
minimize health effects, if any; and (3) the National Academy 
of Sciences reporting to the EMFIAC and NEMFAC periodically 
evaluating the research and recommending ways to disseminate 
information effectively.
    H.R. 363, as introduced, amends Section 2118 of EPACT by 
extending by one year: (1) the EMF RAPID Program, EMFIAC, and 
the NEMFAC termination dates (from December 31, 1997 to 
December 31, 1998); (2) the deadline of the Director of the 
Department of Health and Human Services' National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences report to the EMFIAC and to 
Congress (from March 31, 1997 to March 31, 1998); and (3) the 
deadline of the EMFIAC's report to the Secretary of Energy and 
to Congress (from September 30, 1997 to September 30, 1998).
Legislative history
    H.R. 363 was introduced by Representative Edolphus Towns on 
January 7, 1997 and was co-sponsored by Congressman Frank 
Pallone, Jr. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce 
and, in addition, to the Committee on Science. On February 10, 
1997 it was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment.
    The subcommittee held a hearing on March 19, 1997, and 
received testimony on the bill from the Department of Energy 
and non-Federal participants. The Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment then met to mark up H.R. 363 on April 9, 1997 and 
ordered the measure reported to the Full Committee by a voice 
vote.
    On April 16, 1997, the Committee adopted the Subcommittee's 
amendment by voice vote and ordered H.R. 363 reported to the 
House, as amended. The Committee filed, H. Rept. 105-60, Part 
2, on April 21, 1997. The House Committee on Commerce ordered 
an identical measure reported to the House on April 21, 1997 
(H. Rept. 105-60, Part 1).
    The House voted to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 363 on 
April 29, 1997 by: Y-387; N-35; Roll Call No. 94. The bill was 
received in the Senate on April 30, 1997 and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which held a 
hearing on May 19, 1997. On June 12, 1997 the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources held a markup and ordered the 
measure reported, without amendment, by a voice vote and filed 
S. Rept. 105-27.
    The Senate passed the measure without amendment by 
unanimous consent on June 20, 1997, and the President signed 
H.R. 363, To Amend Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 to Extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and 
Public Information Dissemination Program, into law on July 3, 
1997 (P.L. 105-23).

   1.2-P.L. 105-47, TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE 
  EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977 FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 
            1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (S. 910/H.R. 2249)

Background and summary of legislation

    Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards and 
Reduction Program (NEHRP) in P.L. 95-124, the Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, in response to a recognized 
national threat posed by earthquakes and in an effort to reduce 
death and property loss from this natural disaster. Since its 
inception, NEHRP has focused on earthquake research (physical, 
seismic, structural, and social) as well as earthquake hazards 
mitigation. NEHRP activities in research and mitigation are 
executed by four separate federal agencies: The National 
Science Foundation (NSF); the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST); the United States Geological Survey 
(USGS); and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
    As the designated lead agency for NEHRP, FEMA is charged 
with the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the 
other principal agencies, conducting planning for and managing 
of federal responses to earthquakes, and funding state and 
local preparedness activities.
    The USGS conducts and supports earth science investigations 
to understand the origins of earthquakes, characterize 
earthquake hazards, and predict the geologic effects of 
earthquakes. This agency also disseminates earth science 
information.
    The NSF funds earthquake engineering research, basic earth 
sciences research, and earthquake-related social sciences 
research. Earthquake engineering research includes assessing 
the impact of earthquakes on buildings and lifelines.
    NIST conducts and supports engineering studies to improve 
seismic provisions of standards, codes, and practices for 
buildings and lifelines.
    Additional federal agencies contribute to the NEHRP through 
research activities consistent with their primary missions. For 
example, the Department of Energy has studied the seismic 
safety of nuclear reactor designs as part of their nuclear 
energy research program.
    Over the years, NEHRP has provided insightful research and 
useful information for earthquake hazards mitigation. The 
program has lead to significant advances in knowledge of earth 
science and engineering aspects of earthquake risk reduction.
    NEHRP was last authorized by P.L. 103-374. This Act 
authorized NERHP at $103 million for fiscal year 1995 and $106 
million for fiscal year 1996. In addition, this Act directed 
the President to conduct an assessment of earthquake 
engineering research and testing facilities in the United 
States. The Administration, through NSF and NIST, commissioned 
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) to conduct 
the assessment. In a subsequent report released, EERI made a 
number of recommendations regarding the state of the nation's 
earthquake engineering testing facilities. The primary 
recommendation among these, was a specific recommendation that 
a comprehensive plan for upgrading existing earthquake 
engineering research and testing facilities be developed and 
implemented.
    The bill authorizes appropriations to FEMA, USGS, NSF, and 
NIST for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for carrying out activities 
under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. 
The bill also authorizes appropriations for operation of the 
Global Seismic Network (GSN). In addition, H.R. 2249 authorizes 
and provides funds for the development by USGS of a new 
prototype real time seismic hazards warning system. This system 
is to be a network of seismic sensors connected to receivers 
located at sites such as electric utilities and gas lines. The 
system would provide for timely warning to the facilities in 
the event of a seismic event.
    Finally, the bill requires the NSF, in conjunction with the 
three other NEHRP agencies, to develop a plan to effectively 
use earthquake engineering testing facilities, upgrade 
facilities and equipment, and integrate new, innovative testing 
approaches to earthquake engineering research in a systematic 
manner.

Legislative history

    H.R. 2249, a bill to authorize appropriations for carrying 
out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1997 and for other 
purposes. The bill was introduced by Science Committee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) 
on July 24, 1997.
    H.R. 2249 authorizes appropriations through the year 1999 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. 
Geological Survey to carry out the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program.
    On April 24, 1997, the Basic Research Subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 2249.
    On July 29, 1997 the full Science Committee passed and 
ordered reported H.R. 2249 (Report 105-238, Part I). The bill 
provides funding for programs under the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program for the Global Seismic Network, the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) for engineering research and 
geosciences research, and the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST). H.R. 2249 also requires the USGS to 
report to the Congress on (1) a program to develop a prototype 
real-time seismic warning system, (2) regional seismic 
monitoring networks in the United States, (3) improving the 
seismic hazard assessment of seismic zones, and (4) the need 
for additional Federal disaster-response training capabilities 
that are applicable to earthquake response. The bill also 
authorizes earth science teaching materials and requires NSF, 
FEMA, USGS, and NIST to develop jointly a comprehensive plan 
for earthquake engineering research to use effectively existing 
testing facilities and laboratories, upgrade facilities and 
equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing 
approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic 
manner.
    S. 910, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1273 was passed 
by the Senate on July 31, 1997, by the House under Suspension 
of the Rules on September 16, 1997, and was signed into law on 
October 1, 1997 as P.L. 105-47.

  1.3-P.L. 105-85, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            1998 (H.R. 1119)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Committee requested and received outside conferee 
status on the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act. In particular, 
the Committee sought conferee status on provisions in the bill 
regarding management of the U.S. Global Positioning System 
(GPS). GPS is a space-based national security system that 
broadcasts precise timing and location information that enable 
individuals equipped with appropriate signal receivers to 
determine their location in three dimensions with a high degree 
of accuracy. Initiated as a national security system, the 
Reagan Administration decided that a less precise signal would 
be made available to civilian users. This has led to a dramatic 
increase in the civilian and commercial use of the GPS system, 
which falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. 
Commercial space revenues generated around the Global 
Positioning System, for example, had risen from $1.3 billion in 
1995 and were projected to grow to $6.4 billion in 1999.
    The Senate version of the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act 
contained several provisions related to the management of GPS, 
but did not fully spell out a clear management structure or the 
process for reviewing international agreements related to GPS. 
In general, the Committee was concerned that the success of the 
GPS system was leading too many federal department and agencies 
to assert decision-making authority over the system. That was 
resulting in inconsistent policy direction within the Executive 
branch and undermining the continuing development of civilian 
applications. The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee had 
already held one hearing on this problem, while the Chairman 
had received correspondence from a variety of private sector 
users expressing their concern about the increasingly 
contradictory decision-making processes employed in the 
Executive Branch interagency process. The Committee recommended 
two changes to the Senate version of the FY1998 Defense 
Authorization Act to address this problem. First, in 
recognition of the Defense Department's successful management 
of GPS as a national security system--while at the same time 
providing a stable policy environment that enabled the private 
sector to aggressively develop new applications to benefit non-
national security activities--and in order to ensure policy 
consistency, the Committee recommended legislative language to 
ensure that the Defense Department not be required to accept 
GPS rules initiated by other agencies as binding until such 
time as the Defense Department had determined that such rules 
were consistent with U.S. national security and the efficient 
management of the Global Positioning System. The Committee 
recommended that it might become necessary to change this 
language if the interagency Global Positioning System Executive 
Board later proved itself capable of effective interagency 
management of the system. Second, the Committee recommended 
language that would require the interagency Global Positioning 
System Executive Board to review international agreements 
affecting the GPS before such agreements be accepted by the 
United States. The Committee was reacting to experience with 
negotiations during the World Administrative Radio Conference 
(WARC) making spectrum allocations that fall, during which time 
the State Department failed to prepare adequately for the 
implications that WARC negotiations might have on the Global 
Positioning System and the United States narrowly avoided an 
international agreement that would have reduced the reliability 
of the Global Positioning System. Both the Committee's 
recommendations were accepted and adopted in the bill, which 
was signed into law as P.L. 105-85.

H.R. 1119: sections 241, 1074 and 3154

    On July 25, 1997, the Speaker appointed Science Committee 
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and 
Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George E. Brown, Jr. 
(CA-42) as additional conferees to H.R. 1119, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, for 
consideration of Sections 214 and 3148 of the House-passed 
bill, and Sections 234 and 1064 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1119, and modifications committed to conference. These 
conference committee deliberations resulted in the enactment of 
three sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), which was signed into law 
by the President on November 18, 1997: (1) Section 241 
(Restructuring of National Oceanographic Partnership Program 
Organization); (2) Section 1074 (Sustainment and operation of 
the Global Positioning System); and (3) Section 3154 (Plan for 
External Oversight of National Laboratories). Descriptions of 
these provisions follow.
            Section 241--Restructuring of National Oceanographic 
                    Partnership Program Organization
    In signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997, the President issued a statement that the 
statute's method for the appointment of certain members of the 
National Ocean Leadership Council would violate the 
Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Although the statement 
provided that the Council should not exercise significant 
governmental authority, the administration allowed the Council 
to be convened with the 12 members whose appointment did not 
raise any constitutional issue, pending the enactment of 
corrective legislation. The House-passed version of H.R. 1119 
contained a provision (Section 214) that would amend Section 
7902 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that the 
President, or his designee, shall appoint members of the 
National Ocean Research Council who are not already government 
officers, to represent the views of the ocean industries, state 
governments, and academia, and such other views as the 
President considers appropriate.
    The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained a provision 
(Section 234) that would amend Section 7902(b) to revise the 
membership of the Council by removing those members whose 
appointment would raise constitutional questions. The National 
Ocean Leadership Council would remain as currently established 
by the administration, with members representing the 12 Federal 
agencies with significant oceanographic interest. The provision 
also recommended that the membership of the Council's Ocean 
Research Advisory Panel be expanded to include representatives 
from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of 
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, as well as 
government, academia, and the oceans industry.
    The House receded with an amendment that clarifies the role 
of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel with regard to membership 
and responsibilities.
            Section 1074--Sustainment and operation of the Global 
                    Positioning System
    The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained a provision 
(Section 1064) that would endorse and enact into law the 
presidential policy on the sustainment and operation of the 
Global Positioning System (GPS) issued in March 1996.
    The House-passed bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment providing that the 
Interagency GPS Executive Board, established pursuant to the 
presidential GPS policy, be the forum for interagency review of 
any proposed international agreement on the civil use of GPS. 
The amendment also directs the Secretary of Defense not to 
accept any restriction on the GPS system proposed by the head 
of any other department or agency in the exercise of that 
official's regulatory authority that would adversely affect the 
military potential of GPS.
            Section 3154--Plan for external oversight of national 
                    laboratories
    The House-passed version of H.R. 1119 contained a provision 
(Section 3148) that would require the Secretary of Energy to 
develop a plan for the external oversight of the national 
laboratories. The plan would provide for the establishment of 
an external oversight committee comprised of representatives of 
industry and academia for the purpose of making recommendations 
to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense 
committees on the productivity of the laboratories and on the 
excellence, relevance, and appropriateness of the research 
conducted at the laboratories. The plan also would provide for 
the establishment of a competitive peer review process for 
funding basic research at the laboratories.
    The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained no similar 
provision.
    The Senate receded with an amendment requiring the 
Secretary to prepare a report on existing and potential new 
external oversight practices at the national laboratories. The 
report is due not later than July 1, 1999, and is to include 
any recommendations from the Secretary and a plan to implement 
such recommendations.

Legislative history

    Congressman Floyd Spence, of South Carolina introduced H.R. 
1119 in the House on March 19, 1997. The bill was originally 
cosponsored by Congressman Ronald V. Dellums of California.
    H.R. 1119 was referred to the House Committee on National 
Security on March 19, 1997. The Committee on National Security 
held a markup session on June 11, 1997. And on June 16, 1997, 
reported H.R. 1119 to the House amended (House Report 105-132). 
On June 25, 1997, the bill passed the House amended by a 
recorded vote of 304-120 (Roll No. 236).
    H.R. 1119 was received in the Senate on July 7, 1997. On 
July 11, 1997, the bill was laid before the Senate by unanimous 
consent, the Senate struck all after the enacting clause and 
substituted the language of S. 936, as amended, and passed H.R. 
1119 with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
insisted on its amendments and asked for a conference with the 
House.
    On October 23rd, 1997, the conferees filed the conference 
report (House Report 105-340) to H.R. 1119 in the House. The 
House agreed to the conference report by a yea-nay vote of 286-
123 (Roll No. 534) on October 28, 1997. And the Senate agreed 
to the conference report by a yea-nay vote of 90-10 (Record 
Vote No. 296) on November 6, 1997. On November 18, 1997, the 
President signed the bill which became Public Law 105-85.

1.4--P.L. 105-108, UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT 
           FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999 (S. 1231/H.R. 1272)

Background and summary of legislation

    In 1974 Congress enacted the Federal Fire Prevention and 
Control Act in response to a nationwide concern about the 
increasing number of lives and property lost to fires. The Act 
established the USFA in an effort to prevent and reduce these 
losses. 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 in fire 
safety and prevention, collect and analyze data related to 
fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression, 
promote firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service 
training.
    The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which 
provides education and training to fire and emergency service 
personnel in fire protection and control.
    This legislation will enable the USFA and NFA to continue 
to pursue these important functions and to continue to minimize 
fire losses. The bill authorizes $29.6 million and $30.5 
million in appropriations, respectively, for Fiscal Years 1998 
and 1999 in appropriations for the activities of the United 
States Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy.

Legislative history

    H.R. 1272, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999 for the United States Fire Administration, 
and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by Subcommittee 
on Basic Research Chairman Schiff, Science Committee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) and 
Subcommittee on Basic Research Ranking Member Barcia on April 
10, 1997.
    H.R. 1272 authorizes through the year 1999 appropriations 
to the United States Fire Administration (USFA), which is 
housed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the 
National Fire Academy (NFA), which is administered by the USFA, 
to provide vital assistance to the Nation's fire and emergency 
services communities.
    On March 18, 1997, the Basic Research Subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 1272.
    On April 16, 1997, the Committee passed and ordered 
reported H.R. 1272, amended (Report # 105-62). The bill, as 
amended, provides funding for the United States Fire 
Administration to carry out its four primary missions: fire 
service training; fire-related data collection and analysis; 
public education and awareness; and research and technology. In 
addition, the bill authorizes funding so the agency can perform 
a new counterterrorism training function.
    H.R. 1272 was passed (amended) by the House on April 23, 
1997 under Suspension of the Rules. The Senate companion bill, 
S. 1231, was passed by the Senate on November 4, 1997, by the 
House under Suspension of the Rules on November 9, 1997, and 
signed into law on November 20, 1997 as P.L. 105-108.

 1.5--P.L. 105-135, SMALL BUSINESS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997 (S.1139/
H.R. 2261/H.R. 2429)--(NOTE H.R. 2429 WAS INCORPORATED AS TITLE VII OF 
             H.R. 2261, HOUSE COMPANION MEASURE TO S. 1139)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 2429, reauthorizes and improves the Small Business 
Technology Transfer program through FY 2000. Through a Senate 
amendment, the authorization is extended through FY 2001.
    The Small Business Innovation Development Act (P.L. 97-219) 
created the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program 
in 1982. In 1992 the program was reauthorized by P.L. 102-564 
(15 U.S.C. 638). The reauthorization created a three-year pilot 
program called the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 
program.
    STTR is intended to facilitate the commercialization of 
university, non-profit, and contractor operated federal 
laboratory research and development by small businesses. STTR 
provides funding for research proposals which are developed and 
executed cooperatively between small firms and scientists/
professors in research institutions. Currently, the Department 
of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human 
Services (HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA), and National Science Foundation (NSF) all contribute to 
the program. The STTR set-aside was last reauthorized as part 
of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. That 
authorization expired on September 30, 1997.
    The research is funded by a 0.15% set-aside of an agency's 
extramural research and development budgets that exceed $1 
billion.

Legislative history

    On September 17, 1997, the Committee on Science convened to 
mark up H.R. 2429. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member 
Brown offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
was adopted by voice vote. The amendment: (1) adds the 
Committee on Science to the list of Committees that are to 
receive the Small Business Administration's annual report on 
the STTR and SBIR programs; (2) clarifies that agency program 
needs are to be met by Phase II STTR awards; (3) reauthorizes 
the STTR program at 0.15 percent through fiscal year 2000; (4) 
reaffirms STTR will be included in each agencies' performance 
plan as described in 31 U.S.C. 1115 (a) and (b), and that STTR 
and SBIR will be included in each participating agencies' 
updated strategic plan as described in 5 U.S.C. 306(b); (5) 
requires agencies to collect data on the STTR program from 
awardees that will enable them to assess the program's outputs 
and outcomes; and (6) requires SBA to develop an outreach 
program to small businesses and universities located in States 
that have had less than 20 STTR awards in the previous 2 fiscal 
years. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The Committee 
reported H.R. 2429 (H. Rept. 105-259, Part I) on September 23, 
1997.
    H.R. 2429 passed the House under suspension of the rules as 
Title VII of H.R. 2261, Small Business Programs Reauthorization 
and Amendments Act of 1997 on September 29, 1997. Subsequently, 
the House passed S. 1139, a similar Senate-passed bill, after 
it was amended to contain the text of H.R. 2261 as passed by 
the House. S. 1139 passed the Senate, amended, on October 31, 
1997. As amended, Title V of the bill authorizes STTR through 
FY 2001 and changed the eligibility requirement for 
disadvantaged states from less than 20 STTR awards to less than 
$5 million. S. 1139 passed the House under Suspension of the 
Rules on November 9, 1997. S. 1139 was signed by the President 
on December 2, 1997 (P.L. 105-135).

     1.6--P.L. 105-155, FAA RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1271)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 1271 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) to conduct research, engineering and development 
activities for fiscal years (FY) 1998 and 1999. The objective 
of FAA's RE&D program is to develop and validate the technology 
and knowledge required for the agency to ensure the safety, 
efficiency, and security of our national air transportation 
system. Advances developed through the RE&D program are helping 
to transform our nation's air traffic control system into a 
modern air traffic management system capable of meeting the 
increased aviation demands of the coming century.
    Overall, H.R. 1271, as enacted, authorizes $226.8 million 
in FY1998 and $229.7 million in FY1999 for the FAA to carry out 
the critical RE&D projects and activities. H.R. 1271 increases 
funding for: the Capacity and Air Traffic Management account, 
primarily to safeguard sensitive computer and information 
system data from unauthorized disclosure; the Weather account, 
to reflect recommendations by the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee 
and the National Academy of Sciences that the FAA place a 
higher priority on weather research projects and activities; 
the Aircraft Safety account, to allow FAA safety inspectors and 
certification engineers to assess potential aircraft safety 
risks and to take proactive steps that reduce the rate of 
aviation-related accidents; the Human Factors account 
recognizing that ``human factors'' is a significant contributor 
in most aircraft and airport accidents; and the Innovative/
Cooperative Research account, to establish a new undergraduate 
research grants program.
    H.R. 1271 contains language to require the FAA to provide 
the House Committee on Science with notice of any major 
reprogramming or reorganization effort within the RE&D program. 
Finally, the legislation includes a ``Sense of Congress'' 
concerning the need for the FAA to assess immediately the 
effect of the Year 2000 computer problem on its computer and 
information systems.

Legislative history

    The Science Committee marked up and ordered reported H.R. 
1271 on April 16, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-61). The House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 1271, as amended, on April 29, 1997 
by a vote of 414-7. The Senate passed H.R. 1271 with an 
amendment on November 13, 1997. The bill, as passed by the 
Senate, authorized FAA RE&D activities for two years instead of 
three. H.R. 1271, as amended by the Senate, was signed into law 
on February 11, 1998 as P.L. 105-155.

       1.7--P.L. 105-160, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM 
             REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998 (S. 927/H.R. 437)

Background and summary of legislation

    The National Sea Grant College Act (33 U.S.C. 1121-1131), 
enacted in 1966, established the National Sea Grant College 
Program (Sea Grant) with the objective of increasing ``the 
understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and 
conversation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 
resources by providing assistance to promote a strong education 
base, responsive research and training activities, and broad 
and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques.'' While 
patterned after the Land Grant College Program and first 
assigned to the National Science Foundation (NSF), it was, in 
1970, assigned to the then newly created National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Association (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce.
    Currently, there are twenty-nine total Sea Grant College 
and Institutional programs, encompassing coastal and Great 
Lakes States and Puerto Rico. In Fiscal Year 1997, Sea Grant's 
appropriations totaled $54.2 million and these programs are the 
heart of a nationwide network of over 300 participating 
institutions that utilize the talents and expertise of over 
3,000 scientists, engineers, educators, and students.
    An applicant must demonstrate a record of superior 
performance in marine resource programs for a minimum of three 
years, and once designated, programs receive priority in 
obtaining federal grants for up to two-thirds of the total 
project with the remaining one-third coming from non-federal 
matching funds. Through the Sea Grant ``core'' programs, 
designated institutions receive assistance for research, 
education, and advisory services in fields related to the 
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
    Funding devoted to educational programs include the 
development and strengthening of training programs for marine 
scientists and technicians as well as education in aquatic 
sciences for secondary school students and teachers. Year-long 
fellowships for graduate students in marine-related disciplines 
to work with Congressional offices, federal agencies, or 
industry sponsors are also funded by Sea Grant.
    S. 927/H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program 
Reauthorization Act of 1997, as enacted, reauthorizes the 
National Sea Grant College Program Act and authorizes 
appropriations of $56.0 million in FY 1999, $57.0 million in FY 
2000, $58.0 million in FY 2001, $59.0 million in FY 2002, and 
$60.0 million in FY 2003 to carry out its contract, grant, 
fellowship, and administrative functions; up to $2.8 million 
for competitive grants for university research on the zebra 
mussel; up to $3.0 million for competitive grants for 
university research on oyster diseases and oyster-related human 
health risks; and up to $3,000,000 for competitive grants for 
university research on pfiesteria piscicida and other harmful 
algal blooms. The bill also caps the program's administrative 
expenses at five percent of appropriations; repeals the Sea 
Grant international program; amends the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act to add or modify various definitions; 
amends provisions establishing and administering the National 
Sea Grant College Program and provisions providing for the 
designation of Sea Grant colleges and regional consortia; and 
modifies requirements regarding the Sea Grant Review Panel.

Legislative history

    On January 9, 1997, Representative Jim Saxton, along with 
numerous co-sponsors, introduced H. R. 437, the National Sea 
Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997. It was 
referred to the Committee on Resources which held a markup on 
March 5, 1997 and ordered the measure reported by voice vote. 
The Committee on Resources filed H. Rept. 105-22, Part 1, on 
March 12, 1997.
    The measure was then referred to the Committee on Science 
on March 12, 1997 for a period ending no later than April 28, 
1997. It was subsequently referred to and discharged from the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 13, 1997. After 
a markup held on April 16, 1997, the Committee on Science 
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote and 
filed H. Rept. 105-22, Part 2 on April 21, 1997.
    The Committee on Rules on June 10, 1997 filed H. Rept. 105-
127 on H. Res. 164, providing for consideration of H.R. 437 by 
a voice vote. The House agreed to H. Res. 164 by a voice vote 
on June 18, 1997, and on the same day H.R. 437 passed the House 
by: Y-422; N-3, Roll Call No. 208.
    The measure was received in the Senate on June 19, 1997 and 
was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. The Senate Committee ordered reported, by a 
voice vote, a companion measure, S. 927, the Ocean and Coastal 
Research Revitalization Act of 1997 to the Senate on June 19, 
1997, and filed S. Rept. 105-150, on November 9, 1997. The 
Senate passed the measure, renamed the National Sea Grant 
College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, with an amendment 
by unanimous consent on November 13, 1997. On February 11, 
1998, S. 927, renamed the National Sea Grant College Program 
Reauthorization Act of 1998, passed the House, as amendment, 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote. On February 12, 
1998, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 927 by 
unanimous consent, and the President signed S. 927 on March 6, 
1998 (P.L. 105-160).

1.8--P.L. 105-178, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (H.R. 
                             2400/H.R. 860)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 860 authorizes appropriations to the Department of 
Transportation for surface transportation research and 
development, and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by 
Subcommittee on Technology Chairwoman Morella and Science 
Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) on February 27, 1997.
    H.R. 860 authorizes appropriations to the Department of 
Transportation to carry-out surface transportation R&D 
programs, including the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 
program, for Fiscal Years 1998-2000. H.R. 860 establishes that 
the federal role in surface transportation research and 
development should be to sponsor and coordinate research and 
development on new technologies that seek to provide safer, 
more affordable transportation systems.
    Additionally, the legislation consolidates the current 
University Research Institutes and the University 
Transportation Centers into a single program; authorizes a new 
Community and Environmental Research Program to provide State 
and local transportation officials with the tools and knowledge 
necessary to better understand the environmental and community 
impacts of transportation decisions; includes provisions 
requiring the Department to conduct research on the use of 
recycled and renewable materials to be used as transportation 
fuels; and restricts Department of Transportation funds from 
being used to ``lobby'' or influence pending legislation.

Legislative history

    On September 17, 1997 the full Science Committee passed and 
ordered reported H.R. 860, with an amendment (H. Rept. # 105-
503). The bill, as amended, provides funding to three main 
categories that encompass the Department's surface 
transportation R&D portfolio: Surface Transportation Research 
and Technology Development, including research in the areas of 
pavements, structures, materials, policy, planning, 
environment, safety, and motor carriers; Technology Transfer 
and Applied Research, including the National Highway Institute, 
Local Technical Assistance Program, Transportation Fellowships, 
University Research, Technology Partnerships, and the Applied 
Research and Technology Development Program; and Intelligent 
Transportation Systems and Infrastructure.
    Provisions of H.R. 860 were incorporated into Title VI of 
H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21), and signed into law on June 9, 1998 as P.L. 105-178. 
TEA-21 incorporates research and development programs, projects 
and activities from H.R. 860 totaling $372.15 million in FY98; 
$378.15 million in FY00; $411.75 million in FY01; $422 million 
in FY02; and $437 million in FY03.

  1.9--P.L. 105-207, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                        1998 (H.R. 1273/S. 1046)

Background and summary of legislation

    The National Science Foundation 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. The Act reinforces that basic 
research and education have traditionally constituted the heart 
of the NSF's mission.
    The National Science Foundation Act of 1997 authorizes 
appropriations for the major activities and budget categories 
of the NSF for FY 1998, FY 1999 and FY 2000. In addition, the 
bill provides full authorization of the Antarctic 
rehabilitation program, and authorizes the Polar Cap 
Observatory and design and development of the Millimeter Array 
radio telescope in the Major Research Equipment account. 
Further, the bill requires an annual report on the 
construction, repair and upgrades to National Research 
Facilities; a report on indirect cost savings; subjects 
temporary NSF employees to the same financial disclosure 
requirements as permanent employees; requires NSF supported 
universities to develop policies to compensate military 
reservists who are involuntarily called to active duty; 
redesignates the Critical Technology Institute as the Science 
and Technology Policy Institute; contains no new authorization 
for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative; places 
limits on lobbying activities; places a funding ban on 
institutions which receive earmarks; requires reprogramming 
notification to all the relevant Committees of both the House 
and Senate; and includes a sense of Congress that NSF should 
have a plan that its date-related computer programs will 
operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond.

Legislative history

    H.R. 1273, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
years 1998, 1999, and 2000 for the National Science Foundation, 
and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by Subcommittee 
on Basic Research Chairman Schiff on April 10, 1997.
    H.R. 1273 authorizes through the year 2000 appropriations 
to the National Science Foundation to carry out research and 
education programs in science and engineering through 
competitive grants and cooperative agreements. H.R. 1273 
supports basic research to help America maintain its lead in 
science and engineering and prioritizes efforts to improve math 
and science education.
    On March 5, 1997; March 13, 1997; April 9, 1997; and April 
22, 1998 the Basic Research Subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 
1273.
    On April 16, 1997, the Committee passed and ordered 
reported H.R. 1273, as amended (Report # 105-63). The bill, as 
amended, provides funding for each of the National Science 
Foundation's five directorates including the Education and 
Human Resources, which funds education programs; Research and 
Related Activities, which provides the resources for a broad 
portfolio of science and engineering activities including 
biological sciences, computer and information science and 
engineering, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and 
physical sciences, social, behavioral, and economic sciences, 
the United States Polar Research Programs, the United States 
Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, the Critical 
Technologies Institute, and the Next Generation Internet 
program; and the Major Research Equipment account.
    H.R. 1273 was passed by the House on April 24, 1997 and by 
the Senate (amended) on May 12, 1998. The House agreed to the 
Senate Amendment to H.R. 1273 under Suspension of the Rules on 
July 14, 1998, and this bill was signed into law on July 29, 
1998 as P.L. 105-207.

    1.10--P.L. 105-234, FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS (H.R. 3824)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Fastener Quality Act (FQA) (P.L. 101-592) was signed 
into law in 1990. It requires all threaded, metallic, through-
hardened fasteners of one-quarter inch diameter or greater that 
directly or indirectly reference a consensus standard to be 
tested or documented by a National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) certified laboratory.
    Despite its enactment in 1990, no final regulations for the 
Act have been implemented. NIST's final rule of April 14, 1998 
was due to be implemented on July 26, 1998. NIST's current 
final rule was developed only after legislative changes were 
adopted to the Act in 1996.
    H.R. 3824 amends the FQA by exempting fasteners produced or 
altered to the standards and specifications of aviation 
manufacturers from the regulations of the Act. Proprietary 
fasteners of aviation manufactures are currently subject to the 
federal quality assurance programs of the FAA. Aviation 
manufacturers are already required to demonstrate to the FAA 
that they have a quality control system which ensures that 
their products, including fasteners, meet design 
specifications. According to testimony taken by the House 
Science Committee Technology Subcommittee, both NIST and the 
FAA agree that requiring such fasteners to fall under FQA 
regulations would create duplicative and potentially confusing 
regulations that would not assist the Federal Government in its 
efforts to ensure the safety of the flying public. Furthermore, 
neither the FAA nor the National Transportation Safety Board 
are aware of any fatal aviation accidents caused by substandard 
proprietary fasteners.
    H.R. 3824 addresses this unnecessary duplicative regulatory 
burden, and, as amended, delays implementation of the FQA's 
regulations until June 1, 1999 or 120 days after the Secretary 
of Commerce has issued a report on changes needed to the law, 
whichever is later. The delay will give Congress and Secretary 
of Commerce the opportunity to review the law to ensure that 
other sectors of the U.S. manufacturing economy are not harmed 
by outdated or unneeded regulation.

Legislative history

    The Committee on Science marked up and favorably reported, 
with an amendment, H.R. 3824 by a voice vote on May 13, 1998. 
H.R. 3824 subsequently passed the full House under Suspension 
of the Rules on June 16, 1998 and the full Senate, with an 
amendment, on July 31, 1998. The full House agreed to the 
Senate amendment and passed H.R. 3824 on August 6, 1998. The 
bill was subsequently signed into law by the President on 
August 14, 1998, and became P.L. 105-234.

1.11--P.L. 105-255, COMMISSION ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE, 
        ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT (H.R. 3007)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 3007 was introduced by Chairwoman Morella on November 
9, 1997. The legislation establishes a commission to determine 
why women are underrepresented in the high-tech workforce; 
examine what current practices and policies have been 
successful in recruiting, retaining, and advancing women in 
science, engineering, and technology development; and provide 
Congress with a list of recommendations on ways to encourage 
women to pursue careers in the science and engineering fields. 
The Commission will consist of eleven individuals, seven of 
which will be appointed from private sector entities and four 
drawn from academic institutions. H.R. 3007 requires the 
Commission to complete its report not later than one year after 
the initial appointment of the Commissioners.

Legislative history

    On March 10, 1998 the Subcommittee held a joint hearing 
with the Subcommittee on Basic Research to discuss H.R. 3007. 
The Committee on Science marked up and reported H.R. 3007, with 
an amendment, by a voice vote on May 13, 1998. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce marked up H.R. 3007, as amended by 
the Science Committee, on June 24, 1997. Congressman Payne (D-
NJ) offered an amendment, which was adopted, requiring the 
Commission to also examine the lack of participation of 
minorities and the disabled in the science and engineering 
fields.
    H.R. 3007, as amended by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, passed the full House under Suspension of the Rules 
on September 14, 1998 and the full Senate under Unanimous 
Consent on October 1, 1998. It was signed into law on October 
14, 1998 as P.L. 105-255.

 1.12--P.L. 105-261, STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                    FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 (H.R. 3616)

Background and summary of legislation

    On July 22, 1998, the Speaker appointed The Honorable F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Science, The 
Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, and The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking 
Minority Member, Committee on Science as additional conferees 
to H.R. 3616, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1999, for consideration of Sections 3135 
and 3140 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3616, and 
modifications committed to conference. These conference 
committee deliberations resulted in the enactment of two 
sections of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-261), which was signed into 
law by the President on October 17, 1998: (1) Section 3136 
(Authority for Department of Energy Federally Funded Research 
and Development Centers to Participate in Merit-Based 
Technology Research and Development Programs); and (2) Section 
3137 (Activities of Department of Energy Facilities). 
Descriptions of these provisions follow.
            Section 3136--Authority for Department of Energy federally 
                    funded research and development centers to 
                    participate in merit-based technology research and 
                    development programs
    The Senate amendment to H.R. 3616 contained a provision 
(Section 3135) that would amend the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (P.L. 103-337) to grant 
Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored federally funded research 
and development centers (FFRDCs) the same ability to compete 
for contracts as Department of Defense (DOD)-sponsored FFRDCs.
    The House-passed version of H.R. 3616 bill contained no 
similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment limiting the authority 
to those activities conducted under contract with, or on 
behalf, of the Department of Defense. In addition, the 
conferees adopted conference report (H. Rept. 105-736) language 
that states the following:

          The conferees do not support the concept of DOE 
        FFRDCs competing directly or indirectly with the 
        private sector. In implementing this authority, the 
        conferees expect DOE FFRDCs to comply fully with all 
        DOD and DOE policy guidance and regulations governing 
        FFRDCs. The conferees expect DOE FFRDCs to focus on 
        their core competencies, expertise, or unique 
        facilities.
            Section 3137--Activities of Department of Energy facilities
    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3140) 
that would establish a uniform Federal administrative charge of 
three percent on all contract research activities carried out 
for non-Department of Energy (DOE) entities at DOE contractor-
operated facilities. The provision would eliminate the 
Secretary of Energy's current authority to waive the Federal 
administrative charge, except that the Secretary would be 
authorized to continue existing waivers, if the Secretary so 
determines, and would be authorized to waive charges for small 
businesses, institutions of higher education, non-profit 
entities, and state and local governments. The provision would 
also authorize the Secretary to enter into a five-year pilot 
program at selected facilities to develop reduced overhead 
charges designed to recover all costs generated by external 
entities who may not utilize the full range of services at a 
DOE facility for which overhead costs may be charged. And, the 
provision would encourage the Secretary to establish a new 
small business technology partnership program to make DOE 
expertise and capabilities more accessible to small businesses, 
and would encourage the Secretary to pursue partnerships and 
interactions with universities and private businesses.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment allowing the Secretary 
to waive the Federal administrative charge at all DOE 
facilities. The conferees did not include the small business 
technology partnership or partnerships and interactions 
provisions. In addition, the conferees adopted conference 
report (H. Rept. 105-736) language that states the following:

          The conferees encourage the Secretary to continue the 
        establishment of cooperative partnerships and 
        interactions with universities and private industry at 
        contractor-operated facilities where such interaction 
        will help the Department better carry out its national 
        security missions. The conferees further encourage the 
        Secretary to create small business technology 
        partnership programs at contractor-operated facilities 
        where such interaction will help the Department better 
        carry out its national security missions. The Secretary 
        is encouraged to designate small funding pools at DOE 
        sites to carry out such programs. The Secretary should 
        include annually with the President's budget request a 
        report on the effectiveness and applicability of any 
        such programs to the missions of the Department of 
        Energy.

Legislative history

    H.R. 3616 was referred to the Committee on National 
Security on April 1, 1998 which subsequently reported the bill, 
as amended, on May 12, 1998 and filed H. Rept. 105-532. The 
bill passed the House amended on May 21, 1998 by: Y-357; N-60; 
Roll Call No. 183.
    Upon receiving the bill on May 22, 1998 the Senate 
subsequently passed H.R. 3616, as amended, on June 25, 1998. 
The Senate insisted on its amendments and requested a 
conference. The House disagreed with the Senate amendments and 
agreed to a conference.
    On September 22, 1998, Conference Report 105-736 was filed. 
The House agreed to the Conference Report on September 24, 1998 
by: Y-373; N-50; Roll Call No. 458. The Conference Report was 
then sent to the Senate which, on October 1, 1998, agreed to it 
by Y-96; N-2; Roll Call No. 293. The President signed H.R. 
3616, The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999, into law on October 17, 1998 (P.L. 105-261).

      1.13--P.L. 105-303, COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1702)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Department of Commerce estimated that revenue from 
commercial space activity in the United States totaled 
approximately $7.5 billion in 1995. Revenues from commercial 
space activities exceeded government expenditures for the first 
time in 1996. For more than a decade, commercial space 
businesses have grown faster than the economy and proven 
relatively recession-proof. Congress and the White House have 
supported and encouraged the growth and development of this 
industry on a bipartisan basis, regardless of which political 
party controlled either branch of government.
    The Clinton Administration has developed and published a 
range or policy statements that continue the work of his 
predecessors, Presidents Reagan and Bush, in establishing a 
stable business environment from which the commercial sector 
can create new space businesses and jobs. Those policies deal 
with space transportation, commercial remote sensing, and the 
Global Positioning System. The President issued a new National 
Space Policy on September 19, 1996 which reinforced the 
government's support of commercial space development, noting 
that ``expanding U.S. commercial space activities will generate 
economic benefits for the Nation and provide the U.S. 
government with an increasing range of space goods and 
services.'' Taking the position that the government's role is 
more appropriately limited to creating a stable and predictable 
environment in which the entrepreneurial spirit of American 
enterprise can succeed, the policy states, ``Commercial space 
sector activities shall be supervised or regulated only to the 
extent required by law, national security, international 
obligations and public safety.''
    The Commercial Space Act of 1998 incorporates lessons 
learned in commercial space with the goal of improving the 
legal and regulatory framework governing commercial space 
development. Like any young industry, commercial space business 
is vulnerable to the inconsistencies and sudden changes of 
government policy. H.R. 1702 provides another building block 
for clear, precise, and predictable laws that will allow U.S. 
companies to survive in the fiercely competitive global 
marketplace of commercial space.
    H.R. 1702 contains numerous provisions which will create a 
better business environment for space transportation, data 
collection, navigation, and space services. Despite numerous 
negotiations with the Administration and the Science 
Committee's willingness to negotiate, a feasible compromise 
could not be worked out on Title II of the bill. This title, 
which dealt with remote sensing, had to be stripped from the 
compromise bill that was passed by the House and Senate in 
October 1998. The remote sensing provisions amended the Land 
Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555), a law which 
enabled the private sector to obtain licenses to operate 
commercial remote sensing satellites.
    President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 23 
in 1994 which established the President's policy for 
implementing the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992. In a 
statement released by Deputy Secretary of Commerce David Barram 
announcing the President's new policy on remote sensing, Mr. 
Barram stated, ``This policy is particularly significant 
because it acknowledges the relationship between this country's 
national security and its long-term economic security. It 
recognizes the two as inextricably woven together: our long-
term national security is directly tied to our ability to 
effectively compete in this critical global imaging market.''
    The remote sensing provisions came from the President's 
policy and real-world licensing experiences since enactment of 
the 1992 law. The amendments to the 1992 law were intended to 
stabilize the regulatory regime, thereby enabling U.S. industry 
to develop rational business plans, raise capital, market its 
services, and meet customer demand. Given the time constraints 
at the end of the 105th Congress, the desire to move the other 
important provisions in the Commercial Space Act of 1998, and 
the inability to reach a workable solution with the State 
Department, the remote sensing provisions were pulled from the 
bill.
    The final bill requires an independent market study of, and 
a NASA report on, progress in commercialization of the 
International Space Station; authorizes the Department of 
Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation 
vehicle; makes permanent a launch voucher demonstration program 
so that scientists can buy their own launch services; 
encourages the President to ensure that the U.S. Global 
Positioning System (GPS) becomes the world standard so that 
foreign systems will not interfere with the GPS satellite 
signals; encourages NASA to buy commercial data for both space 
science and earth science researchers; directs NASA to manage 
its commercial space centers out of NASA Headquarters; creates 
a better business environment for the U.S. commercial remote 
sensing industry by clarifying regulations; requires the 
federal government to purchase space transportation services 
instead of building and operating its own vehicles; requires 
NASA to plan for the potential privatization of the Space 
Shuttle; allows the use of excess ICBMs as low-cost space 
transportation vehicles; and requires that the Department of 
Defense study our national launch demand and infrastructure 
capability through the year 2007.

Legislative history

    Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., of Wisconsin 
introduced H.R. 1702 on May 22, 1997. The bill was originally 
cosponsored by Congressmen George E. Brown, Jr., of California, 
Dana Rohrabacher of California, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., of 
Alabama, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held 3 hearings 
on this bill in 1997: May 21, May 22, and June 4. On June 11, 
1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics marked up H.R. 
1702 and forwarded it to the full committee. On June 18, 1997, 
the Science Committee passed and ordered reported H.R. 1702. 
The report was filed on October 24, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-347). 
After months of negotiation with the Administration, H.R. 1702 
passed the House, with an amendment, under suspension of the 
rules on November 4, 1997. The Senate filed its report on H.R. 
1702 on June 2, 1998 (S. Rept. 105-198) and it passed the 
Senate on July 30, 1998. The House and Senate negotiated a 
compromise bill which passed the House on October 5, 1998 and 
passed the Senate on October 8, 1998. On October 28, 1998, the 
President signed the bill which became P.L. 105-303.

1.14--P.L. 105-305, NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 
                             3332/S. 1609)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Internet is an international, cooperative computer 
network of networks that links many types of users, such as 
governments, schools, libraries, corporations, hospitals, 
individuals and others. The United States has achieved national 
strategic advantages and prominence as a result of American 
leadership in information technology.
    Furthermore, U.S. dominance in this field grew from 
critical federal investment, and continued investment is 
necessary to maintain that dominance and leadership. The 
explosion of business, government, and academic uses of the 
Internet has created the need to overhaul the network 
infrastructure. Additional research must be undertaken in order 
to develop new applications that will improve educational 
access, while still contributing to economic growth.
    Federal efforts to support computer and telecommunications 
applications and education have been strongly endorsed by the 
Clinton Administration since 1993. In October 1996, President 
Clinton called for a renewed resolve to create the Next 
Generation Internet (NGI). However, the Administration's 
proposal was redefined after Congressional concerns were 
raised. Thus, the NGI Implementation Plan was completed in July 
1997. The new proposal identified NGI as a research initiative 
(rather than a deployment initiative) more clearly than in the 
previous plan.
    The NGI implementation plan combined both policy and 
program prescriptions in three specific goals.
    Goal 1: Experimental Research for Advanced Network 
Technologies. Develop main areas of network service and 
corresponding protocols including the following: end-to-end 
Quality of Service (QoS), security and robustness, network 
growth engineering, new or modified protocols for routing and 
switching. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 
serves as the lead federal agency.
    Goal 2: Next Generation Network Fabric. Develop a next 
generation network testbed to connect universities and federal 
research institutions at rates that are sufficient to 
demonstrate new technologies and support future research. DOE 
serves as the lead federal agency.
    Goal 3: Revolutionary Applications. Demonstrate new 
applications that meet important national goals and missions. 
Potential areas for applications include: health care, 
education, scientific research, national security, environment, 
government, and design and manufacture.
    In its FY 1998 budget request, the Administration requested 
$100 million in funding for the NGI initiative. Although many 
in Congress expressed support for the basic principles outlined 
in the NGI plan, several concerns relating to implementation of 
the plan remained and funding for the initiative was withheld. 
The level of funding appropriated for FY 1998 was 10-15 percent 
less than the level of funding included in the President's 
budget request.
    The Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 would 
advance the current state of the Internet, advance university 
research capabilities, and assist federal agencies in achieving 
their missions. The bill would provide for a multi-agency 
program concentrated upon the research and development of a 
coordinated set of technologies that seeks to create a network 
infrastructure to support greater speed, robustness, and 
flexibility beyond what is available in the current Internet.

Legislative history

    H.R. 3332, a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing 
Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for the Next Generation 
Internet program, to require the Advisory Committee on High-
Performance Computing and Communications, Information 
Technology, and the Next Generation Internet to monitor and 
give advice concerning the development and implementation of 
the Next Generation Internet program and report to the 
President and the Congress on its activities, and for other 
purposes. The bill, known as the Next Generation Internet Act, 
was introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) on March 4, 1998.
    H.R. 3332 authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 1999 
and 2000 to the National Science Foundation, the Departments of 
Energy, and Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to support the 
Next Generation Internet Program (Program), with specified 
objectives for increasing Internet capabilities as well as the 
development of other networking technologies.
    On September 10, 1997, the full Science Committee held a 
hearing on H.R. 3332.
    On May 13, 1998 the full Science Committee passed and 
ordered reported H.R. 3332. The bill provides for a coordinated 
effort by several federal agencies to improve the speed, 
reliability and capability of today's Internet through the 
development of new cutting-edge networking technologies.
    H.R. 3332 was passed by the House under Suspension of the 
Rules on September 14, 1998, by the Senate on October 8, 1998 
and was cleared for the President on October 8, 1998.

1.15--P.L. 105-309, TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1274/S. 
                                 1325)

Background and summary of legislation

    As introduced, H.R. 1274, authorized appropriations for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology for Fiscal Years 
1998 and 1999.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
is the Nation's oldest federal laboratory. It was established 
by Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). 
NBS was renamed NIST by the passage of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Act also expanded NIST's scope 
by establishing both the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP).
    NIST is part of the Department of Commerce. Its mission is 
to promote economic growth by working with industry to develop 
and apply technology, measurements, and standards. As the 
nation's arbiter of standards, NIST enables our country's 
businesses to engage each other in commerce and participate in 
the global marketplace.
    The precise measurements required for establishing 
standards associated with today's increasingly complex 
technologies require NIST laboratories to maintain the most 
sophisticated equipment and the most talented scientists in the 
world.
    H.R. 1274, as passed the House in 1997, included 
authorizations for NIST's programs for FY 1998 and FY 1999. The 
bill also provided express authorization for 1998 and 1999 for 
the Office of the Undersecretary for Technology and the Office 
of Technology Policy.
    The Senate passed H.R. 1274 with a substitute amendment 
which struck the authorization of appropriations and included 
the following provisions: Officially establishes the Office of 
Space Commercialization (OSC). The OSC is a coordinating office 
that has been in existence for a decade. H.R. 1274 defines its 
charter; a program to allow elementary and secondary school 
math and science teachers access to NIST laboratories and 
scientists during the summer months to improve the teachers' 
understanding of science; authorizes the expansion of the 
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Awards Program into healthcare and 
education; authorizes for one year the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCOT); and, lifts the six 
year sunset requirement for Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(MEP) program centers.
    The bill as amended by the Senate was signed into law on 
October 30, 1998 (PL 105-309).

Legislative history

    H.R. 1274 was introduced on April 10, 1997 by Technology 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Constance Morella. The Committee on 
Science passed the bill, as amended, on April 16 by voice vote 
(H. Rept. 105-64). The House passed H.R. 1274, as amended, by 
voice vote on April 24, 1997. On October 9, 1998, the Senate 
Commerce Committee discharged H.R. 1274 and the Senate amended 
and passed the bill. On October 13, 1998, the House passed the 
bill under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The President 
signed H.R. 1274 into law on October 30, 1998 (PL 105-309).

 1.16--p.l. 105-383, coast guard authorization act of 1998 (h.r. 2204/
                   h.r. 4235--title vi of h.r. 2204)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 4235, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act of 1998 , as introduced, requires the establishment 
of an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) 
and Hypoxia (Task Force)--chaired by the Department of 
Commerce, and including representatives of the EPA, the 
Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, the Navy, and Health 
and Human Services, EPA, NSF, NASA, and other agencies--through 
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the 
National Science and Technology Council. The Task Force is 
charged with the development of a comprehensive and coordinated 
national action plan dealing with HABs within one year of the 
date of enactment, and with submitting to Congress three annual 
reports describing the progress made on the action plan. In 
addition, the Task Force is to submit to Congress and the 
President an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Northern 
Gulf of Mexico no later than March 30, 1999; and no later than 
March 30, 2000, the President must develop and submit to 
Congress an action plan based on this assessment. The measure 
authorizes $25.5 million for each of fiscal years (FYs) 1999, 
2000 and 2001, both within NOAA labs and through competitive, 
peer-reviewed extramural grants for research, monitoring, and 
assessment activities for HABs and hypoxia; and amends the 
National Sea Grant College Program Act to allow up to $3 
million to be made available annually through the National Sea 
Grant College Program for competitive grants for university 
research, education, training, and advisory services on 
Pfiesteria piscicida and other HABs. Finally, H.R. 4235 amends 
section 318(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
(CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1464(a)) to authorize up to $2 million in 
total appropriations during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for 
technical assistance under section 310 of the CZMA to support 
State implementation and analysis of the effectiveness of 
measures to prevent, reduce, mitigate, or control HABs and 
hypoxia.

Legislative history

    H.R. 4235, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act of 1998, was introduced by Representative 
Christopher John on July 16, 1998, and was referred to the 
Committee on Science, and, in addition, to the Committee on 
Resources. Within the Science Committee, the bill was referred 
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on July 23, 1998.
    The companion Senate measure, S. 1480, was introduced by 
Senators Olympia Snowe and John Breaux as the Harmful Algal 
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1997 on November 
8, 1997, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. The Committee ordered S. 1480 
reported on July 9, 1998 with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and filed S. Rept. No. 105-357 on September 30, 
1998. H.R. 4235 is virtually identical to S. 1480, as reported.
    On October 12, 1998, the Senate passed H.R. 2204, the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000 
with an amendment by unanimous consent. Title VI of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2204 includes the text of S. 1480 as 
reported. On October 15, 1998, the House concurred in the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 2204, with an amendment, under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote. The House amendment, 
which renames H.R. 2204 as the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
1998, changes the authorization levels of Title VI (H.R. 4235/
S. 1480) from $25.5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1999, 2000 
and 2001 to $15.0 million in FY 1999, $18.25 million in FY 
2000, and $19.0 million for FY 2001. The House amendment also 
deletes the Title's amendment to the National Sea Grant College 
Program Act to allow up to $3 million to be made available 
annually through the National Sea Grant College Program for 
competitive grants for university research, education, 
training, and advisory services on Pfiesteria piscicida and 
other HABs. On October 21, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendment to H.R. 2204 by unanimous consent, and the President 
signed H.R. 2204, The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, on 
November 13, 1998 (P.L. 105-383).
  Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

         2.1--human cloning research prohibition act (h.r. 922)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 922 prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to 
conduct or support research which includes the cloning of 
humans. In order to address the lack of a permanent statutory 
ban on the use of federal research funds to produce cloned 
human embryos, Congressman Vern Ehlers of Michigan introduced 
H.R. 922 on March 5, 1997. H.R. 922 was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce and sequentially to the Committee on 
Science.
    In the wake of the announcement that scientists in Scotland 
had succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, the Science Committee 
held a series of three hearings, over five months, on human 
cloning. The Committee examined the legal and ethical issues 
associated with the use of cloning technology, reviewed the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report, ``Cloning 
Human Beings,'' and discussed the parameters for federal 
funding of human cloning research.
    H.R. 922 prohibits the use of federal funds to conduct or 
support any project of research that includes the use of human 
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an embryo. 
The bill also defines ``human somatic cell nuclear transfer'' 
and ``somatic cell.''
    H.R. 922 provides for the Director of the National Science 
Foundation to enter into an agreement with the National 
Research Council to conduct a review of the impact of H.R. 922 
on research. This report would be completed no later than five 
years after the date of enactment. The Committee on Commerce 
took no action on H.R. 922.
Legislative history
    The Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Technology held 
three hearings on cloning in the 105th Congress. On March 5, 
1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``Biotechnology 
and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far Should We Go?''. On June 12, 
1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``A Review of 
the President's Commission's Recommendations on Cloning.'' And 
on July 22, 1997, a hearing entitled, Prohibition of Federal 
Government Funding of Human Cloning Research.'' The Science 
Committee marked up H.R. 922 on July 29, 1997. The Committee 
filed the report on H.R. 922 (H. Rept. 105-239, Part I) on 
August 1, 1997. H.R. 922 was primarily referred to the 
Committee on Commerce which took no action on the bill.

2.2--civilian space authorization act, fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (h.r. 
                             1275/s. 1250)

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created in 1958 to help win the Cold War. In the last decade of 
the 20th century, the agency finds itself working with former 
Cold War adversaries and undertaking activities in new areas. 
The end of the Cold War, changes in NASA's mission, and changes 
in the Administration have led to budgetary instability during 
the 1990s. As late as 1992, projections of NASA's annual budget 
had it rising to almost $20 billion by the year 2000. For 
fiscal year 1997, the White House submitted a request that cut 
NASA's budget to $11.6 billion in the year 2000. For fiscal 
year 1998, the budget runout for fiscal year 2000 is $13.2 
billion. For fiscal year 1999, the runout for fiscal year 2000 
is $13.278 billion.
    The budget request for fiscal year 1999 was $13.465 
billion. VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations for 
fiscal year 1999 funded NASA at $13.665 billion, $200 million 
over the President's request. H.R. 1275 was intended to address 
NASA's budget instabilities and provide NASA with a budget that 
grew, but remained slightly below the level of inflation.
    Besides the agency's declining budget requests, NASA is 
rapidly approaching initial construction on the International 
Space Station (ISS). The Clinton Administration invited the 
Russians to join the program in1993. The Russians have 
consistently failed to fund and construct their elements of the 
Space Station. Consequently, construction of the Space Station 
has been delayed by one year and delivery of the Russian 
Service Module on time is highly questionable. NASA has sent 
the Russian Space Agency $60 million in 1998 and intends to 
send another $40 million before the end of the year. These 
funds are ostensibly for the purchase of Russian crew time and 
stowage space, but the funds are ultimately intended for 
further work on the Service Module. Although not yet approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget, NASA is currently 
entertaining the notion of paying the Russian Space Agency $150 
million per year for the next four years to help pay for 
Russia's commitments to the Space Station.
    Since the introduction of the Russians into the ISS program 
in 1993, the Science Committee has advocated an enhancing, 
rather than enabling, role for the Russians. Unfortunately, the 
White House negotiated a deal in which the Russians provide 
components vital to the ISS. So when the Russians' vital 
components are late, the entire Station is delayed in its 
schedule, and the Russians have thus become part of the 
``critical path.'' The Science Committee has persistently 
requested the Administration develop a viable plan to deal with 
the Russian problem. Pressure from the Science Committee and 
others in Congress led to an independent assessment, known as 
the Chabrow report, which validated many of the Committee's 
concerns. This report has led NASA to recommend a change in 
policy to the White House in an effort to actively pursue 
removing the Russians from the critical path. One of the main 
recommendations of the Chabrow report was for the U.S. to 
develop an independent propulsion capability, commonly referred 
to as a propulsion module. This module would provide permanent, 
independent re-boost and attitude control. The NASA 
Administrator, in a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner on October 
15, 1998, stated, ``Upon completion of a detailed technical 
requirements review by NASA this fall, NASA will proceed on the 
long-lead procurements for this propulsion capability.'' 
[emphasis added] The Committee remains concerned about the 
funding source for the propulsion capability and a crew return 
capability, which is also necessary to remove the Russians from 
the critical path. NASA too often has been forced to raid 
funding for the Shuttle program and science programs in order 
to pay for shortfalls in the ISS program.
    Through Title II of H.R. 1275, the Science Committee sought 
to impose discipline into the decision-making process with the 
goal of containing future cost growth and preventing additional 
schedule slips in the program. This title requires an 
independent market study and a report from NASA on efforts to 
commercialize the International Space Station; requires the 
NASA Administrator to report on the costs of Station agreements 
with foreign entities and report on international hardware 
agreements; prohibits NASA from transferring money or in-kind 
payments to Russia for their critical components; requires NASA 
to develop a contingency plan with decision points for removing 
each element of Russian hardware in the critical path; directs 
the NASA Administrator to certify on a monthly basis that the 
Russians are meeting their obligations; requires the President 
to make a decision on whether to proceed with permanent 
replacements for the Russian critical path items with the cost 
implications; and directs the NASA Administrator to certify 
that Mir meets or exceeds U.S. safety standards.
    The bill authorizes appropriations to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for the International 
Space Station; Space Shuttle; Payload and Utilization 
Operations; Space Science; Life and Microgravity Science; 
Mission to Planet Earth; Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology; Mission Communication Services; Academic Programs; 
Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance; Space Communication 
Services; Research and Program Management; Construction of 
Facilities; Inspector General; and the United States-Mexico 
Foundation for Science. The bill also authorizes appropriations 
to the Department of Transportation for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation and the Department of Commerce 
for the Office of Space Commerce.
    H.R. 1275 contains various administrative provisions on the 
availability of appropriated amounts; reprogramming for 
construction of facilities; reporting on unauthorized programs; 
and using funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
expenses. H.R. 1275 provides limitations regarding earth 
science data buys, the consolidated space operations contract, 
and the International Space University. The bill requires the 
NASA Administrator to prepare a report on the agency's 
restructuring activities; authorizes the Department of 
Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation 
vehicles; requires NASA to conduct independent cost analyses 
for projects over $75 million; establishes the Office of Space 
Commerce and defines its responsibilities; amends the NASA Act 
of 1958 to allow for delaying the unrestricted public 
disclosure of technical data; establishes commercial 
procurement initiatives; encourages NASA to buy commercial data 
for both space science and earth science researchers; requires 
NASA to buy commercially available space goods and services, 
when feasible; requires a report on threats to the EOSDIS core 
system; requires NASA to plan for the potential privatization 
of the Space Shuttle; and deletes outdated references in the 
launch voucher program.
    The bill also encourages the NASA Administrator to use 
abandoned and underutilized buildings when NASA needs 
additional facilities; provides direction in calculating cost 
effectiveness; prohibits NASA from entering into contracts with 
foreign governments where the foreign government can recover 
profit if the contract is terminated; grants NASA the authority 
to suspend contract payments when there is substantial evidence 
of fraud; ensures that the Science Committee will be able to 
review and authorize the Next Generation Internet; prohibits 
authorized funds to be used to ``lobby'' or influence pending 
legislation; provides notice requirements; states the sense of 
the Congress on the year 2000 problem; authorizes NASA to 
participate in the National Oceanic Partnership program; 
encourages NASA to provide excess capability on the Tracking 
Data Relay Satellite System to the National Science 
Foundation's Antarctic Program; requires compliance with the 
Buy American Act; and updates the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act 
of 1949.
Legislative history
    Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced H.R. 
1275 on April 10, 1997. The bill was cosponsored by Congressmen 
George E. Brown, Jr., of California, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, 
Jr., of Alabama, Dave Weldon of Florida, James A. Traficant, 
Jr., Mark Foley of Florida, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of 
Texas, Congressmen Charles W. (Chip) Pickering of Mississippi, 
Walter H. Capps of California, Nick Lampson of Texas, and Joe 
Barton of Texas.
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held 6 
authorization hearings in 1997: March 4, March 12, March 13, 
March 19, April 9, and April 10. The Science Committee passed 
and ordered reported H.R. 1275 on April 16, 1997. The bill was 
filed on April 21, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-65) and passed the House, 
as amended, on April 24, 1997.
    Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee introduced S. 1250, a bill 
to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, on October 
3, 1997. The bill was cosponsored by Senator John D. 
Rockefeller of West Virginia, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, 
and Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
    S. 1250 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation on October 3, 1997. On March 12, 
1998 the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
held a meeting (markup) on S. 1250 and ordered the measure 
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On May 22, 1998 the 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation filed Senate 
Report 105-195 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and as an amendment to the title. S. 1250 was placed on Senate 
Legislative Calendar under general orders (Calendar No. 387). 
No further action was taken on this measure.

      2.3--environmental research, development, and demonstration 
                 authorization act of 1997 (h.r. 1276)

Background and summary of legislation
    EPA research and development (R&D) programs are funded in 
five separate appropriation accounts in the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill: Environmental Programs 
and Management (Science Advisory Board), Science and 
Technology, Superfund Research and Development, Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Research, and Oil Spills Research.
    The Science and Technology appropriation account, created 
in 1996, represents the largest component of EPA's R&D 
activities and funds the operating programs of the Office of 
Research and Development, the Office of Air and Radiation's 
Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program Office laboratories.
    The EPA Office of Research and Development controls twelve 
research laboratories and four assessment offices, which fall 
under the management of three national laboratories and two 
national centers: (1) the National Health and Environmental 
Effects Research Laboratory in Triangle Park, North Carolina; 
(2) the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Triangle Park, 
North Carolina; (3) the National Risk Management Laboratory in 
Cincinnati, Ohio; (4) the National Center for Environmental 
Research Quality Assurance in Washington, DC; and (5) the 
National Center for Environmental Assessment in Washington, DC.
    The Science and Technology Appropriations account also 
funds five non-Office of Research and Development Laboratories: 
(1) the National Vehicles and Fuels Emission Laboratory, (2) 
National Radiation Laboratories, (3) Analytical and 
Environmental Chemistry Laboratories, (4) Drinking Water 
Program Laboratory, and (5) National Enforcement Investigations 
Center.
    Congress has funded most of EPA R&D programs through direct 
appropriation without annual legislative authorization. The 
last comprehensive EPA research and development bill was the 
Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 
1981 (P.L. 96-569), which expired on September 30, 1981. The 
sole exception is Drinking Water Research, which is authorized 
at $26,593,00 for Fiscal Year 1997 through Fiscal Year 2003 by 
Title II of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 
104-182).
    The purpose of H.R. 1276, The Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, is to 
authorize appropriations for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 for 
research, development, and demonstration programs of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). H.R. 1276 authorizes 
$639,580,500 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $658,077,600 for Fiscal 
Year 1999 for these programs.
    The measure also eliminates funding authorization for 11 
congressionally-earmarked activities funded in FY 1997; assigns 
the EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 
the duties of developing and integrating a strategic plan for 
EPA research activities, and requires the Assistant 
Administrator to review all EPA research to ensure that it is 
of high quality and not duplicative; requires the EPA 
Administrator to ensure that any fellowship award funded under 
this Act is used only to support EPA scientific research 
activities; requires the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to submit 
to Congress and to the EPA Administrator a report on the 
Board's views on proposed research programs as described in the 
President's budget for research, development and demonstration 
activities of the EPA and to evaluate selected planned research 
development and demonstration activities of the EPA; requires 
the EPA Administrator to submit to Congress any SAB report 
required to be submitted to the Administrator; prohibits 
lobbying activities; excludes from consideration for grant 
agreements, for a period of 5 years, any person who received 
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based 
award process; sets forth congressional committee notice 
requirements applicable to fund reprogramming actions and any 
major reorganization of an EPA program, project, or activity; 
expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to EPA 
planning for the Year 2000 computer problem; prohibits an 
entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant to this Act 
unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American Act; and 
expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case of 
equipment or products authorized to be purchased with financial 
assistance provided under this Act, recipients should purchase 
only American-made equipment and products.
Legislative history
    The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held 
hearings relevant to the EPA's fiscal year 1998 budget request 
on March 11, March 12, and April 9, 1997. The Honorable Ken 
Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 
introduced H.R. 1276, Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, on April 10, 1997. The 
bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George Brown, Shelia 
Jackson Lee, and Vernon Ehlers.
    The Committee on Science held a markup on April 16, 1997, 
and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 
On May 16, 1997, the Committee filed H. Rept. 105-99, Part 1 
and the measure was referred to the Committee on Commerce. The 
Committee on Commerce held a markup on June 25, 1997 and 
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote and 
filed 
H. Rept. 105-99, Part 2, on June 26, 1997.

2.4--department of energy civilian research and development act of 1997 
                              (h.r. 1277)

Background and summary of legislation
    Three circumstances dictate the need for H.R. 1277, The 
Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 
1997: (1) the importance of preserving and strengthening the 
Nation's scientific leadership; (2) the lack of specific 
authorizations for the bulk of Department of Energy's civilian 
research, development, demonstration and commercial application 
activities under the Committee on Science's jurisdiction; and 
(3) the necessity to balance the budget.
    Because of its belief that the Nation's future is directly 
tied to science, the Committee on Science also believes that 
the Federal Government should take an active role in the 
promotion and support of scientific endeavors. As we near the 
millennium, we are faced with numerous problems that can be 
dealt with by enhancing our scientific and research base.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) is superseded only by the 
National Institutes of Health and the National Science 
Foundation in size of basic research programs. The DOE supports 
major energy research and development efforts, including solar 
and renewable energy, energy efficiency, fossil energy, and 
nuclear and fusion energy. However, with the exception of 
Hydrogen Research which is authorized through 2001 by the 
Hydrogen Futures Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-271), very few of the 
Department's programs have specific authorizations. Most are 
covered under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and will soon 
expire if they have not already. Therefore, these circumstances 
make it necessary to enact a comprehensive authorization bill 
to provide guidelines and support for the programs of the DOE 
that support and strengthen the Nation's science base and 
energy future.
    It should also be noted that the Committee enthusiastically 
supports the efforts to balance the budget. This is necessary 
in order to preserve the future of science and technology 
funding. To prepare America for an increasingly 
technologically-advanced competitive world and to prepare our 
next generation of scientists and engineers, we need to first 
assure our Federal financial house is in order.
    In light of the needs to enhance our scientific base within 
budget constraints the Committee has closely examined the DOE 
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request and has established the 
following five criteria in prioritizing its funding 
recommendations:
    1. Federal Research and Development should focus on 
essential programs that are long-term, high-risk, non-
commercial, cutting edge, well-managed, and have great 
potential for scientific discovery; funding for programs that 
do not meet this standard should be eliminated or decreased to 
reduce budget demands and to enable new initiatives.
    2. Federal R&D should be highly relevant to and tightly 
focused on agency missions, with accountability and procedures 
for evaluating quality and results.
    3. Beyond the demonstration of technical feasibility, 
activities associated with evolutionary advances or incremental 
improvements to a product or process, or the marketing or 
commercialization of a product or process should be left to the 
private sector.
    4. Where possible, international, industry, and state 
science partnerships should be nurtured as a way to leverage 
U.S. taxpayer R&D investment.
    5. Infrastructure necessary for carrying out essential 
federal R&D programs needs to be prioritized consistent with 
program requirements.
    H.R. 1277, The Department of Energy Civilian Research and 
Development Authorization of 1997, meets the Committee's 
responsibilities to set priorities for good fundamental science 
and a balanced energy research portfolio that is vital to the 
Nation's future and a balanced budget. H.R. 1277, as amended 
and reported by the Science Committee, authorizes 
appropriations of $4,605,143,000 for the FY 1998 and 
$4,621,732,000 for FY 1999 for the civilian research, 
development, demonstration and commercial application 
activities of the Department of Energy. The measure also sets 
forth funding limitations by specifying programs for which the 
use of funds under this Act is prohibited (except to fulfill 
contractual obligations). In addition, the bill directs the 
Secretary of Energy to arrange with the National Academy of 
Sciences to report to the Congress on: (1) DOE activities 
concerning high energy and nuclear physics activities within 
specified budgetary parameters; (2) DOE basic energy sciences 
activities based upon certain budget options for the entire 
Basic Energy Sciences account and all related research and 
energy asset activities; and (3) construction and operation 
costs of the National Spallation Neutron Source at alternative 
sites, including the National Laboratories at Argonne, 
Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge; proscribes the use of 
funds for the Next Generation Internet (except for continuation 
of FY 1997 activities); and directs the Secretary to exclude 
from consideration for grant agreements any person who received 
grant funds from a Federal funding source for a project that 
was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
procedure. It also expresses the sense of the Congress with 
respect to DOE planning for the Year 2000 computer problem; 
prohibits an entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant 
to this Act unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American 
Act; and expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case 
of equipment or products authorized to be purchased with 
financial assistance provided under this Act, recipients should 
purchase only American-made equipment and products.
Legislative history
    H.R. 1277, the Department of Energy Civilian Research and 
Development Act of 1997, was introduced by The Honorable Ken 
Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, on 
April 10, 1997, and was referred to the Committee on Science. 
The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George Brown, 
Shelia Jackson Lee, and Mark Foley.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held hearings 
relevant to the Department of Energy's (DOE's) fiscal year (FY) 
1998 budget request on March 6, 1997, and 20, and on April 9, 
1997, and the full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1277 
on April 16, 1997. The Committee ordered the bill reported, as 
amended, on April 16, 1997 and filed H. Rept. 105-67, Part 1, 
on April 22, 1997.
    On April 23, 1997, H.R. 1277, as amended, was sequentially 
referred to the Committee on Commerce for a period ending not 
later than June 6, 1997 for consideration of such provisions of 
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee. Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which 
forwarded the measure, as amended, to the Committee by a voice 
vote on May 22, 1997. The Committee on Commerce ordered the 
bill reported, as amended, on June 4, 1997 and filed H. Rept. 
105-67, Part 2, on June 9, 1997.

2.5--national oceanic and atmospheric administration authorization act 
                          of 1997 (h.r. 1278)

Background and summary of legislation
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was 
created by President Nixon in 1970 as part of a plan to 
consolidate many of the nation's civil programs related to the 
oceans and atmosphere. NOAA's most recent strategic plan stated 
that its mission is ``to describe and predict changes in the 
Earth's environment, and conserve and manage wisely the 
Nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable 
economic opportunities.''
    The NOAA programs for which the Committee on Science has 
sole jurisdiction include: the National Weather Service (NWS); 
the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information 
Service (NESDIS); the Program Support's Aircraft Services 
account; and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Climate 
and Atmospheric programs. In addition, the Committee has 
jurisdiction over the line accounts for the programs listed 
above under the Construction and the new Capital Assets 
Acquisitions accounts. The Committee on Science also shares 
jurisdiction (with the Committee on Resources) over OAR's 
National Undersea Research Program, Sea Grant, Marine 
Prediction Research, Administration, and Fleet Maintenance and 
Planning.
    Since its creation, NOAA has obtained most of its program 
funding through direct appropriation without annual legislative 
authorization. However, 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 (P.L. 102-567). Most of the program 
funding included in this authorization expired after Fiscal 
Year 1993 and no comprehensive NOAA authorization bills have 
been signed into law since the 102nd Congress.
    The purpose of H.R. 1278, The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1997, is to 
authorize appropriations for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 for 
programs and missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Science. H.R. 1278 authorizes $1,462,414,000 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $1,575,232,000 for Fiscal Year 1999.
    The measure also terminates 10 programs and accounts and 
requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress 
certifying that all programs and accounts listed to be 
terminated will be terminated by September 30, 1997; 
disestablishes the NOAA Corps after Fiscal Year 1997; prohibits 
unauthorized persons from interfering with any National Data 
Buoy Center weather data buoys, and authorizes the NOAA 
Administrator to assess a penalty for each violation and to 
offer and pay rewards for information regarding violations; 
delineates the duties of the National Weather Service (NWS) and 
prohibits the Service from competing with the private sector 
when a service not specifically designated as a NWS service is 
provided, or can be provided, by commercial enterprise, unless 
the Secretary of Commerce finds that the private sector is 
unwilling or unable to provide the service; gives the Secretary 
of Commerce the authority to contract out for data and days-at-
sea; sets forth congressional committee notice requirements 
applicable to fund reprogramming actions and any major 
reorganization of a NOAA program, project, or activity; 
expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to NOAA 
planning for the Year 2000 computer problem; prohibits an 
entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant to this Act 
unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American Act; and 
expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case of 
equipment or products authorized to be purchased with financial 
assistance provided under this Act, recipients should purchase 
only American-made equipment and products.

Legislative history

    The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment, introduced H.R. 1278, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1997, on April 
10, 1997. The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George 
Brown, Sheila Jackson Lee, Mark Foley, and Vernon Ehlers. The 
measure was referred to the Committee on Science and, in 
addition, to the Committee on Resources.
    Hearings were held on March 13 and April 9, 1997 by the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment relevant to the bill. 
The Committee on Science held a markup on April 16, 1997, 
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote, and 
subsequently filed H. Rept. 105-66, Part 1, on April 22, 1997. 
The measure was then referred to the Committee on Resources on 
April 23, 1997. The Committee held a markup and ordered the 
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote; and, filed H. 
Rept. 105-66, Part 2 on June 20, 1997.

       2.6--computer security enhancement act of 1997 (h.r. 1903)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 1903, amends the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act to enhance the ability of the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) to improve computer 
security, and for other purposes.
    The Computer Security Act of 1987 gave authority over 
computer and communication security standards in federal 
civilian agencies to NIST. The Computer Security Enhancement 
Act of 1997 strengthens that authority and directs funds to 
implement practices and procedures to improve the security of 
federal civilian information technology systems.
    Much has changed in the 10 years since the Computer 
Security Act of 1987 was enacted. The proliferation of 
networked systems, the Internet, and web access are just a few 
of the dramatic advances in information technology that have 
occurred. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 
addresses these changes and provides for greater security for 
the federal civilian agencies that base their procurement 
decisions for computer security hardware and software on NIST 
standards. H.R. 1903 also promotes the use of commercially 
available products and encourages an open exchange of 
information between NIST and the private sector.

Legislative history

    The Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Technology held 
a hearing on H.R. 1903 on June 19, 1997. The Subcommittee on 
Technology then marked up H.R. 1903 on July 28, 1997. The full 
Science Committee marked up H.R. 1903 on July 29, 1997 
(H. Rept. 105-243). The House of Representatives passed H.R. 
1903, as amended, on September 16, 1997 under Suspension of the 
Rules. The Senate Committee on Commerce passed H.R. 1903 on 
October 1, 1998. The Senate took no action on H.R. 1903.

2.7--technology transfer commercialization act of 1998 (h.r. 2544/h.r. 
                                 4859)

    Congress has established a system to facilitate the 
transfer of technology from Federal Government laboratories to 
the private sector and to state and local governments. The 
primary law to promote the transfer of technology from our 
federal laboratories is the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
Innovation Act of 1980. The Stevenson-Wydler Act, P.L. 96-480, 
makes it easier to transfer technology from the laboratories 
and provides a means for private sector researchers to access 
laboratory developments.
    Subsequently, Congress enacted additional laws to foster 
technology transfer, including the Federal Technology Transfer 
Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502); the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418); the National 
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-189); 
and the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-
245). In addition, Congress enacted the Amendments to the 
Patent and Trademark Laws, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act of 
1980 (P.L. 96-517).
    Most recently, in the 104th Congress, the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113) 
was enacted. Public Law 104-113 amends the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Federal Technology 
Transfer Act of 1986 to improve United States competitiveness 
by speeding commercialization of inventions developed through 
collaborative agreements between the government and industry. 
The law also promotes partnership ventures with federal 
laboratories and the private-sector and creates incentives for 
laboratory personnel to develop new inventions.
    H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 
1998, streamlines the reporting requirements for licensing of 
technology created in federal laboratories, allowing them to 
proceed in a more timely manner. It provides parallel 
authorities for government-owned, government-operated federal 
laboratories to those currently in place under the Bayh-Dole 
Act for licensing university or university-operated federal 
laboratory inventions. The bill also amends the Stevenson-
Wydler Act to allow federal laboratories to include already 
existing patented inventions into a cooperative research and 
development agreement (CRADA).
    Through these changes, agencies would be provided with two 
important new tools for effectively commercializing on-the-
shelf federally-owned technologies--either licensing them as 
stand-alone inventions, under the bill's revised authorities of 
Section 209 of the Bayh-Dole Act, or including them as part of 
a larger package under a CRADA. This will make both mechanisms 
much more attractive to United States companies that are 
striving to form partnerships with federal laboratories.

Legislative history

    The Science Committee's Subcommittee on Technology held two 
hearings relative to H.R. 2544. On September 25, 1997, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``Promoting Technology 
Transfer by Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned 
Inventions.'' And on March 17, 1998, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled, ``Facilitating Licenses to Federally Owned 
Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544.'' The 
Subcommittee on Technology marked up H.R. 2544 on March 26, 
1998 and reported the bill by a voice vote. The Committee filed 
the report on H.R. 2544 (H. Rept. 105-620) on July 14, 1998. 
H.R. 2544 was subsequently passed by the full House under 
Suspension of the Rules on July 14, 1998. On July 15, 1998 H.R. 
2544 was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
   Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on Science

   3.1--expressing the sense of the house of representatives on the 
committee print entitled ``unlocking our future: toward a new national 
                     science policy'' (h. res. 578)

Background and summary of legislation
    H. Res. 578, a bill to express the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the print of the Committee on Science 
entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science 
Policy'' should serve as a framework for future deliberations 
on congressional science policy and funding. The bill was 
introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner on 
October 7, 1998.
    In February of 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich charged the 
House Science Committee with the task of developing a long-
range science and technology policy for the Nation. Science 
Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner appointed Congressman 
Vern Ehlers, the Committee's Vice-Chairman, to lead a Committee 
study of the current state of the Nation's science and 
technology policies.
    On October 23, 1997 and December 12, 1997, the Committee on 
Science held roundtables on the science policy study. On March 
4, 1998; March 11, 1998; March 25, 1998; April 1, 1998; April 
22, 1998; May 14, 1998; and June 10, 1998, the Committee on 
Science held hearings on the science policy study.
    On September 24, 1998, the Committee on Science released 
the report, ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National 
Science Policy,'' which updates the science policy model 
formulated by Vannevar Bush in his 1945 report, ``Science: The 
Endless Frontier.''. Moving beyond the frontiers of an earlier 
generation, the National Science Policy Study broadens the 
focus of the federal science enterprise to include high 
technology, education, and the competitive arena of 
international science.
    H. Res. 578 was passed by the House under Suspension of the 
Rules on October 8, 1998.

3.2--to provide for the conveyance of certain property from the united 
           states to stanislaus county, california (h.r. 112)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 112 requires the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to convey to 
Stanislaus County, California, all right, title, and interest 
of the United States in and to specific property. The property 
is approximately 1528 acres of land in Stanislaus County, known 
as the NASA Ames Research Center, Crows Landing Facility. The 
bill also conveys all improvements to the specific site and any 
other federal property designated by NASA to be transferred, 
which is under the jurisdiction of NASA and located on the 
specific site. The conveyance shall not relieve any federal 
agency of responsibility under law for any environmental 
remediation of soil, groundwater, or surface water. Any 
remediation of contamination within or related to structures or 
fixtures on the property shall be subject to negotiation. NASA 
retains the right to use the specific site for aviation 
activities. NASA is required to relinquish legislative 
jurisdiction over the conveyed property to the State of 
California. NASA shall relinquish this right by filing a notice 
of relinquishment with the Governor of California or in any 
other manner prescribed by the laws of California. Further, the 
NASA Administrator may negotiate additional terms to protect 
the interests of the United States.
Legislative history
    Congressman Gary A. Condit introduced H.R. 112 on January 
7, 1997. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on 
Science. On February 10, 1997, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The Subcommittee 
discharged the bill on September 11, 1997. On November 9, 1997, 
the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 112. On 
November 13, 1997, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
action was taken on this measure.

                  3.3--oceans act of 1998 (h.r. 3445)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 3445, Oceans Act of 1998, as introduced, directs the 
President to (1) maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and 
long-range national ocean and coastal policy, including a plan 
to meet infrastructure requirements of federal ocean and 
coastal programs; and (2) biennially report to the Congress on 
the relationship between federal programs and the achievement 
of objectives specified in this Act. It also requires each 
agency or department involved in ocean and coastal activities 
to include with its annual appropriations request a report on 
elements of its proposed budget relating to those activities 
and how each element contributes to implementation of the 
national policy. In addition, the bill directs the President to 
establish a Commission on Ocean Policy; terminates the 
Commission after its final report; authorizes appropriations of 
$1.0 million for FY 1998, $2.0 million for FY 1999, and $1.0 
million for FY 2000; and removes provisions of Federal law 
relating to marine resources and engineering development.
    The House-passed version of H.R. 3445 includes amendments 
that prohibit the Commission on Ocean Policy from making any 
specific recommendations with respect to lands and waters 
within the boundary of any State located North of 51 degrees 
North latitude, or with respect to lands and waters within the 
State of Idaho; and reduced the authorization of appropriations 
to $2.0 million for FY 1999, and $1.0 million for FY 2000.
Legislative history
    H.R. 3445, the Oceans Act of 1998, was introduced by 
Representative Jim Saxton on March 12, 1998, and referred to 
the House Committee on Resources, and subsequently to the 
Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife 
and Oceans.
    On April 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans approved H.R. 3445, as 
amended, by a voice vote. On July 29, 1998, the Resources 
Committee ordered H.R. 3445, amended, reported to the House by 
a voice vote. The Committee reported the measure, as amended, 
and filed H. Rept. 105-718, Part 1 on September 15, 1998. Also, 
on September 15, 1998, H.R. 3445, as amended, was referred to 
the Committee on Science and in addition to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for a period ending not later 
than September 15, 1998 for consideration of such provisions of 
the bill and amendment as fall within their jurisdiction. The 
Committees on Science and Transportation and Infrastructure 
discharged H.R. 3445 on September 15, 1998. The House passed 
the measure on September 15, 1998, under suspension of the 
rules by a voice vote; and the bill was received in the Senate 
on September 16.
    The companion Senate measure, S. 1213, the Oceans Act of 
1997, was introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings on September 
24, 1997, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. The Committee ordered S. 1213 
reported, as amended, on November 8, 1997 and filed S. Rept. 
105-151, on November 8, 1997. The Senate passed the measure 
with an amendment by unanimous consent on November 13, 1997. On 
January 27, 1998, the Senate-passed version of S. 1213 was 
referred to the House Committees on Resources, Science, and 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of such 
provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned. The bill was subsequently referred to the Science 
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on January 
30, 1998, and to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's Subcommittees on Water Resources and 
Environment, and Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation on 
February 9, 1998.

    3.4--national oilheat research alliance act of 1998 (h.r. 3610)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 3610, National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1998, 
as introduced, authorizes the oilheat industry to conduct a 
referendum through a qualified industry organization among 
retailers and wholesalers for the creation of a National 
Oilheat Research Alliance to develop programs concerning 
oilheat research and development, safety issues, consumer 
education, and training. The bill defines industry to include 
those persons involved in the production, transportation, and 
sale of oilheat, and in the manufacture and distribution of 
oilheat utilization equipment, in the United States (but not 
the ultimate consumers of oilheat); permits State participation 
in such Alliance; and prescribes guidelines for Alliance 
membership and representation. In addition the measure requires 
the Alliance to: (1) establish a program coordinating its 
operation with that of any similar State, local, or regional 
program; and (2) levy and collect annual assessments on the 
wholesale sale of No. 1 distillate and No. 2 dyed distillate 
sufficient to cover Alliance plans and program costs. Finally, 
H.R. 3610 empowers the Alliance to bring suit in Federal court 
to compel compliance with any assessments it levies.
    H.R. 3610, as passed by the House, includes three new 
provisions in addition to those provisions in the original bill 
described above. The first provision requires that any consumer 
education activity undertaken with funds provided by the 
Alliance to include a statement that the activities were 
supported, in whole or in part, by the Alliance. The second 
provision prohibits consumer education activities from 
including references to private brand names, making false or 
unwarranted claims on behalf of oilheat or related products, or 
making reference to the attributes of any competing product. 
And the third provision provides for the Act to sunset four 
years after the date on which the Alliance is established.
Legislative history
    H.R. 3610, the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 
1998, was introduced by Representative James C. Greenwood on 
March 31, 1998, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
    On September 17, 1998, the Commerce Committee's 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power approved H.R. 3610, as 
amended, by a voice vote for Committee consideration. On 
September 24, 1998, the Committee on Commerce ordered H.R. 3610 
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee filed H. 
Rept. 105-787, Part 1 on October 6, 1998. H.R. 3610, as 
amended, was referred to the Committee on Science for a period 
ending not later than October 7, 1998 for consideration of such 
provisions of the bill and amendments that fall within its 
jurisdiction. The Committee on Science took no action and was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3610 on October 
7, 1998. The House passed the measure on October 10, 1998, 
under suspension of the rules by a voice vote; and the bill was 
received in the Senate on October 12, 1998.

          3.5--year 2000 preparedness act of 1998 (h.r. 4756)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 4756 seeks to ensure that the United States is 
prepared to meet the Year 2000 computer problem. The bill urges 
the President to provide for the acceleration of business 
continuity plans to ensure uninterrupted delivery of federal 
services and programs; urges the President to take a high 
profile national leadership position to aggressively promote 
Y2K; enhances Congressional oversight by providing that all 
agency reports be submitted to Congress; codifies certain 
recommendations made by the General Accounting Office regarding 
electronic data exchanges, which GAO has identified as critical 
to Y2K compliance; provides for Y2K assistance for small and 
medium-sized businesses; and develops a Y2K consumer awareness 
program.
    H.R. 4756 is essentially an amalgamation of three 
introduced Year 2000 bills and incorporates certain provisions 
from each bill. The bills are:
          (1) H.R. 4706, the Year 2000 Preparedness Act--
        Introduced by Congresswoman Morella, Chair of the 
        Technology Subcommittee.
          (2) H.R. 4682, the Year 2000 Act--Introduced by 
        Congressman Barcia, the Ranking Member of the 
        Technology Subcommittee.
          (3) H.R. 3968, the National Year 2000 Critical 
        Infrastructure Readiness Act--Introduced by Congressman 
        Leach, Chair of the Banking Committee.
Legislative history
    H.R. 4756 was discharged from the Committee on Science and 
passed the full House under Suspension of the Rules on October 
13, 1998. The Senate took no action on the bill.

 3.6--technology transfer commercialization act of 1998 (h.r. 4859/see 
                        h.r. 2544 in chapter ii)

Background and summary of legislation
    H.R. 4859 is an amended version of H.R. 2544, introduced to 
reconcile the provisions of H.R. 2544 with changes requested by 
the Senate. (See H.R. 2544 in Chapter 2 for more details)
Legislative history
    H.R. 4859 was introduced by Technology Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Constance Morella on October 20, 1998. The House 
Science and Judiciary Committees discharged the bill that day, 
and it passed the House by voice vote. The Senate took no 
action on the bill.
   Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
   Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative 
                               Activities

    A hallmark of Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership in the 
Science Committee in the 105th Congress was rigorous oversight 
of agency programs to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse and 
ensure that taxpayer dollars were spent as efficiently as 
possible. Aggressive oversight by full committee and 
subcommittees aided in part by the General Accounting Office 
and Inspector Generals identified:
          --major problems with regards to space safety for 
        U.S. astronauts on the Mir space station;
          --difficulties with Russian participation in the 
        International Space Station;
          --concerns with initial implementation of the 
        Government Performance and Results Act; the need for 
        better management of scientific agencies and programs 
        under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on 
        Science.
    As a result of the Committee oversight efforts, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner was awarded with the ``Excellence in Programmatic 
Oversight Award'' by the Majority Leader of the House.
    The General Accounting Office provided the Committee on 
Science with 32 assessments that included both audits and 
testimony in the 105th Congress. These assessments were 
instrumental in examining the efficiency and efficacy of 
numerous federal science programs. (See GAO Documents Data Base 
in the appendix section.)
    The following chapters, sections 4.1 though 4.5, include 
oversight, investigations and other activities of the Committee 
on Science, including selected subcommittee legislative 
activities.

                       4.1--committee on science

4.1(a)--The Status of Russian Participation in the International Space 
                            Station Program

                           February 12, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-2

Background
    On February 12, 1997, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Status of Russian Participation in the 
International Space Station Program.'' Testimony before the 
Committee focused on the February 6-8, 1997 meetings between 
Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin; 
updated the Committee on the status of Russia as a partner in 
the ISS and progress on the Russian Service Module; and, 
reviewed contingency plans that NASA has developed for the 
International Space Station (ISS) if Russia continues to fall 
behind schedule with the Service Module.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable John H. Gibbons, Director 
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; The Honorable 
Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; and Ms. Marcia S. Smith, Specialist in 
Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Library of Congress.
    The Space Station was initiated by President Ronald Reagan 
in 1984 as an international scientific program with Canada, 
Japan, and the European Space Agency. President Clinton, in 
1993, ordered a redesign of the Station (then known as Space 
Station Freedom). On September 2, 1993, Vice President Gore and 
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin announced their intention to 
include Russia as a partner in the Station program, 
necessitating another redesign effort.
    Some of Russia's contributions to the ISS are ``in the 
critical path'' (essential to the operation of the Station). 
The Russians are currently eight months behind schedule on the 
Service Module (life support, habitation capability, and 
guidance). Adequate funding has not been released by the 
Finance Ministry to the Russian contractors.
Summary of hearing
    The Russian Service Module is eight months behind schedule. 
During the Gore/Chernomyrdin Commission (February 6-8, 1997), 
Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin promised that the Russian 
Space Agency (RSA) would receive $100 million by February 28, 
1997, and an additional $250 million by the end of the year. 
NASA is currently reviewing whether to 1) proceed with the 
first two scheduled launches (November and December 1997) for 
the International Space Station (ISS) and pursue an interim 
guidance capability to offset delays in the service Module; or 
2) delay the first two launches by six months. Under the first 
option, NASA is studying use of a spacecraft bus (referred to 
as the Interim Control Module) from the Naval Research 
Laboratory and an FGB2. The FGB2 would be bought from the 
Russian contractor, Krunichev.
    NASA does not have a sufficient level of insight into the 
Russian government's finances in order to track disbursements 
to RSA. NASA intends, instead, to monitor work on the factory 
floors of the Russian space contractors. Another way to track 
Russian progress will be the General Design Review (GDR) for 
the Service Module. The GDR could be held shortly after funding 
is released. At the GDR, Russian contractors and subcontractors 
disclose whether they have any money to work on the program and 
whether they will be able to meet the schedule.
    Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, reported that the FGB tug, a component that 
the U.S. is buying through a Boeing/Krunichev contract, will be 
on time and ready for launch later this year. Dr. Gibbons said 
that the Russians are experiencing extraordinary economic, 
fiscal, and political difficulties as they face the challenges 
of transitioning to a market economy, and their overall space 
program is no exception. He explained that as a stopgap 
measure, the U.S. rephased $20 million of existing funds from 
Shuttle-Mir activities and applied it to the Service Module 
work. During the Gore/Chernomyrdin Commission (February 6-8, 
1997), Dr. Gibbons said that the U.S. reiterated in the 
strongest terms that Russia needs to meet its commitments on 
the Service Module. Dr. Gibbons assured the Committee that it 
was made very clear to the Russians that if they fail to meet 
those commitments, the U.S. will be forced to take steps that 
will reduce Russia's role in the ISS program. In closing, Dr. 
Gibbons said that he was pleased to report that Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin responded to the Vice President by stating that 
the Russian government would begin--by the end of February--to 
provide necessary funds to proceed with construction, and that 
adequate funds were budgeted to the Russian Space Agency (RSA) 
in 1997 to keep the Service Module on track. Dr. Gibbons said 
that between now and the end of the month, the U.S. will 
continue to examine two contingency plans (Interim Control 
Module and FGB2) if Russian delays continue.
    Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, noted that he has 
known for 16 months that ISS funds were not being released by 
the Russian government to the contractors responsible for the 
Service Module. Mr. Goldin said that right now, RSA is waiting 
to receive $100 million by the end of February. If the U.S. 
cannot validate that the money is flowing and that there is 
progress in outfitting the Service Module, the U.S. must pursue 
other alternatives.
    Marcia S. Smith, a Specialist in Aerospace and 
Telecommunications Policy from the Congressional Research 
Service, testified regarding options available to NASA because 
of the delay in the Service Module. (1) Maintain launch 
schedule for the first two segments of the ISS and hope that 
the Service Module is ready no later than the end of 1998, 
noting that without the Service Module the first two segments 
of the ISS would reenter the atmosphere and be destroyed. (2) 
Pay Russia to build the Service Module. (3) Maintain current 
launch schedule and build an interim capability to keep the 
first two segments in orbit in case the Service Module is not 
ready in time. Ms. Smith mentioned that both options (1 and 2) 
which NASA is considering would not provide living quarters for 
a crew. She reiterated the importance of following the flow of 
funds allocated by the Russian government for the ISS, noting 
that for the past three years the Ministry of Finance has not 
transferred the full amount of funding allocated by the Duma 
(Russian parliament) to RSA. RSA only received between 70 and 
83 percent of allocated funding from 1994 to 1996. In closing, 
Ms. Smith said that considering Russia's economic situation, it 
simply may not be possible for them to allocate their resources 
to the ISS program.

      4.1(b)--The United States and Antarctica in the 21st Century

                             March 12, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-4

Background
    On March 12, 1997, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``The United States and Antarctica in the 21st 
Century.'' The Hearing was held to review the United States 
Antarctic Program External Panel's report entitled, ``The 
United States and Antarctica in the 21st Century.'' The 
discussion focused on the importance of U.S. presence in the 
Antarctic. The hearing also addressed the long-term funding 
issues of the U.S. Antarctic Program, including the future of 
the South Pole Station.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Norman Augustine, Chairman of the 
United States Antarctic Program External Panel for the National 
Science Foundation.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. Augustine testified that U.S. presence in Antarctica is 
essential for continued political stability in the area and the 
preservation of its ecological system. He further discussed the 
Panel's conclusion that it is a necessity to redevelop 
America's research facility at the South Pole in order to 
respond to the challenges of modern-day science in the 
Antarctic. The Panel recommends a year-round presence in the 
Antarctic to protect the U.S. position on sovereignty in the 
region and to allow the U.S. a decisive role in the Antarctic 
Treaty's activities-based decision system, both of which are 
essential to maintaining the political and legal balance that 
makes the Treaty work. Mr. Augustine identified four factors 
which make the time between now and the year 2000 a 
particularly significant period for new means of reducing costs 
and re-inventing ways of conducting Antarctic activities. In 
his testimony he listed twelve principle recommendations made 
by the Panel to continue U.S. leadership in Antarctic issues.

                  4.1(c)--Department of Energy Posture

                              May 14, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-41

Background

    On Wednesday, May 14, 1997, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``Department of Energy Posture'' to receive 
testimony from the new Secretary of Energy, the Honorable 
Federico F. Pena.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Federico F. Pena, 
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Secretary Pena testified to the importance of the 
Department of Energy (DOE) as a Federal science and technology 
department; described the scientific research achievements of 
DOE in the past year; and discussed the CERN Large Hadron 
Collider project in Geneva, Switzerland, funding for the Next 
Generation Internet, DOE management at DOE (including the DOE 
laboratories), and DOE's implementation of the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993.

4.1(d)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) 
 Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third 
  International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math, 
                 Engineering and Technology Education)

                             July 23, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-40

Background

    On July 23, 1997, the Committee on Science held the first 
in a series of hearings entitled, ``The State of Science, Math, 
Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts 
I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The purpose of this 
initial hearing was to familiarize the Committee with ongoing 
federal SMET education programs at the Department of Education 
(DoED) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and to help 
identify issues that may need to be examined as the Committee 
proceeds with this effort.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Richard Riley, Secretary of 
Education; and Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science 
Foundation.

Summary of hearing

    Secretary Riley stated that the nation's economic future is 
dependent on the ability of our workers to be proficient in 
math, science and technology. He noted that about 190,000 high 
tech jobs are currently going unfilled due to the lack of 
qualified applicants. He testified that students are not 
learning the more advanced mathematics necessary for the new 
economy.
    Director Lane stated that the continued involvement of the 
Federal Government in SMET education is important to instigate 
the major changes required for preparing U.S. students for the 
21st Century. He testified that through human resource 
development in partnership with teachers, workers, state and 
local government, academia, and business, the Federal 
Government ensures quality and equality of educational 
opportunity. He also stated that these commitments are central 
to producing the finest scientists and engineers needed to 
maintain U.S. leadership across the frontiers of science in the 
21st Century.

4.1(e)--Demanding Results: Implementing the Government Performance and 
                     Results Act (GPRA/Results Act)

                             July 30, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-11

Background

    On July 30, 1997, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``Demanding Results: Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act (Results Act).'' The hearing was 
held to review the status of science-agencies implementation of 
the Results Act. The testimony before the Committee focused on 
draft strategic plans for science agencies and the need for 
agencies and the Administration to address crosscutting 
programs and initiatives.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Susan Kladiva, Acting Associate 
Director, Energy Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General 
Accounting Office; Mr. Alan Ladwig, Associate Administrator for 
Policy and Plans, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; Ms. Diana H. Josephson, Deputy Undersecretary 
for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Joe 
Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation; 
Mr. Marc Chupka, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and 
International Affairs, Department of Energy.
    The Results Act directs federal departments and agencies to 
manage performance for results. Under the Act each federal 
agency must submit 5-year strategic plans to Congress beginning 
September 30, 1997. The strategic plans are the framework for 
implementing all other parts of the Results Act to set up a 
system of program goal-setting and performance measurements.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Kladiva, U.S. General Accounting Office, testified that 
the draft strategic plans showed progress toward meeting the 
Results Act requirements, but only one of the six agencies 
reviewed for the Committee had met all six of the Act's 
elements of the completed elements some were insufficient. 
Additionally, GAO testified to the importance that under the 
guidance of the Office of Management and Budget, the agencies 
final submissions should include crosscutting activities.
    Mr. Alan Ladwig, Associate Administrator for Policy and 
Plans, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
assured the Committee of NASA's intention to continue the 
consultation process to ensure its planning documents become 
increasingly effective as management tools. Mr. Ladwig also 
testified that NASA intends to focus on several methods to 
ensure progress in implementing NASA's goals. Mr. Ladwig 
promised to write the editor of Aerospace America to correct an 
inaccurate statement that claimed Congress had delayed NASA's 
release of its strategic plan in February after the Chairman 
pointed out that he and Ranking Member George Brown's first 
requested the plan in a March 1997 letter and NASA did not 
respond until April.
    Ms. Diana H. Josephson, Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans 
and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), testified to the 
importance of the Results Act in improving the performance of 
agencies and improving the communications of NOAA's strategic 
goals, responsibilities, resource requirements and 
achievements. She assured the Committee that NOAA's strategic 
plan would be integrated with the other Commerce bureaus into a 
comprehensive Commerce strategic plan.
    Dr. Joe Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, National Science 
Foundation, testified that the National Science Foundation 
views the implementation of the Results Act as an opportunity 
to strengthen its strategic planning process and link its goals 
to its budget formulations. While acknowledging the challenge 
NSF faces in measuring performance of research, Dr. Bordogna 
concluded that the Results Act provides a valuable tool for 
shaping programs and improving returns on public investment in 
science and engineering research and education. Dr. Bordogna 
admitted that NSF has not spent time working at the issue of 
sharing responsibility in the crosscutting goals under the 
Results Act.
    Mr. Marc Chupka, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and 
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, testified 
that the Department supported the Results Act legislation. The 
Chairman pointed out that the Department's draft strategic plan 
had some serious deficiencies. Mr. Chupka promised the next 
draft, due on August 1, 1997, would meet those deficiencies.

                  4.1(f)--The Next Generation Internet

                           September 10, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-31

Background

    On September 10, 1997, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``Next Generation Internet.'' The hearing was 
held to review the status of the Administration's detailed plan 
for implementation of the Next Generation Internet (NGI), the 
role of the participating federal agencies and the 
recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the 
NGI program. The Committee also discussed the involvement of 
academia and the private sector.
    Witnesses included: Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the 
President for Science and Technology; Mr. David J. Farber, 
Presidential Advisory Committee for High Performance Computing, 
Communications, Information Technology and NGI; Dr. Larry H. 
Landweber, Professor, Department of Computer Science, 
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Joe F. Thompson, Professor of 
Aerospace Engineering, National Science Foundation Engineering 
Research Center; Dr. Stephen S. Wolff, Executive Director, 
Advanced Internet Initiatives Division, Cisco Systems; Dr. 
Edward H. Shortliffe, Professor of Computer Science and 
Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Gibbons opened his testimony with a brief discussion 
about the importance of information and information systems for 
our Nation's competitiveness and how important the original 
investments in the DARPANET and the NSFNET have been in 
generating the U.S.'s leadership position in information 
technology. He stated, however, that today's Internet 
technologies are simply not designed to meet the kind of 
increased demands for greater communication speeds and better 
quality of service demanded by American citizens and 
businesses. Dr. Gibbons then outlined several reasons for 
supporting the Next Generation Internet Initiative. First, the 
private sector will not undertake the kind of highly 
collaborative, long-term research and development needed to 
produce the next generation of Internet technologies. Second, 
the Federal Government has an obligation to ensure that the 
U.S. remains at the forefront of information technologies. 
Third, Federal agencies must have access to state-of-the-art 
communication and information systems, and fourth, the 
government must ensure that our nation's researchers have the 
best possible communications systems. Dr. Gibbons pointed out 
that the President's Advisory Committee made a thorough review 
of the NGI Initiative and will continue to provide guidance for 
agencies involved with NGI activities. Dr. Gibbons closed his 
testimony by remarking that just as federal investments laid 
the foundation for today's Internet, the NGI initiative will 
become the genesis for the information technologies, which will 
sustain America's leadership in information technology well 
into the 21st century.
    David Farber, a member of the Presidential Advisory 
Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communications, 
Information Technology, and the Next Generation Internet, 
opened his testimony with a discussion of the recent activities 
of the Presidential Advisory Committee. He stated that the 
Advisory Committee was given the task of reviewing the 
Administration's NGI Initiative in February of 1997 and asked 
to report on the initiative by the end of May 1997. The report, 
which he submitted with his testimony, enthusiastically 
supported the Administration's initiative. Professor Farber 
reiterated the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the 
goals of the NGI initiative should be restated so as to clarify 
the real intent of the effort. The goals of the NGI initiative 
are to create an experimental test-bed, scaled sufficiently to 
stress the underlying technological building blocks, and to 
develop and demonstrate new Internet applications that will 
meet federal agency mission needs and national goals. Professor 
Farber also clarified the differences between the NGI 
initiative and ``Internet2'', a program run by an independent 
consortium of academic institutions with the goal of connecting 
its members with new high-tech Internet technologies. As for 
NGI, Professor Farber closed his testimony by stating that like 
today's Internet, which has grown into something unforeseen by 
the original Internet researches, perhaps the most important 
advances made by the NGI initiative will be those we can yet 
foresee.
    Professor Joe Thompson, the Aerospace Engineering Founding 
Director of NSF's ERC for Computational Field Simulation at 
Mississippi State University, focused his testimony on NGI 
activities at Mississippi State University and other 
universities. He stated that today's collaborative computer 
activities, for example DoD's need for computer simulation of 
submarine maneuvering, need astonishing amounts of computer 
power. With today's Internet it would take 10 days to transfer 
the data for such a simulation, whereas the NGI initiative will 
shorten that time to 17 minutes. Professor Thompson stated that 
development and installation of high bandwidth connectivity is 
needed for national security reasons. The NGI initiative will 
help accomplish this goal. Professor Thompson stated that 
federal support for NGI is critical.
    Lawrence Landweber, Professor of Computer Science at the 
University of Wisconsin, opened his testimony by comparing the 
1970's research that led to the Internet with the research that 
will be done through the NGI initiative. Unlike the original 
research, the NGI research will have practical goals such as 
improving tele-medicine and distance-education. In addition to 
giving a brief history of the Internet, Professor Landweber 
discussed why federal involvement is needed even though the 
Internet is now a billion dollar a year industry. He stated 
that the unpredictability of the research is what keeps private 
business away from conducting such long-term research. In such 
instances, government has a critical obligation to step in and 
do the basic research. In closing, Professor Landweber stated 
that the NGI initiative is critical to the United States' pre-
eminence in information technology.
    Stephen Wolf, Executive Director of the Advanced Internet 
Initiatives Division of Cisco System, Inc., discussed Cisco's 
participation in the Internet2 program and the NGI initiative. 
Mr. Wolf stated that Cisco will respond to public solicitations 
that are part of the NGI and will support basic research at 
universities and elsewhere. Mr. Wolf stated that that Cisco's 
involvement in NGI will be through the agencies that are 
participating in the program and, as a result, Cisco's 
activities will be as diverse as the agencies involved. He said 
that he was delighted to see that the National Library of 
Medicine, one of the first federal agencies involved in the 
ARPANET, will play a critical role in the NGI initiative.
    Dr. Edward Shortliffe, Professor of Medicine and Computer 
Science and the Associate Dean for Information Resources and 
Technology, Stanford University, discussed the implications 
that the NGI initiative will have on the medical profession. As 
a medical student who also studied computer science while a 
student at Stanford in the early 1970's, Dr. Shortliffe stated 
that he was fortunate to be able to be introduced to the world 
of electronic mail and file transfers during those years. 
However, he stated that it was unfortunate that the medical 
community was slow to understand and to adopt computing and 
communication technologies that had great promise for 
influencing the Nation's health. He stated that only now, 25 
years later, are we beginning to see the health care industry 
understanding and adopting the Internet. Dr. Shortliffe then 
discussed various medical uses of the Internet such as video-
linking of doctors and electronic files that patients and 
doctors can access over the Internet. He discussed how success 
of the NGI will help researchers, hospital administrators and 
the infirm. He noted, however, that with today's technology 
there is much we can not accomplish and, therefore, the NGI 
initiative is important and needed. Dr. Shortliffe closed his 
testimony by stating that only government and academia will do 
the long-term research necessary to create to next generation 
of information technologies.

      4.1(g)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (Mir Safety)

                           September 18, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-79

Background

    On September 18, 1997, the Committee on Science held the 
first in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International 
Space Station, Parts I-V.'' Testimony before the Committee 
focused on: procedures that NASA has in place for assessing 
safety, with particular attention to how that process of 
determining whether David Wolf would be launched to Mir; 
problems in developing the relationship between the United 
States and Russia in space cooperation and how those problems 
have been resolved (or not resolved); the merits of continuing 
the Shuttle-Mir program; the suitability of Mir for long-term 
habitation by U.S. astronauts; the research productivity aboard 
Mir; the cost-effectiveness of continuing the U.S. presence on 
Mir versus placing greater emphasis on completing the 
International Space Station; the original policy and 
programmatic goals of the Shuttle-Mir program and the program's 
success in accomplishing its goals; the programmatic 
accomplishments of the Shuttle-Mir program to date, which may, 
or may not, have been anticipated; the policy options regarding 
the future of the Shuttle-Mir program as they relate to science 
performed aboard Mir; and the general state of the Russian 
space program as it relates to the overall health of Mir.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Roberta L. Gross, Inspector 
General, NASA; Mr. Frank Culbertson, Manager, Phase I Program, 
NASA; Mr. James Oberg, Consultant; and Ms. Marcia S. Smith, 
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Library 
of Congress.
            I. Background on Mir
    The former Soviet Union and Russia have more experience in 
long-term human spaceflight than any other country. The former 
Soviet Union has launched seven orbiting space stations since 
1971. In contrast, the United States launched only one space 
station, Skylab, in the early 1970s.
    Russia's most recent and largest space station is known as 
Mir. The first element is called the ``core module'' or ``base 
block'' and was launched on February 20, 1986. The crew lives 
in the core module. Mir's first crew took up residence on March 
13, 1986. Since then, Russia has added five major modules to 
the space station: Kvant-1 (astrophysics, docking, storage) was 
launched on March 31, 1987; Kvant-2 (biotechnology, Earth 
observation, airlock) on November 26, 1989; Kristall 
(biological and materials research) on May 31, 1990; Spektr 
(atmospheric research and surface studies) on March 20, 1995; 
and Priroda (remote sensing and Earth observation) on April 23, 
1996. A special docking module was added in 1995 to allow the 
U.S. Space Shuttle to dock with Mir.
    Mir was originally designed for a five-year operational 
lifespan. Mir-2 was to have been launched in the early 1990s as 
a replacement. However, economic and political difficulties in 
the former Soviet Union and its successor states reduced 
funding for the Russian space program and dragged out the 
assembly of Mir. Russia's space station was only completed in 
1996, five years after it was to have ended its designed 
lifetime. Rather than proceeding with an eighth independent 
space station, the Russians in 1994 formally accepted the 
invitation of the Clinton Administration to join the United 
States, Europe, Canada, and Japan in construction of the 
International Space Station Alpha. Mir-2 components, some of 
which exist in various states of completion, have since been 
redesignated as the Russian contribution to the International 
Space Station.
            II. Background on U.S.-Russian cooperation in space
    During 1993, U.S. Vice President Albert Gore and Russian 
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin held several meetings to 
discuss U.S.-Russian technical cooperation. Following these 
meetings of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, the White House 
announced on September 2, 1993, that an agreement had been 
reached to merge the U.S. and Russian space station programs. 
At that time, Russia's Mir space station was in orbit while the 
recently redesigned and downsized International Space Station 
Alpha was on the drawing board. As part of that cooperation, 
NASA agreed to purchase a Russian space tug, known as the 
Functional Cargo Block (FGB) as the newly redesigned 
International Space Station's first element. NASA paid the 
Russian government $25 million directly and then another $190 
million for the FGB through Boeing's single prime contract to 
build the U.S. segments of the International Space Station. 
Vice President Gore traveled to Moscow in December of 1993, and 
on December 16, 1993, a letter contract was signed between NASA 
and the Russian Space Agency for multiple cooperative projects 
in human spaceflight. During the June 22-23, 1994 meetings of 
the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission in Washington, the principals 
reached agreement on a definitized contract.
    On June 24, 1994, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin and 
Russian Space Agency (RSA) Administrator Yuri Koptev signed 
NASA contract number NAS15-10110. The contract was intended to 
result in: ``enhancement of Mir-1 operational capabilities; 
joint space flights; and joint activities leading to Russian 
participation in the design, development, operation, and 
utilization of an International Space Station.'' The contract 
initially called for the United States to pay the Russian 
government $400 million, including $334.6 million for Phase I 
activities and $65.4 million for Phase II activities. These 
funds were paid in annual $100 million increments from fiscal 
year 1994 through fiscal year 1997.
    The contract between NASA and RSA was modified in 1996, 
after the Russians indicated to the Clinton Administration that 
they would be unable to meet their commitments to build the 
International Space Station on schedule and proposed instead 
attaching the newer U.S., European, and Japanese modules to the 
Mir. NASA rejected the Russian proposal, but agreed to pay 
Russia an additional $72 million for cooperation in space 
(split between Phases I and II) and to exercise the option for 
two additional flights to Mir. The total amended funding 
breakout for U.S. payments to Russia is summarized below:

NASA-RSA to purchase Russian FGB........................     $25,000,000
NASA-Boeing to purchase Russian FGB.....................     190,000,000
Phase I:
    Management..........................................      26,531,000
    Mir Lifetime Extension..............................      27,000,000
    Mir Capabilities Expansion..........................     152,740,000
    Mission Support (to Mir)............................     115,620,000
    Extension (flights 8 & 9)...........................      41,932,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Phase I Subtotal....................................     363,823,000
    Phase II Subtotal...................................     108,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total Phase I and II................................     471,823,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total Payments to Russia........................     686,823,000

    U.S. astronauts took up residence in Mir for long-term 
spaceflight beginning in March 1995, with the launch of Norman 
Thagard aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule for a 115-day stay on 
Mir. He was followed by Dr. Shannon Lucid who visited Mir from 
March to September 1996. Dr. Lucid's mission was extended by 
about 6 weeks when technical problems with the Shuttle's solid 
rocket boosters delayed the launch of STS-79 from July 31 to 
September 16, 1996. John Blaha followed Dr. Lucid and resided 
on Mir from September 1996 through January 1997. Dr. Jerry 
Linenger, who experienced the fire aboard Mir in February, 
lived on Mir from January to May 1997. Dr. Michael Foale, who 
was aboard Mir during its June 25 collision with a Progress 
resupply vehicle, began his current mission on Mir in May. Drs. 
Linenger and Foale both performed external spacewalks on Mir 
using Russian spacesuits.
    Dr. Foale was replaced by David Wolf with the launch of 
STS-86 on September 25, 1997. Mr. Wolf, who was originally 
slated to be the seventh astronaut to remain on Mir for an 
extended period, replaced Wendy Lawrence on the STS-86 manifest 
when NASA decided that the Russian Orlon spacesuits were too 
large for Ms. Lawrence to wear safely. Mr. Wolf's mission is 
scheduled to last through mid-January 1998. He is to be 
followed by Andy Thomas launched aboard STS-89 on January 15, 
1998 and to return aboard STS-91 on June 7, 1998, bringing the 
Shuttle-Mir program to a close.
    U.S. astronauts are aboard Mir to learn how the Russians 
operate their space station and to conduct scientific 
experiments as a prelude to doing work on the International 
Space Station. In addition, the Space Shuttle carries a 
considerable amount of supplies to Mir, helping it remain 
aloft. In the judgment of some space policy experts, the 
Shuttle's role in providing logistics to Mir is significant and 
the Russians are now dependent on these flights to keep Mir 
aloft.
            III. Congressional oversight
    Concerns have been raised about Mir's safety given the 
frequency of breakdowns in its systems and the fact that its 
core module has been in space more than twice its design life 
of five years. Those concerns crystallized in many minds when 
Mir suffered a major fire in Kvant-1's backup oxygen generating 
system on February 23, 1997. In 1994, a filter on the same 
system reportedly ignited and burned when the crew failed to 
clean it properly prior to use.
    These concerns prompted Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking 
Minority Member Brown to offer an amendment to H.R. 1275, the 
Civilian Space Authorization Act, during markup at the full 
committee on April 16, 1997. The amendment included a provision 
which read: ``The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
shall not place another United States astronaut on board the 
Mir Space Station, without the Space Shuttle attached to Mir, 
until the Administrator certifies to Congress that the Mir 
Space Station meets or exceeds United States safety standards. 
Such certification shall be based on an independent review of 
the safety of the Mir Space Station.'' The Committee agreed to 
the amendment and the House passed the bill on April 23, 1997.
    On June 25, 1997, a Progress spacecraft, which the Russians 
use to resupply Mir, crashed into the station, puncturing the 
Spektr science module and damaging its solar arrays. Most of 
the American science experiments were aboard Spektr. The crew 
successfully sealed the Spektr module from the rest of the 
station and began working to minimize the impact and recover 
some capabilities. On July 11, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. 
Brown sent the NASA Inspector General, Roberta Gross, a letter 
requesting that she collect and provide to the Committee source 
documents and working-level materials related to ``(1) the 
suitability of Russia's Mir space station for habitation by 
U.S. astronauts and (2) research productivity and cost 
effectiveness of continued NASA involvement in the Mir space 
station program.'' Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown further 
asked the Inspector General to analyze the aforementioned 
documents.
    On August 29, 1997, the Inspector General sent her first 
interim response and identified the risk areas on which her 
inquiry would focus: (1) Soyuz as a Rescue Vehicle; (2) Fire 
Hazards; (3) Problems with Oxygen Generation and Carbon Dioxide 
Removal; (4) Fatigue and Stress; (5) Training; (6) U.S./Russian 
Communications; (7) Ethylene Glycol Exposure; (8) Lack of 
Knowledge About Mir Systems; and (9) the Russian pay system. 
The Committee received the letter on September 2, 1997, and on 
September 10, announced that it would hold a hearing on Mir 
safety on September 18.
            IV. Recent Mir system failures
    On March 4, during an attempt to use a new method of 
manually docking Progress resupply vehicles with the Space 
Station, the remote television system used by the crew to dock 
Mir failed. The commander aborted the docking attempt, and the 
Progress spacecraft sailed by Mir about 200-250 meters away in 
what many consider a near-miss. On March 7, the primary 
elektron oxygen generating system failed. The second system was 
turned on, but produced too much hydrogen and had to be turned 
off, forcing the crew to rely on the backup oxygen candles, the 
same type that had led to the February 23 fire. On March 19, 
Mir's gyrodynes, which control the station's orientation in 
space, failed, leading to free drift in space while the backup 
thrusters were used to regain control. During April, the 
station's thermal cooling system, which regulates the 
distribution of heat throughout Mir and its systems, sprung 
several leaks, which the crew was eventually able to isolate. 
These leaks led to the presence of ethylene glycol in the crew 
cabin, which caused some upper respiratory problems for the 
crew. The thermal control system has a long history of leaks 
exposing the crew to ethylene glycol, dating back to November 
of 1995. Temporary shut-downs of the thermal control system led 
other Mir systems to overheat, and the Vozdukh system for 
removing carbon dioxide from the air failed, forcing the crew 
to rely on its backup system of lithium hydroxide canisters to 
clean Mir's air.
    On June 25, a Progress resupply vehicle collided with Mir 
during another test of a new manual docking procedure. 
Explanations for the cause of the collision vary, although it 
has been reported that the crew commander lost control of the 
cargo vehicle's speed and that the range/rate radar used to 
assess closure rates between Mir and other vehicles was not 
functioning. The collision caused Mir to tumble in space, 
preventing its solar arrays from collecting adequate energy 
from the sun, which resulted in Mir's systems being turned off. 
After the collision, the crew set about gaining control of the 
station's orientation and then restarting Mir's major systems. 
Unfortunately, during July, a data cable for the main computer 
was accidentally disconnected, again causing Mir's main systems 
to shut down and the station to suffer from an uncontrolled 
spin. The crew went back to the beginning and restarted the 
entire station. On August 5, Mir's elektron oxygen generating 
system failed. The crew was forced to make repairs and operate 
the system at a reduced capacity. On August 18, during a 
docking of another Progress resupply spacecraft, Mir's computer 
failed, forcing the crew to switch over to manual during the 
maneuver. The docking was successful, and the failed unit was 
subsequently replaced. On August 22, while the crew was 
beginning its internal spacewalk to reconnect cables to the 
damaged Spektr's solar arrays, a glove on one of the Russian 
Orlon spacesuits began leaking. The crew successfully fixed the 
problem and continued the spacewalk. On August 25, one of the 
elektron systems again failed. On August 26, the backup oxygen 
generating system failed, but it was successfully replaced. The 
main computer failed again on September 15, 1997. The crew is 
expected to build a replacement from parts salvaged from two 
non-functional computers aboard.
    According to press reports, Mir has suffered from more than 
1,400 catalogued problems during its lifetime. In the clear 
majority of these cases, however, the Russians were successful 
in either repairing, replacing, or working around the affected 
system. One current concern, however, is that the rate of 
systems failure has gone up significantly since Mir passed its 
first decade in orbit, due to its age and/or the fact that the 
Russian space program has fallen on hard times since the end of 
the Cold War.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing focused on the issues and questions raised in 
the August 29, 1997 letter from NASA's Inspector General. In 
her testimony, Ms. Roberta Gross, Inspector General, NASA, 
questioned whether NASA has adequate processes and procedures 
to assess risk versus the benefits of participating in the 
Russian Mir Space Program. Ms. Gross indicated that NASA has 
three mechanisms for assessing its participation on Mir: 
internal safety reviews conducted by the NASA Shuttle/Mir 
Program Manager; safety reviews conducted by the NASA Associate 
Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance; and, safety and 
operational readiness reviews conducted by an independent team 
led by Lieutenant General Stafford. While not being able to 
conduct a systematic evaluation because of time constraints, 
Ms. Gross reported that some former as well as current NASA 
employees have questioned the adequacy of these assessment 
processes. She illustrated the three main areas of concern as 
indicated by the employees: (1) the inability to discuss and 
criticize freely within NASA; (2) the perceived lack of 
independence of the Stafford team; and (3) the reduced level of 
risk assessment performed because of the overriding goals to 
continue participation in the United States-Russian 
partnership. In conclusion, Ms. Gross questioned whether 
concentration of program responsibility at Johnson Space Center 
provides sufficient checks and balances to ensure adequate 
program assessment.
    Mr. Frank Culbertson, Phase I Program Manager, NASA, 
reported that the flight readiness review conducted for STS-86 
deemed the mission safe and recommended that it continue as 
planned. In response to the conditions on Mir, Captain 
Culbertson noted that often items on the space station are 
operated until failure. Captain Culbertson also commented that 
reports of uncontrolled spinning and other station malfunctions 
are exaggerated. The real risks in the operation, in Captain 
Culbertson's opinion, occur on the actual ascent of the 
Shuttle. He concluded by reiterating his total commitment to 
safety.
    Mr. James Oberg, a consultant, testified that the problems 
aboard Mir are predictable consequences of known, measurable 
causes, namely the decline of the Russian space industry. Mr. 
Oberg stated that the safety of Mir is impossible to determine 
because the normal ground-up safety assessments have never been 
fully applied. Mr. Oberg also indicated that there are 
significant questions surrounding the American astronauts 
ability to operate the Soyuz landing capsule. Mr. Oberg 
concluded that given the adverse conditions, the Mir space 
station is not safe for an American at the present time.
    Ms. Marcia Smith, a senior analyst for the Congressional 
Research Service, testified that while there are legitimate 
concerns about Mir's safety, the portrayal of the events have 
often been exaggerated and misinterpreted. Ms. Smith detailed 
NASA's desire to continue Shuttle/Mir cooperation in full 
because of the benefits of increased operational experience and 
opportunities for more science research. She indicated that the 
agency also would like to fulfill its agreement with Russia. 
Ms. Smith illustrated three possible policy options for NASA: 
(1) continue with the program as planned; (2) complete the 
planned dockings, but not leave astronauts on Mir; and (3) 
terminate the program entirely. In conclusion, Ms. Smith 
questioned whether the benefits provided sufficient 
justification for astronauts to remain on Mir.

4.1(h)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) 
 Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third 
  International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math, 
      Engineering and Technology Education-Curriculum Development)

                           September 24, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-40

Background

    On September 24, 1997, the Science Committee held the 
second in a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of 
Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In 
America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third 
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The 
hearing focused on elementary and secondary level curriculum 
development and pedagogical styles. In America, K-12 curricula 
are developed at the school-district level using broad 
guidelines from the states. There is little monitoring of 
schools by school districts, and of school districts by states, 
to ensure compliance with standards. Teachers have been given 
wide latitude to design course content, and textbooks are 
written broadly to appeal to a wide audience. Many education 
experts agree that this less focused, ``mile wide and inch 
deep'' approach to teaching a core subject, such as math or 
science, may not suit students' needs. These experts along with 
professional education associations have worked to develop 
curricular guidelines that they believe will better prepare our 
youth for a high technology global economy.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the 
National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Gerald F. Wheeler, Executive 
Director, National Science Teachers Association; Mrs. Gail 
Burrill, President, National Council of Teachers of 
Mathematics; and Ms. Barbara Sampson, President, Technical 
Education Research Center.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Alberts discussed the development and state of support 
for national standards in science and mathematics. He stated 
that modern standards movement represents a response to a 
series of major reports expressing dissatisfaction with the 
state of American education coupled with a broad recognition of 
a heightened need to prepare the nation to cope with an 
increasingly technological and complex society. He also 
testified that with these standards, curriculum decisions are 
left to states and local school districts. He noted that 
effective use of standards requires strong support from local 
communities, requiring a level of understanding that takes 
years to build.
    Dr. Gerald F. Wheeler testified that there are three 
barriers which hinder the use of standards: (1) lack of time on 
the teachers part; (2) teacher isolation; and (3) a lack of 
quality resources and professional development opportunities.
    Mrs. Gail Burrill stated that most states determine the 
qualification needed for becoming a teacher and that in many 
schools students taught by teachers with little or no 
preparation in math and science. She testified that the key to 
improving the teaching and learning of mathematics is to have a 
standards-based curriculum and teachers who can implement that 
curriculum.
    Ms. Barbara Sampson noted three goals for high-performance 
education: (1) all students excel; (2) students understand what 
they are learning; and (3) students develop an enthusiasm for 
learning that lasts a lifetime.

4.1(i)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) 
 Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third 
  International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math, 
  Engineering and Technology Education--Third International Math and 
                             Science Study)

                            October 8, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-40

Background

    On October 8, 1997, the Science Committee held the third in 
a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of Science, 
Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America, 
Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The purpose of this 
hearing was to assess where the United States stands in 
comparison to our industrial competitors overseas in K-12 math 
and science education and to discuss how policy makers and 
educators can improve the way we teach these core subjects.
    TIMSS is the largest comparative study of educational 
achievement ever performed. The study involved over one million 
students from 15,000 schools in 50 nations during the 1995 
school year. TIMSS produced data on how, and how well, students 
in participating nations learn math and science.
    Witnesses included: Dr. William Schmidt, Chairman of U.S. 
TIMSS National Research Coordinator at Michigan State 
University in East Lansing, MI; Dr. James Hiebert, Professor, 
TIMSS Videotape Study Department of Educational Development at 
the University of Delaware in Newark, DE; and Mr. Roger Bybee 
from the National Academy of Science in Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Schmidt testified that instead of using the results of 
TIMSS to mimic what other countries are doing, the science 
community should determine where American students are 
excelling and find out what educators are doing right in these 
areas. Once we know what we are doing well, we can adapt these 
operating principles into the areas where we have fallen 
behind. This suggests that it is easier to adopt things from 
our own culture instead of learning and applying to the U.S. 
what works in other cultures. Dr. Schmidt noted that what is 
interesting about the results is what happens between fourth 
and eighth grades. Our fourth graders are equal to and ahead of 
the rest of the world. However, by the eighth grade, our 
students have fallen significantly behind. The difference is 
that in these years, our students are no longer challenged with 
new concepts, and only repeat material they have already 
learned. He went on to say that tracking regulated up to 80 
percent of our students to basic elementary arithmetic, which 
was unique to our education system. He added that our 
curriculum is more of a ``to do'' list instead of a coherent 
directives. Dr. Schmidt concluded that we need to concentrate 
our efforts and focus on material that will allow our students 
to exceed our own expectations and those of our international 
competitors.
    Dr. Hiebert testified about the differences in classroom 
lessons. While foreign students experience a smooth transition 
from one topic to the next, American students are subjected to 
choppy, mundane lessons that do little to capture the attention 
and creativity of the students. He agreed that instead of 
copying what other cultures are doing, we should explore our 
own successes and implement those principles throughout our 
curriculum. He suggested we develop a teaching system to train 
educators in improved ways to reach students and then institute 
these teaching methods in the classrooms. Dr. Hiebert concluded 
that we should implement changes that will ensure better 
classrooms and a better education system.
    Mr. Bybee echoed the sentiment of the first two witnesses 
saying that our curriculum is incoherent, unfocused and 
fragmented. He suggested that we implement standards at some 
level, whether it be federal, state, or local, so that the 
school systems would have a mission to focus on and a structure 
to accomplish their missions. Mr. Bybee cautioned, however, 
against swinging the pendulum too far to a point where we focus 
too much on one set of subjects, saying there is a point in the 
middle that we need to find. He suggested that our initial 
focus should be on teaching methods to find the best way for 
teaching our students as other, older cultures have already 
done.

4.1(j)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) 
 Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third 
  International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math, 
 Engineering and Technology Education (SMET) in America--Collaboration 
   and Coordination of Federal Agency Efforts in SMET K-12 Education)

                            October 29, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-40

Background

    On October 29, 1997, the Science Committee held the last in 
a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of Science, 
Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America, 
Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' This hearing focused 
on the roles that various federal agencies play in K-12 Science 
and Math Education Programs. The major issues addressed at this 
hearing were the collaboration and coordination of federal 
science and math programs, and the priorities and allocation of 
federal resources.
    Many federal agencies support science and math education 
programs. For example, in 1996 the Eisenhower National 
Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC) 
published The Guidebook of Federal Resources for K-12 
Mathematics and Science. ENC's comprehensive listing runs more 
than 1500 pages. This hearing focused on federal SMET education 
programs, specifically at agencies other than the Department of 
Education (DOEd) and the National Science Foundation, and how 
those programs are related to and coordinated with DOEd and NSF 
activities.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Clifford Gabriel, Acting Associate 
Director, Science Division, Office of Science and Technology 
Policy; Dr. David E. Shaw, Chairman, Panel on Educational 
Technology, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
Technology; Gordon Ambach, Executive Director, Council of Chief 
State School Officers; and Dr. James Rutherford, Chief 
Education Officer, American Association for the Advancement of 
Science.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Gabriel testified that there is a solid need for a 
federal presence in the primary and secondary curriculum, even 
as local and state governments take on an increasingly larger 
role in funding education. Dr. Gabriel said that the 
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology 
(PCAST), and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 
had examined the results of TIMSS and had discussed reforms 
based on the results. Their suggestions included developing a 
strategy to improve teaching, increasing the availability of 
high-quality materials, and illustrating the effective use of 
technology in the classroom. He also said that these groups are 
reviewing the priorities of federal sponsorship in new 
educational programs and the methods used for determining these 
priorities. He concluded that agencies must coordinate scarce 
resources, make use of lessons learned, and share experiences 
openly to promote educational excellence.
    Dr. Shaw testified that there is not enough research into 
finding significant improvements in our current education 
system. He felt that the problem had less to do with 
underfunding more to do with inadequate research into teaching 
methods. He suggested exploring alternative educational 
approaches, testing them as target research projects, then 
gathering the results of these projects with the object of 
forming a better, more comprehensive educational system. He 
said this would require a central coordination system, either 
by a single entity or by a multi-agency consortium. Deciding 
the best approach would involve a background study on the 
agency or agencies given this charge.
    Mr. Ambach testified that the federal government plays an 
essential role for its ability to gather enormous amounts of 
funding for research and development in teaching methods and 
materials. He voiced his concerns as to whether all the sources 
for research and development were being used, and he cited 
programs within the Defense Department and Department of Energy 
(DOE) lab system that receive federal funding but are not 
looked upon as alternatives by the National Science Foundation 
and Department of Education. He went further saying that within 
these agencies there are existing programs that are specially 
designated and that do not share research and methodology 
within a larger review of educational ideas. He concluded that 
there must be better coordination between agencies in providing 
research and support for education and that there must be a 
meeting point where the resources come together to coordinate 
these resources.
    Dr. Rutherford testified that the results of TIMSS have 
given us a purpose to develop Science and Math Education 
policy. He stated that federal programs seeking funding should 
provide a roadmap of what they are trying to accomplish, how 
they intend to get there, and how the mission would help all 
students in understanding math and science topics. He also 
testified that politicians and agencies should spend more time 
focusing policy on the suggestions of scientists and educators 
on how to approach educational restructuring. He also said that 
more effort should be made to simplify the system so that ideas 
and funds will flow to the areas when and where they are 
needed. When outside agencies are seeking science and math 
education funding, they should be required to show how their 
programs will link with the existing structure. Finally, a 
better system of coordination of research and development 
projects is needed so that all our resources can be used to 
generate reforms to our education system.

4.1(k)--Road from Kyoto, Part I: Where Are We, Where Are We Going, and 
           How Do We Get There? (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)

                            February 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-73

Background

    On February 4, 1998, the Committee on Science held the 
first in a series of four separately published hearings 
entitled, ``Road from Kyoto, Part I: Where Are We, Where Are We 
Going, and How Do We Get There?,'' to examine the outcome and 
implications of the climate change negotiations concluded at 
the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto, 
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted 
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty, Chair, Council 
on Environmental Quality; Dr. Jay E. Hakes, Administrator, 
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of 
Energy; Mr. David Smith, Director of Public Policy Program, 
AFL-CIO; Mr. Joseph Goffman, Senior Attorney, Environmental 
Defense Fund; Mrs. Connie Holmes, Chairman, Global Climate 
Coalition; and Mr. Michael Marvin, Executive Director, Business 
Council for Sustainable Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. McGinty testified that the choice between jobs and the 
environment is a false one, that mechanisms in the Kyoto 
Protocol will show that the environment and the economy can 
work together, and that the Protocol was a ``work-in-
progress.'' Dr. Hakes testified on EIA's projections of energy 
trends--which forecast that U.S. carbon emissions from energy 
will increase to levels 34 percent above 1990 levels by 2010--
and described many factors that could change the projections by 
either restraining or encouraging the growth of carbon 
emissions. Mr. Smith argued that climate change is a global 
problem requiring global participation, and that the President 
should not sign the Kyoto treaty--which has enormous 
consequences in terms of costs and the way people live. Mr. 
Goffman stated that the Kyoto Protocol's greenhouse gas 
emissions reduction objectives could be met through the use of 
international emissions trading, and asked the Congress and the 
Administration to focus on the potential of the Protocol's new 
market-based mechanisms. Mrs. Holmes testified that the Kyoto 
Protocol was fatally flawed and should not be ratified in its 
current form. And Mr. Marvin testified that there is sufficient 
information about the science of global climate change to merit 
a response by policymakers and that the agreement reached in 
Kyoto could be a first step, although it fails to address a 
number of topics with clarity.

4.1(l)--Road from Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto and the Administration's Fiscal 
        Year 1999 Budget Request. (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)

                           February 12, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-74

Background

    On February 12, 1998, the Committee on Science held the 
second in a series of four separately published hearings 
entitled, ``Road from Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto and the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request,'' to examine 
the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget proposals 
related to the Kyoto Protocol and the Protocol's requirement 
that the U.S. reduce its net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 
7 percent below 1990 levels. In particular, the hearing 
considered the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI)--a 
five-year (FY 1999-FY 2003), $2.710 billion research and 
technology initiative and a $3.635 billion package of tax 
credits--to reduce U.S. GHG emissions. In addition, testimony 
was presented on the FY 1999 budget request for the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (USGCRP).
    Witnesses included: Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the 
President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of 
Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Under 
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Mr. David 
M. Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and 
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and, 
Mr. Gary R. Bachula, Acting Under Secretary for Technology, 
U.S. Department of Commerce.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Gibbons testified on behalf of the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program (USGCRP), a program designed to provide 
scientific information necessary to understand climate change 
for making policy decisions. Dr. Moniz described DOE's R&D 
portfolio and discussed the Administration's draft framework of 
a comprehensive energy strategy. Mr. Gardiner testified on the 
President's proposed Climate Change Technology Initiative 
(CCTI). And Mr. Bachula described the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology's contribution to the CCTI.

 4.1(m)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Math and Science 
 Education, Part I: Maintaining the Interest of Young Kids in Science)

                             March 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On March 4, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the first in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
examine the common components educators have found that are 
critical to engaging children in science, and thereby 
successfully imparting scientific understanding to them.
    This was the first of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Bill Nye of the television program 
``Bill Nye the Science Guy''; Dr. Joel Schneider, Vice 
President for Education and Research, Children's Television 
Workshop; Ms. Sandra Parker, fifth grade teacher at Flint Hill 
School, Oakton, Virginia and recipient of the 1997 Presidential 
Award for Teaching Excellence in Mathematics and Science; Dr. 
Thomas Krakauer, Director, North Carolina Museum of Science and 
Technology; and Dr. Susan Carey, Department of Psychology, New 
York University.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Nye testified that science is intrinsically 
interesting. He acknowledged that his educational television 
show is entertainment and that if the show stopped being 
entertaining, its ratings would drop, and the show would be 
taken off the air. He stated that science teachers should try 
to make their own classrooms as interesting as possible. He 
noted that science has an inherent advantage over other 
disciplines in that only science has the ``gizmos and 
demonstrations'' that are the basics of scientific 
experimentation. He said that teachers should use all the 
gizmos that they can in order to make the classroom 
interesting. He stated that grammar school and high school 
science textbooks should be written in plain English and not 
bogged down with unnecessary scientific verbiage. Mr. Nye said 
that the government should support more funding for schools, 
support programs to help encourage women and under-represented 
minorities to enter scientific professions, and also suggested 
that the U.S. should convert to the metric system.
    Dr. Scheider stated that his 30 years of experience in 
education and educational television has convinced him that 
informal science and math education is extremely important. He 
stated that perhaps the most valuable contribution of informal 
science and math education is that it fosters a culture of 
learning amongst our children. As examples of informal science 
and math education, Dr. Scheider showed four short video clips 
from recent children's television shows. The four video clips 
showed that women can be mathematicians, doing science takes 
desire and perseverance, and that science helps to solve 
everyday problems. The clips demonstrate how science education 
can be interesting and relevant. Dr. Scheider stated that these 
themes are repeated over and over throughout effective 
children's educational television shows.
    Ms. Sandra Parker opened her testimony by stating that much 
has changed since she was a science student. She stated that in 
terms of science teaching, there are three things that need to 
be improved. First, there needs to be more coordination between 
science textbooks and science classroom experiment kits. 
Second, teacher training needs to be improved, and third, 
science classes must be fun so that students complain when the 
class is over. She stated that science should be integrated 
into reading, writing and all other areas of instruction. She 
stated that students need to be taught about the basic 
practices of science; namely, classifying, data collection, 
keeping records, inferring, hypothesizing, and becoming 
critical thinkers. In support of using hands-on science 
activities, Ms. Parker quoted the following proverb: I hear, I 
forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand. Ms. Parker 
stated that the National Science Foundation's Activities to 
Integrate Math and Science (AIMS) program and the Thinkquest 
program are two excellent science education programs.
    Dr. Krakauer opened his testimony with an short description 
of the Life and Science Museum. He said the museum is hands-on 
and allows a single exhibit to speak directly to a broad 
spectrum of visitors who differ in age, educational background 
and personal experience. The museum celebrates scientific 
success rather than testing for failure. Mr. Krakauer also 
discussed the Museum's program for underserved teenagers which 
hires teenagers to work in the museum. He stated that the 
museum's hands-on structure is perfect for young students. He 
said that is important because experts have found that many 
students decide by fourth or fifth grade if science is going to 
be part of their lives. According to Mr. Krakauer, science 
education need not be confined to a classroom. Formal and 
informal science education can be made interesting and can help 
promote a love of science among America's next generation.
    Professor Carey testified that the last concerted national 
initiative to improve math and science education was in the 
1960's and unfortunately math and science instruction in this 
country is now in a crisis. The major reason for this situation 
is that in the 1960's educators and psychologists misanalyzed 
the problem. Since the 1960's, educators have focused on what 
individual students lack. The educators should have focused on 
what the student has, rather than lacks. What young students 
have is curiosity and science classes should build on that 
curiosity. Unfortunately, young students often have different 
theories or understandings of the world around them. For 
example, many young students do not understand the idea of 
weight density differentiation. Teachers first must understand 
how the student thinks, and then work from there. Professor 
Carey compared this kind of thinking to the actual history of 
the scientific progress. The way medieval scientists viewed the 
world was very different to how today's scientist views the 
world. Teachers must understand the student's concepts about 
science. If the teacher understands this, the teacher can use a 
student's misunderstanding of a scientific concept as an 
opportunity to advance a student's conceptual thinking, rather 
than a humiliation for the student.

4.1(n)--Road from Kyoto, Part III: State Department Overview (Road from 
                           Kyoto, Parts I-IV)

                             March 5, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-75

Background

    On March 5, 1998, the Committee on Science held the third 
in a series of four separately published hearings entitled, 
``Road from Kyoto, Part III: State Department Overview.'' This 
hearing was the third in a series to examine the outcome and 
implications of the climate change negotiations concluded at 
the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto, 
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted 
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels.
    The hearing's sole witness was the Honorable Stuart E. 
Eizenstat, Under Secretary for Economic, Business and 
Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State and the U.S. 
delegation's chief negotiator at Kyoto.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Eizenstat testified that there was a scientific 
consensus that humans are changing the climate by increasing 
the global concentrations of greenhouse gases. He stated that 
the Kyoto Protocol is a work in progress, but that it does 
contain two of the three objectives that the President and Vice 
President insisted be addressed: (1) realistic targets and 
timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions among the 
world's major industrial nations; and (2) flexible market-based 
mechanisms for achieving those targets cost-effectively. The 
third objective--meaningful participation from key developing 
countries--has not been met and will be the focus of future 
work in the coming months and years. He stated that the U.S. 
intends to sign the Protocol by mid-March of next year to 
``lock in'' the progress made thus far. He also addressed what 
he described as some ``misconceptions'' about the Kyoto 
Protocol.

4.1(o)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Defining Successful 
        Partnerships and Collaborations in Scientific Research)

                             March 11, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On March 11, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the second in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
identify aspects of successful research partnerships and 
collaborations that can be applied to federal science programs. 
It examined different partnering models among Federal and State 
Governments, universities, and industry in an attempt to 
discern what factors are common to successful collaborations. 
With the amount of interdisciplinary research increasing, 
understanding how to organize effective joint research efforts 
to increase the likelihood of success has become of growing 
importance.
    This was the second of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Lewis Branscomb, Professor 
Emeritus, Harvard University; Dr. Charles Vest, President, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. David C. Mowery, 
Professor, University of California at Berkeley; Mr. Jim 
McGroddy, former Senior Vice President for Research at IBM.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Branscomb discussed the need for collaboration when 
each individual or group has a common purpose, but ``diverse 
and complimentary'' skills and research. Also, collaboration is 
more suitable in like fields and interests where the final 
product is a common goal and a partnership is more beneficial 
economically. Finally, Dr. Branscomb discussed opportunities 
for collaboration in the interest of improving foreign 
relations and foreign policy.
    Dr. Vest testified that the Federal Government must 
continue to be the fiscal basis of support for cooperative 
efforts and could steer science toward more partnerships 
through budgetary policy. He also discussed the need for 
flexibility in partnerships, noting that it can not be a ``one 
size fits all'' policy. Dr. Vest also testified that 
universities, and the industry organizations relevant to their 
research, have begun developing these partnerships. He cited 
factors that make solid partnerships include recognition of 
each organization's role, talents and resources, concise 
expectations and an agreement on mutual management.
    Dr. Mowery testified that analyzing the purpose of 
partnerships and evaluating the roles in a partnership must be 
flexible, and added that even after a partnership had begun, 
that it must have flexibility in its frame work to be 
accommodating as new alternatives develop. He suggested some 
changes in Federal regulations and requirements placed on 
university research to allow increased flexibility.
    Mr. McGroddy discussed funding issues involved in 
determining whether a partnership is feasible. Other 
alternative factors such as management must also be analyzed 
before establishing a collaborative effort. Mr. McGroddy also 
talked about deriving a motivation for partnerships and 
research and development in general to replace the goals of 
Cold War research. Finally, he discussed openness and its 
benefits to the science community and suggested this had to be 
the foundation by which these partnerships are built.

   4.1(p)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (International 
                                Science)

                             March 25, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On March 25, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the third in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
examine why the United States should participate in 
international scientific collaborations, when they are likely 
to be effective, and how to prevent them from being manipulated 
to meet goals other than scientific goals. The hearing 
identified reasons why international collaboration is often in 
the United States' interest, highlighted factors common to 
successful collaborations, and discussed recommendations to 
promote science priorities abroad and international 
collaborations in the U.S. While the United States still leads 
the world in the largest number of research disciplines, it has 
become increasingly clear in recent years that researchers in 
foreign nations are performing top-notch work and that our 
scientists and engineers can benefit greatly from working 
together with their international counterparts.
    This was the third of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Admiral James D. Watkins, President, 
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education and former 
Secretary of Energy; Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National 
Academy of Sciences; Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford, Director, Center 
for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy, George Mason 
University; Professor Homer A. Neal, Director, Michigan ATLAS 
Project, University of Michigan; and Ms. Caroline Wagner, 
Senior Analyst, Critical Technologies Institute at RAND.

Summary of hearing

    Admiral Watkins highlighted the difficulties that foreign 
policy poses for continuous international collaboration in 
science. This not only hurts the country we are trying to 
influence, but also burdens our own scientific community while 
giving the United States a reputation of being an unreliable 
science partner. To remedy this situation, Admiral Watkins 
suggested we be more inclusive of science and technology 
leaders when determining the course of our foreign policy. He 
also encouraged Congress and the Administration to make a 
commitment to these fields and structure a broad, yet 
effective, scientific mission instead of focusing entirely on 
environmental issues.
    Dr. Alberts urged a policy that maintains better 
communication between our scientists and those from other 
nations, including improvements in international 
telecommunications technology. As communications improve and 
ideas are shared, better less expensive technologies will 
become more available and bring other developing countries into 
the 21st century, allowing them to become less dependent upon 
the industrialized nations. Dr. Alberts testified that the 
National Academy of Science has started new programs, such as 
``Frontiers of Science,'' that encourage younger scientist from 
around the globe to develop closer ties so that as they become 
the leaders in these fields. A clearer professional atmosphere 
will assist in sharing and swapping ideas, methods and 
technologies. He also endorsed the idea that the U.S. needs to 
make science and technology a focus of our national and foreign 
policy.
    Dr. Ratchford discussed a series of trends in research and 
development that show a decreasing role in government funding 
that has conversely affected the efficiency rate at which 
corporate funding is used. This, along with a growing ``inter-
relationship'' in research and development, has ``pushed the 
globalization of research and technology.'' He explained that 
companies make more sound investments in developing 
technologies to ensure the greatest return. He also addressed 
problems that have arisen as companies fill short-term, low-
load strategies which leave long-term technology funding to 
governments which, as earlier stated, have been reducing the 
amount of funding they invest into research and development 
projects. He suggested that we develop more effective science 
and technological policies and improve implementation of these 
policies internationally.
    Dr. Neal proposed economic factors would encourage 
international science collaboration. As the scientific 
community works to solve obstacles through R&D, our society 
would see greater benefit if funds and ideas were shared so 
that, as less overlapping research was done, less individual 
expenditure could yield greater technological benefit at a 
faster rate, because of the larger professional talent pool. He 
also weighed the potential downsides of international 
collaboration, such as the greater complexity of management, 
and the reduction in spots for our own undergraduate and 
graduate students in these research arenas. However, he 
reiterated that the most important goal was to continue to 
explore the vast frontiers of science. Dr. Neal also stated 
that greater abilities in our communication network would 
increase international scientific progress.
    Ms. Wagner spoke on specific budget policies that probe 
inadequacies in the status quo. Of current federal R&D 
expenditures, only $3.3 billion dollars, 4.5 percent of the 
total R&D budget, are allocated to initiatives involving 
international cooperation. She outlined the criteria that have 
encouraged past and current cooperative research projects such 
as the expense and size of the project, the scope and what 
aspects of our environment would benefit, such as oceanic and 
atmospheric programs. Also, she discussed the measurement of 
collective vs. comparative individual benefits. Ms. Wagner 
concluded that greater interagency cooperation within our own 
government may also eliminate some of the obstacles and 
ultimately improve international collaboration.

 4.1(q)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Math and Science 
Education, Part II: Attracting and Graduating Scientists and Engineers 
             Prepared to Succeed in Academia and Industry)

                             April 1, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On April 1, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the fourth in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
investigate how best to prepare scientists and engineers for 
their future careers, from research, engineering, and 
management positions in academia and industry to positions in 
finance, teaching, policy, law and journalism. The hearing also 
addressed the issues of how best to attract enough well-
qualified students to pursue graduate scientific or engineering 
degrees, how to gain insight into the types of skills industry 
looks for in the scientists and engineers they hire, and how to 
review recommendations from the 1995 report (``Reshaping the 
Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers'') from the 
National Academy of Sciences', Committee on Science, 
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP).
    This was the fourth of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Dr. David Goodstein, Vice Provost, 
California Institute of Technology; Ms. Catharine Johnson, 
Graduate Student, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Earl Dowell, 
Dean of Engineering, Duke University; Mr. Michael Peralta, 
Executive Director, Junior Engineering and Technical Society; 
and Dr. Phillip Griffiths, Director, Institute for Advanced 
Study and former Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Goodstein opened his testimony by stating that the U.S. 
has a surplus of highly selected and trained Ph.D's in science 
and engineering, but also a shortage of scientifically and 
technically trained people. He stated that the number of Ph.D's 
increased throughout the 20th century until about 1970. Since 
1970, however, the percentage of science and engineering 
college students who have decided to go on to graduate school 
has steadily decreased. Dr. Goodstein noted, however, that the 
number of students from overseas has increased to a point that 
now 50 percent of graduate students in science and engineering 
are from abroad. Dr. Goodstein compared the selection process 
for science and engineering professorships to the process of 
mining gems--the good ones are kept and all the rest are 
discarded. He suggested that this may be why the country has 
wonderfully trained professors and a scientifically illiterate 
workforce. According to Dr. Goodstein, a second problem with 
the current education system is that graduate students are 
trained to be professors, while the number of professorships is 
not increasing. He suggested that a result of this system is 
that everyone other than the scientific elite is left out and 
presently undergraduate enrollment in physics is at a 40-year 
low. He noted that this is a real problem because undergraduate 
work is probably the best preparation for the professions that 
will be created in the next few decades. In addition, the 
system has resulted in a lack of qualified middle school and 
high school teachers. Dr. Goodstein stated that this system 
must to be reformed, changes must be made to the culture of our 
education system, and we must end the mutual disdain that 
exists between scientists and non-scientists. Dr. Goodstein 
concluded his testimony by stating that this will take a 
tremendous amount of work, and the reforms must not harm our 
nation's ability to produce top-notch scientists.
    Ms. Johnson stated that American science is in a rapid 
state of evolution. She stated that the present system of 
education is designed to replenish the ranks of academic 
faculty but as the scientists' sphere of influence in our 
society expands, this system does not adequately prepare young 
scientists for the future. Ms. Johnson stated that most post-
graduate science students spend close to ten years after 
college finding what she referred to as a ``real job.'' 
According to Mr. Johnson, during this time most graduate 
students work for their faculty advisor. As a result, the 
current system is designed to benefit the faculty rather than 
the interests of the students. Ms. Johnson quoted several polls 
showing a growing interest in non-academic science by graduate 
students. The same polls suggested, however, that less than 50 
percent of the graduate students believed that the faculty is 
supportive of students who are interested in non-academic 
careers. Ms. Johnson stated that this must change. She 
suggested the degree of ``Master of Science'' should be 
reinstated. Ms. Johnson also discussed the financial burdens of 
science graduate students in comparison to those of law and 
business students. She ended her testimony with four 
recommendations: (1) expand the career paths of young 
scientists; (2) increase the scientific flexibility and reduce 
the time to receive a degree; (3) revalidate the Master's 
programs; and (4) reduce the opportunity costs for pursuing 
advanced degrees in science and math.
    Dr. Dowell opened his testimony by stating that science and 
engineering schools are facing serious challenges such as 
attracting young people, preparing them for careers in both 
academia and in industry, giving them the depth, but also the 
breadth to participate in multidisciplinary teams, and the 
people skills to be involved in a multi-national economy where 
business relationships cut across boundaries. Dr. Dowell stated 
that although 50 percent of Ph.D. students are from abroad, the 
majority of them remain in the United States and become 
American citizens. He also stated that undergraduate 
engineering degrees are in demand with many graduating seniors 
getting ``signing bonuses'' like NBA athletes, of course 
however, for not as much money. Dr. Dowell pointed out, 
however, that over the last several years, enrollment in 
undergraduate engineering programs has fallen by 15 percent. 
Dr. Howell focused much of his remaining testimony on academic-
industry relations. He highlights several federal programs that 
facilitate such relationships such as: NSF's Visiting Scholar 
Program; NSF's Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering 
Educational Reform; and, the NSF-funded Engineering Research 
Centers. He concluded his testimony by thanking the Congress 
for its investment in engineering and science and by stating 
that he believes this has been a prudent investment.
    Mr. Peralta testified that the engineering educational 
system is shifting to accommodate industry more and more. His 
organization, Junior Engineering and Technical Society (JETS), 
plays an important role in supporting this shift. His 
organization allows high school students to apply their 
knowledge of concepts to real engineering situations. The goal 
of the JETS programs is to show these students that engineering 
is fun and relevant. Mr. Peralta discussed the results of the 
TIMSS study and stated that the U.S. must do more to improve 
our country's overall standing. JETS, which was founded in 
1950, helps this cause by running various hands-on engineering 
programs for high school students. Mr. Peralta outlined several 
of these programs. He concluded his remarks by stating that 
these program are designed to show students the wonders of 
engineering.
    Mr. Griffiths testified that if we are to maintain American 
leadership in science and engineering, then we need to give our 
students the best possible preparation for that leadership. He 
addressed a series of myths concerning science and engineering 
education. According to Mr. Griffiths, the first myth is that 
most Ph.D.'s spend their careers in academic positions. The 
truth is that more than 50 percent of Ph.D.'s go on to jobs 
that are not primarily academic. The second myth is that there 
is high unemployment and underemployment among Ph.D.'s. The 
truth is that unemployment among scientists and engineers is 
about 2 percent. The third myth is that we are training far too 
many Ph.D.'s for the available jobs. The truth is that 
enrollment in science and engineering Ph.D. programs is 
declining, so the growth in the Ph.D. population may be moving 
towards some kind of equilibrium. However, there needs to be 
some changes in the education of scientists and engineers, such 
as shortening the length of time to degree, and that focusing 
more on the need to teach students more interpersonal, 
communication and management skills. Mr. Griffith quoted a 
report prepared by his organization that recommended that 
graduate programs should be made more flexible and more career 
information should be given to students. He also discussed the 
NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) 
program. He said that the program has been an improvement and 
concluded his testimony by stating that he has been impressed 
with the recent innovations in science and engineering 
education.

 4.1(r)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (The Irreplaceable 
           Federal Role in Funding Basic Scientific Research)

                             April 22, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On April 22, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the fifth in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
receive testimony on the performance, funding, and use of basic 
scientific research. The hearing examined the unique federal 
role in funding research that, owing to its risk and lack of 
clearly defined outcomes, industry is ill-prepared to support. 
While it is clear that industry does fund a substantial amount 
of basic research, and that the Federal Government has and in 
certain circumstances should continue to fund research of a 
more applied nature, because the results of industry basic 
research are almost always proprietary, the Federal Government 
has an irreplaceable role to play in generating new knowledge 
that is available for widespread dissemination. The hearing 
also looked at the role of private foundations in funding 
innovative, far-sighted research, and the role of state-based 
partnerships in the dissemination of research results for 
economic development purposes.
    This was the fifth of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Claude Barfield, Director of 
Science and Technology Policy Studies, American Enterprise 
Institute; Mr. George Conrades, President, GTE Internetworking; 
Dr. Michael P. Doyle, Vice President, Research Corporation; Mr. 
William Todd, President, Georgia Research Alliance.

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. Barfield discussed the Vannevar Bush report and 
described its shortcomings regarding its description of the so-
called ``linear model'' of innovation and how it completely 
divorced basic research from any considerations of practical 
ends. He then proceeded to discuss the findings of two 
important recent science policy studies for comparison. Dr. 
Barfield also described some of the important economic 
rationales that should support our national civilian research 
enterprise, and some of the considerations that should underlie 
intellectual property policies and the appropriate role of the 
states.
    Mr. Conrades testified regarding the results of the report 
written by the Committee for Economic Development, ``America's 
Basic Research: Prosperity through Discovery.'' Their report 
argued that the success of our basic research enterprise has 
grown from its uniquely American organization, not simply as a 
result of the amount of money that has been spent on research. 
They believe it is vital that the Federal Government maintain 
its commitment to funding basic research because basic research 
has provided the intellectual and technological foundation for 
many practical inventions. Mr. Conrades said that our basic 
research establishment must constantly renew itself, as today 
it faces important questions about the priorities and balance 
of its basic research missions, the consistency of government 
support, the global dissemination of new knowledge, and the 
collapse of Cold War rationales for massive investments in 
defense research. Their report attempts to make a compelling 
case for supporting basic research, and in his testimony Mr. 
Conrades lists twelve findings and fourteen recommendations 
included in the upcoming report.
    Dr. Doyle described some of the history of the Research 
Corporation, how it operates, the disciplines in which it 
grants awards, and the amount of grants it awarded in 1997. He 
also discussed the seven categories in which they offer grants, 
as well as the process they use to review the proposals they 
receive. In particular, Dr. Doyle testified about the 
difficulty they had in finding sufficient qualified 
investigators to receive their new Research Innovation Awards, 
only awarding 48 of the 60 they had planned, even though they 
received 185 applications. He also discussed their Cottrell 
Award that integrates research and teaching, and their focus on 
awarding grants in the physical sciences. Dr. Doyle closed by 
providing information on the modest overall level of private 
foundation support for basic research into the physical 
sciences.
    Mr. Todd described how the Georgia Research Alliance model 
for developing local technology industries has been effective 
in its mission, pointing out the importance of managing their 
investments as a portfolio, including a commercialization 
center in each of the new initiatives they develop, and being 
able to rely on the Federal Government to fully participate in 
early stage research. Mr. Todd discussed the portfolio in terms 
of a pipeline that must be kept full at all stages of the 
innovation process, and discussed some of the lessons they have 
learned regarding business incubation and commercialization. 
Mr. Todd emphasized in his testimony that the federal 
government should renew its commitment to being the primary 
sponsor of early-stage research, and the importance of the 
Federal and State Governments working together to maintain a 
full pipeline of basic research in order to reap the maximum 
economic benefits.

4.1(s)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (The International Space 
                     Station: Problems and Options)

                              May 6, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-79

Background

    On May 6, 1998, the Committee on Science held the second in 
a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space 
Station, Parts I-V.'' The hearing focused on the analysis of 
the NASA Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and Validation 
(CAV) Task Force, which had recently audited the International 
Space Station (ISS) program in order to develop a more complete 
and accurate cost assessment. The CAV Task Force also 
identified the principal causes of continuing cost growth and 
schedule delays in the ISS program.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, NASA 
Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force; 
Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator; Dr. Duncan Moore, 
Associate Director for Technology, White House Office of 
Science and Technology Policy; Mr. Franklin Raines, Director, 
White House Office of Management and Budget; Lt. General Thomas 
Stafford, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council's Stafford Task 
Force.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council's 
Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, summarized his 
group's findings: (1) Continued Russian non-performance is the 
single biggest threat to the program; (2) The ISS has been 
underfunded since its 1993 redesign and requires another $130 
to $250 million annually in order to achieve the baseline 
program (leading to a total cost estimate of about $24.7 
billion, an increase of $7.3 billion from NASA's original 
estimates); and (3) The Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for ISS 
development is too low.
    Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, testified that U.S. 
and Russian progress on the first two ISS flight elements (the 
FGB and Node 1) was proceeding well and all signs pointed to 
their readiness for launch on schedule. Problems in developing 
the software for the U.S. laboratory continued. Russian 
government funding for the Service Module continued to be 
inadequate and the Russian Space Agency (RSA) had admitted that 
the Service Module would not be ready for launch before March/
April 1999. (At the time of the hearing, the Service Module was 
scheduled to be launched in December 1998.) Mr. Goldin declined 
to comment on the CAV Task Force report at the hearing, instead 
asking for time to review it and assess its findings, which he 
promised the agency would complete by the second week of June. 
Finally, Mr. Goldin confirmed that NASA did not believe that 
the Russians could sustain ISS and Mir at the same time. 
Consequently, NASA and RSA had developed and agreed to a plan 
to de-orbit the Mir by December 1999.
    Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate Director for Technology in the 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that 
the Administration had requested multi-year funding for the 
International Space Station in its Fiscal Year 1999 budget 
request and that it had provided the International Space 
Station with $1.2 billion more in this budget than had been 
contained in earlier budget profiles. He stated that the 
decision to bring Russia into the International Space Station 
program was made in the belief that the Russians could make 
positive contributions in the areas of science and technology, 
based on their years of experience with Russian space stations, 
and that the Phase I Shuttle-Mir program had been successful in 
improving the working relationship between NASA and RSA.
    Mr. Franklin Raines, Director of the White House Office of 
Management and Budget, indicated in his prepared statement that 
the Administration remained committed to building the 
International Space Station. He confirmed that the 
Administration had felt compelled to lift its annual $2.1 
billion ISS budget cap in Fiscal Year 1997 and that the 
Administration had budgeted an additional $1.2 billion for ISS 
during the period FY1999-2003 and would make another $200 
million available to the ISS program by cutting some of NASA's 
other programs. Finally, Mr. Raines indicated that if 
additional resources were necessary for ISS, the Administration 
would seek to identify those resources from within NASA's 
overall budget.
    Lt. General Thomas Stafford reported in his prepared 
statement that his Task Force on the Shuttle-Mir and ISS 
programs had concluded that the June collision of a Progress 
resupply vehicle with Mir was the result of multiple causes, 
and not simply the fault of the crew, which the Russia media 
had reported. He also indicated that the decision to launch 
astronaut Dave Wolf to Mir for an extended stay in September 
1997, had been the right one and that NASA was continuing to 
conduct science aboard Mir, was learning about long-duration 
spaceflight, and was proving itself a reliable partner to the 
Russians.

   4.1(t)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Communicating 
             Science and Engineering in a Sound-Bite World)

                              May 14, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On May 14, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the sixth in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
receive testimony on ways to improve the communicating of 
science and engineering in the media, the classroom, and before 
the public. The hearing examined the challenges of 
communicating increasingly complex topics to the American 
people. For many well-informed Americans, the last time they 
were exposed to math or science was in their last high school 
or college course in algebra or chemistry. Today most Americans 
get their science and technology information from print and 
broadcast journalism. Much of the hearing, therefore, focused 
on ways to improve the ability of journalists to report 
accurately on science, the problems scientists, engineers and 
other technical experts often face when they communicate with 
journalists, and some of the important factors that determine 
whether or not science and technology stories are eventually 
printed or aired. At the same time, because improving the 
communication of science and technology can also be looked at 
as a form of ``continuing education'' for the American people, 
the hearing will also investigate other ways to communicate 
vital information that do not rely on the mass media.
    This was the sixth of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jim Hartz, former co-host, the 
``Today Show''; Dr. Rich Chappell, Director of Science and 
Research Communications, Vanderbilt University; Ms. Deborah 
Blum, Professor of Journalism, University of Wisconsin; Dr. 
Stuart Zola, Professor of Psychiatry, University of California 
at San Diego; and Dr. David Billington, Gordon Y. S. Wu 
Professor of Engineering, Princeton University.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Hartz testified that a survey conducted by the First 
Amendment Center and published in ``Worlds Apart: How the 
Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's 
Future'' (co-authored with Dr. Chappell), shows that there is a 
wide gulf between the views of scientists and journalists. 
Scientists were generally deeply distrustful of the media and 
viewed poorly the way in which scientific issues were reported, 
but these problems were not seen as insurmountable. The 
journalists viewed the scientific community as being both 
arrogant and prone to jargon. They also noted that many science 
stories were felt to be beyond the comprehension of their 
audiences and to be of little relevance. Nevertheless, 
scientists recognized the need to do a better job of 
communicating science stories to the American public, and many 
scientists expressed an interest in taking communications or 
journalism courses to improve their skills. Mr. Hartz also 
noted that many journalists do not see themselves as educators 
but made the point that if the media are not involved in 
reporting on science issues, the public will be left in the 
dark. This could be accomplished by expanding media coverage of 
science and technology issues, he said.
    Dr. Chappell emphasized that scientists can do a number of 
things to improve relations with the media, but that scientists 
will ultimately be dependent on the media in taking the message 
to the public. He noted that scientists spend most of their 
time communicating with students and peers, and spend very 
little time communicating with the general public. Many 
indicated, however, that they would be willing to spend more 
time talking with journalists and the public. He made four 
recommendations: (1) The scientific community as a whole must 
recognize the need to communicate better and invest time in 
doing so. (2) Universities should train science and engineering 
students in communication. (3) A new category of science 
communicators should be developed who could work as 
journalists, public information officers, and public outreach 
professional for industrial firms, hospitals, and laboratories. 
(4) The science journal process should include a new 
requirement requiring authors to submit with a research paper a 
plain-English abstract of the paper's findings and its 
significance. Dr. Chappell added that the science community 
needs to develop spokesmen so that the media will be able to 
get ``a good sound bite, but get a sound bite that's got good 
content.'' He suggested that different scientific societies 
could develop Internet sites that could act as vehicles to 
deliver this information.
    Ms. Blum began her testimony by stating that science 
changes the world around us and that people need to be aware of 
changes in science. She compared science to politics, saying 
that both are forces that change people's lives. But while 
politics may seem relatively straightforward, science is often 
mysterious and off-putting. While noting the importance of 
improving science education for non-scientists, Ms. Blum 
stressed the importance of regional media in informing the 
public about science and technology issues. However, she stated 
that most journalists are not comfortable with science. To 
improve science reporting, Ms. Blum made two recommendations: 
(1) increase the number of science journalists and the number 
of university programs to train science journalists; and (2) 
expand scientist job descriptions to include science 
communication. Ms. Blum ended her testimony by pointing out 
that journalists and scientists need to build bridges with each 
other so that they can minimize misunderstandings and develop 
an appreciation for how the other profession thinks and 
operates.
    Dr. Zola, a neuroscientist who performs basic research 
involving monkeys, testified to his experience in countering a 
campaign by animal rights activists to limit his research. He 
noted that these activists were very good at discrediting basic 
research, pointing to the lack of any applied results. Dr. Zola 
said he was shocked at the response of the public, who he felt 
was being misinformed about the value of his work. With the 
support of the University of California at San Diego's 
administration, which was vital, Dr. Zola and his colleagues 
began a concerted effort to inform the public about what the 
university researchers were actually doing. With the help of 
media experts, Dr. Zola developed effective techniques to 
counter criticism and educate the public about the nature of 
his work. Dr. Zola also testified to the importance of 
scientists visiting legislators to give their side of the 
story. Dr. Zola closed by noting that scientists are beginning 
to come to terms with the importance of communicating the 
excitement and utility of science to the general public and 
decisionmakers.
    Dr. Billington approached the issue of communications from 
the perspective of a university teacher trying to instill an 
appreciation for and understanding of engineering in non-
technical students. He addressed three issues: (1) how to make 
connections between the humanities and engineering; (2) how to 
attract students to take these courses; and (3) how to make 
engineering accessible to a non-technical audience. Concerning 
the issue of making connections, Dr. Billington said his 
courses focused on great engineering works that have 
transformed society in significant ways. He cited as examples 
Fulton's steamboat, the Wright Flyer, and Kilby's and Noyce's 
microchip. Concerning the issue of attracting students, he said 
that students are attracted to his courses because they are 
based on scholarship, the lectures are done visually, and the 
courses have become part of the core curriculum and satisfies 
the science requirement. Concerning the issue of making 
engineering accessible, he said that the courses are relevant 
because they emphasize the work of individual innovators who 
made their work as simple as possible. This allows the 
innovators main ideas to be accessible and presented in easily 
grasped mathematical formulas. Dr. Billington noted that the 
stories of individual engineers and their work, such as Gustave 
Eiffel's Tower, can be coupled with scientific principles to 
make engineering accessible and understandable to all students.

4.1(u)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (The Role of Science 
                     in Making Effective Decisions)

                             June 10, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-60

Background

    On June 10, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task 
Force conducted the final in a series of seven hearings 
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to 
examine the role of science in helping to inform legal, 
legislative, and policy decisions that have significant 
scientific and technological components. Because the number of 
these types of difficult decisions will continue to increase 
significantly, it is vital that the Executive, Legislative, and 
Judicial branches of government develop effective techniques to 
identify, analyze, and resolve these important matters. Policy 
and legal decision makers will increasingly rely on the science 
and engineering establishment for assistance, requiring clear, 
effective communication between scientists and policymakers, 
regulators, judges and juries.
    This was the last of seven hearings held by the Committee 
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    Witnesses included: Dr. John Graham, Founding Director, 
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Dr. Roger McClellan, 
President and CEO, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology; 
Dr. Mark Frankel, Director, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility, 
and Law Program, American Association for the Advancement of 
Science (AAAS); Dr. Dennis Barnes, President, Southeastern 
Universities Research Association.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Graham began his testimony by stating that, ``the 
science of risk analysis can help regulatory organizations make 
better decisions.'' Using mandated automobile airbags as a case 
study, Dr. Graham said that better use of science in the 
regulatory process could have resulted in airbag design and 
policies that are less risky and more effective than current 
design and policies. He noted that estimates of the number of 
lives saved through use of airbags has dropped substantially 
for three reasons: (1) Airbags can be dangerous to small 
passengers, which was suggested by automobile industry 
researchers in the 1970s, whose analyses were not taken 
seriously by Federal authorities. (2) The ability of airbags to 
protect unbelted adults were overly optimistic. (3) The 
consequences of the airbag safety for the safety of women, the 
elderly, and short drivers are not known. Dr. Graham said that 
the lesson from this experience is that regulators should tell 
the public about the risks as well as the benefits of this type 
of regulation. The government's decision mandating airbags was, 
he said, an adversarial one, with lawyers and politicians 
exerting as much influence as scientists and engineers. He 
added that technical experts in government and industry did not 
trust each other. The general lessons of the airbag case study 
were twofold: (1) Government and industry need to support an 
academic research community with expertise in automobile 
safety, risk analysis, and injury prevention. (Such an 
independent source of knowledge was not available to help 
resolve some of the issues surrounding airbags.) (2) 
Legislation is needed requiring regulators to analyze not only 
the benefits of their regulatory proposals, but also their 
risks, called substitution risks.
    Dr. McClellan's testimony focused on environmental, 
occupational, and health issues. He noted the huge costs 
involved in regulation and said that the impact of errors can 
be great. Good decisions to protect the environment and human 
health require sound scientific information, and the 
development of this information requires time, planning, and 
resources to conduct targeted research. He suggested that the 
development of improved scientific information can be 
facilitated by four paradigms. (1) The use of a risk paradigm, 
that includes risk research, assessment, and management should 
be part of any research program. He also noted the importance 
of risk assessment in setting or altering the research agenda, 
as well as the risk communication element. (2) Potential 
sources of toxicants need to be linked with human health 
responses of concern, recognizing the complex nature of the 
issues involved and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach. 
(3) Information obtained at different levels of biological 
organization-from the molecular level to cells, tissues, etc.-
needs to be integrated. (4) Government, academia, and industry 
need to coordinate the planning and conduct of research needed 
to improve the information base of decision-makers. 
International efforts in this area also should be considered. 
Dr. McClellan testified that he believes adopting these four 
paradigms would improve the scientific basis for regulatory 
decisions.
    Dr. Frankel testified on the use of science in the courts. 
He began by citing a speech by Associate Supreme Court Justice 
Stephen Breyer, who observed that the law increasingly requires 
access to sound science because society is becoming more 
dependent for its well being on complex technology. In the face 
of this, questions have been raised about the ability of judges 
or juries to make reasoned decisions. The primary method of 
getting technical information to judges and juries today is 
through the use of expert witnesses, who are almost always 
hired by one party to the suit or the other. The issue for 
judges and juries is whether the parties' experts are really 
experts or scientific guns-for-hire. Rather than trying to 
clarify technical matters, what often occurs is that the 
experts are pitted against one another with the aim of 
destroying the credibility of the opponent. In the ``Daubert v. 
Merrill'' decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Federal trial 
judges have the responsibility to determine whether the 
reasoning or methodology underlying scientific testimony is 
valid and will assist the trier of fact. Subsequently, the 
``General Electric v. Joiner'' decision held that methodology 
and conclusions may be considered as linked; if an expert's 
conclusions are not supported by valid reasoning, they may be 
excluded. Since the 1970's, courts have had the option to call 
on scientific experts but have not done so consistently. 
Recognizing the need for expert advice in the courtroom, AAAS 
and the American Bar Association have proposed a joint 
demonstration project that would identify highly-competent, 
impartial experts to advise the courts on science and technical 
issues.
    Dr. Barnes testified on the potentially chilling effect of 
scientific research on recent civil claims against researchers 
and their universities, often for research that was conducted 
decades ago. Dr. Barnes stressed that he was not referring to 
research conducted in relation to the manufacture of a product, 
but research that has been conducted by university scientists 
to increase the public pool of knowledge that has been subject 
to peer review and open publication. Two recent cases, one 
involving Carnegie-Mellon University and Syracuse University, 
were discussed. Both of these cases were dismissed and the 
importance of free inquiry recognized, but Dr. Barnes also 
noted the issue is not settled and other cases are bound to 
arise. Dr. Barnes concluded by urging the Congress to provide a 
legal remedy so that researchers will not have to divert time 
and resources to defending themselves.

 4.1(v)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (``Houston, We Have a 
  Problem:'' The Administration's Plan to Fix the International Space 
                                Station)

                             June 24, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-79

Background

    On June 24, 1998, the Committee on Science held the third 
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space 
Station, Parts I-V.'' This hearing was held as a follow-up to 
the Committee's May 6 hearing on the International Space 
Station (ISS) in order to receive NASA's responses to and 
analysis of the NASA Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and 
Validation (CAV) Task Force on the International Space Station 
and to review a report by the General Accounting Office on the 
International Space Station's total cost.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator; 
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, CAV Task Force; Mr. Allen Li, 
Associate Director, U.S. of the General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    The NASA Administrator, Mr. Daniel Goldin, essentially 
confirmed that NASA agreed with the bulk of the NASA Advisory 
Council's Cost Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force's 
findings about the International Space Station, i.e., continued 
Russian non-performance is the single biggest cost-threat to 
ISS; the program has been underfunded; and its development 
costs are climbing to roughly $24.7 billion from NASA's initial 
$17.4 billion estimate. He testified, however, that the Fiscal 
Year 1999 budget request was sufficient to achieve acceptable 
risk levels. He also noted that a delay in the assembly 
sequence announced since the May 6 hearing largely addressed 
the near-term risks identified by the CAV Task Force in April. 
Mr. Goldin further testified that the Russian Space Agency had 
made ISS its top priority and that the Service Module had been 
shipped from Khrunichev to Energia for completion and checkout. 
However, Mr. Goldin noted that the 1998 Russian Space Agency 
budget was inadequate to meet Russia's ISS core contributions. 
(It should be noted that RSA's ``core contributions'' are a 
subset of the total contributions that Russia was to make to 
the ISS program.) While confirming that the CAV report was 
largely on target, the NASA Administrator concluded by stating 
that any additional funds required for ISS would be provided 
from within NASA's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request, requiring 
cuts to other programs, and that the Administration would 
consider implementation of the CAV Task Force's long-term 
recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget process. Mr. Jay 
Chabrow, Chairman of the CAV Task Force, welcomed NASA's 
acceptance of his group's findings, but stated several concerns 
based on NASA's actions in response to the problems. First, he 
noted that NASA was failing to take proactive action to deal 
with the known problems in Russia and that it was ``hard to 
understand why NASA and the Administration are not identifying 
the immediate steps they will take to protect the U.S. 
investment.'' Second, Mr. Chabrow stated a concern that NASA 
had not yet identified annual funding profiles to accommodate 
any of the cost growth it now accepted would occur. Third, Mr. 
Chabrow stated that NASA continued to take an optimistic 
position relative to completion of the assembly sequence and 
that ``the level of funding profile NASA is projecting in 1999 
does nothing to convince us that anything is being done 
differently.'' Mr. Chabrow re-stated the CAV Task Force 
findings that NASA's budget request was inadequate to cover 
currently estimated future costs for ISS.
    Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director of the General Accounting 
Office, testified that the total ISS costs had risen from $93.9 
billion to $95.6 billion, figures which include associated 
Shuttle launch costs, operating costs, the science program, and 
NASA overhead. Mr. Li indicated that the bulk of the cost 
growth had occurred within the ISS development budget, which is 
consistent with the general scope of the CAV Task Force's 
findings. Mr. Li further testified that costs would increase if 
the assembly completion date slipped beyond 2003 (which the CAV 
Task Force expected) and that the program was likely to require 
more Shuttle flights than were contained in the current 
baseline. GAO estimated that each month's delay in the assembly 
sequence cost an additional $100 million. Mr. Li further noted 
that GAO continued to have a concern that the ISS program 
reserves were inadequate to address known risks. Mr. Li 
concluded by noting that several factors were not counted in 
its estimate of ISS total costs, including: potential debris 
tracking and the impact of a recently announced delay in the 
assembly sequence.

                4.1(w)--China: Dual-Use Space Technology

                             June 25, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-81

Background

    On June 25, 1998, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``China: Dual-Use Space Technology.'' The purpose of 
the hearing was to (1) discuss the significance of information 
that may have been transferred by Loral and Hughes to the 
People's Republic of China; (2) examine the implications of an 
improved Long March on U.S. national security, U.S. launch 
industry competitiveness, and the U.S. industrial base; and (3) 
review components of space-related agreements that the 
Administration has been negotiating with the People's Republic 
of China. Actions by Loral and Hughes were the catalyst for the 
controversy surrounding potential missile technology transfer 
to China. The 1996 participation of Loral and Hughes in a 
launch failure investigation resulted in the May 1997 Pentagon 
Report and the investigation by the Justice Department. Due to 
the Justice Department investigation, the February 1998 waiver 
by President Clinton for export of a Loral-built satellite for 
launch in China also became part of the controversy. Several 
Congressional hearings focused on the export control process, 
including the differences between the Bush Administration and 
the Clinton Administration. The primary purpose of the Science 
Committee hearing was to examine the issue from the standpoint 
of the U.S. launch industry.
    China's Great Wall Industry Corporation has been China's 
space launch company since 1986. It is a state-owned 
corporation and belongs to China Aerospace Corporation which 
oversees China's space and missile research and development 
establishment. China Aerospace Corporation develops strategic 
and tactical ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, 
surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, and military and 
civilian satellites. China reportedly launched its first 
satellite on April 24, 1970. By May 31, 1998, China had 
conducted 60 launches, eight of which were complete failures 
and four placed satellites into incorrect orbits. On April 7, 
1990, China Great Wall Industry Corporation launched its first 
commercial foreign satellite, Asiasat 1. The entry of China, 
Russia, and Ukraine into the commercial launch market has 
confronted U.S. launch providers with non-market economy 
competitors who are able to undercut U.S. launch bids 
significantly even under the terms of existing launch service 
trade agreements. The United States currently has launch trade 
agreements with all three countries. The purpose of the 
agreements is to manage the international market for launch 
services and reduce the impact of low prices charged by non-
market economies on U.S. launch providers. Two of the 
conditions included in the 1989 agreement were that China would 
seek to launch no more than nine international satellites 
between 1989 and 1994, and that it would charge prices ``on a 
par'' with other launch service providers. The six-year 
agreement signed in 1989 expired at the end of 1994. A new 
seven-year agreement was signed on March 13, 1995, allowing 
China up to 11 new launches for international customers to 
geostationary orbit. Existing contracts for four launches under 
the 1989 agreement were incorporated into the agreement, thus a 
total of 15 launches are allowable in the 1995-2001 timeframe. 
The 1995 agreement stipulated that China was to charge no less 
than 15% below what Western companies charge or a U.S. review 
of the price would be triggered.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Gary Milhollin, Director, Wisconsin 
Project on Nuclear Arms Control; Mr. Oren Phillips, Vice 
President Business Development, Thiokol Propulsion; Mr. John 
Pike, Director of Space Policy, Federation of American 
Scientists; Mr. Leon McKinney, President, McKinney Associates; 
and Mr. Paul Ross, Group Vice President of Space and Strategic 
Systems, Alliant Techsystems.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on 
Nuclear Arms Control, testified about the origin of India's 
largest nuclear-capable missile, the ``Agni.'' He stated that 
India learned how to build the first stage from the United 
States, and how to build the second stage from France and 
Russia. The U.S. and French help was supposed to be for 
peaceful space exploration, but it wound up helping India's 
missile program. Mr. Milhollin testified that the first rockets 
in both India and Pakistan were launched by NASA under a policy 
of peaceful space cooperation. But the result of the 
cooperation has been long-range missiles tipped with nuclear 
warheads. He also testified about the Administration's 
invitation for China to join the Missile Technology Control 
Regime (MTCR) and the consequences if China joins.
    Mr. Oren Phillips, Vice President Business Development for 
Thiokol Propulsion, testified about Thiokol's business of 
designing, developing, and producing solid rocket motors for 
various military, civil, and commercial applications. He noted 
that with the opening of the U.S. commercial satellite market 
to foreign launch vehicles, the U.S. launch industry is facing 
unprecedented price competition from the non-market economies 
of Russia, China, and Ukraine. These countries have current 
labor costs at one-tenth of those in the U.S. Thus, there is no 
way for the U.S. to compete directly, regardless of the 
advanced state of American technology or the efficiency of the 
production processes.
    Mr. Phillips testified that the impact of these space-
launching, non-market economies on the U.S. defense capability 
and industrial base are being ignored. The same technologies, 
facilities, people and products support both the strategic 
defense and commercial space business. He noted that at the 
same time as the U.S. defense capability is deteriorating, 
launches of U.S. commercial satellites on launch vehicles of 
former adversaries greatly subsidizes their military. He 
testified that exports of satellites for launch in non-market 
countries may not necessarily involve technology transfer, but 
it does harm U.S. interests because with each launch the non-
market country becomes a little smarter, a little more capable, 
a little more reliable, and ultimately more competitive.
    Mr. John Pike, Director of Space Policy, Federation of 
American Scientists, testified that American companies dominate 
the commercial communications satellite industry globally and 
thus the American launch vehicle industry has perhaps a less 
compelling claim on the attention of decision-makers. He noted 
that spacecraft (i.e. satellites) continue to be a design-
intensive high-technology sector whereas the launch vehicle 
industry is characterized by ``routine metal-bashing'' that 
would tend to migrate towards lower-wage areas such as China 
just as other sectors like textiles and footwear have migrated. 
He noted that the nature and volume of technical data alleged 
to have been transferred by American companies is surely 
trivial compared to the extensive Soviet aid that facilitated 
Chinese efforts in launch vehicles. Mr. Pike testified that 
there is no indication that U.S. technical information related 
to ICBM's has been transferred to China. In conclusion, he 
discussed the opportunities presented by closer cooperation 
with China's space program, including China becoming a partner 
in the International Space Station and a critical player in the 
effort to extend human presence to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
    Mr. Leon McKinney, President, McKinney Associates, 
testified about there being virtually no difference between a 
launch vehicle and a missile. Thus, if improvements have been 
made to launch vehicle guidance technology, simultaneous 
improvements have been made to missile guidance technology. He 
noted that very small improvements in boost trajectory accuracy 
result in big gains in targeting accuracy. Mr. McKinney 
discussed the risks of technology transfer through technical 
discourse. It would have been of immense help to Chinese 
engineers to have American engineers with knowledge about 
similar launch vehicle failures, make suggestions or ask 
particular questions about specific subsystems. He also 
discussed the potential earth science agreement between the 
U.S. and China, noting that detailed models of atmospheric 
winds or the earth's geodetics would definitely improve the 
accuracy of China's launch vehicles and missiles.
    Mr. Paul Ross, Group Vice President of Space and Strategic 
Systems, Alliant Techsystems, testified that the company's 
production lines are increasingly used for commercial space 
launch boosters instead of missiles. The Federal Government 
benefits from solid rocket motor manufacturers and their lower 
tier suppliers being so heavily involved in the commercial 
market because it helps to maintain a vital capability that 
would otherwise be much more expensive to support. Mr. Ross 
noted that the Chinese launch vehicle industry has demonstrated 
a willingness to substantially undercut the U.S. domestic 
launch vehicle industry through its pricing of satellite 
launches. He has not seen or heard of a scenario where the U.S. 
space launch industry, using domestically produced launch 
vehicles, is not able to satisfy the launch manifest for the 
U.S. satellite manufacturers. Mr. Ross testified that a loss of 
satellite launch business to foreign competition diminishes 
companies that support the U.S. strategic deterrent, while at 
the same time subsidizing the development of a foreign 
capability.

    4.1(x)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (The White House 
     Perspective on the International Space Station's Problems and 
                               Solutions)

                             August 5, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-79

Background

    On August 5, 1998, the Committee on Science held the fourth 
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space 
Station, Parts I-V.'' The hearing was announced as a follow-up 
to the June 24 hearing and to receive the testimony from the 
White House Office of Management and Budget and Office of 
Science and Technology Policy, which both White House offices 
had committed to deliver at some point in lieu of their 
appearance before the Committee on June 24. At the conclusion 
of the June 24 hearing on the International Space Station, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Minority Member Brown sent 
the President a letter asking him to direct the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan for implementing 
the recommendations of the NASA Advisory Council's Cost 
Assessment and Validation Task Force and for OMB to deliver 
that plan to Congress in 30 days so that it could be assessed 
and implemented in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget cycle.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jacob Lew, Director, White House 
Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate 
Director for Technology, White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy; Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Jacob Lew, Director of the White House Office of 
Management and Budget, testified that the Administration had 
increased ISS funding $250 million over the $17.4 billion 
baseline during Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 by cutting other 
NASA programs and that in the Fiscal Year 1999 request, the 
White House increased the ISS budget another $1.2 billion for 
the period FY1999-2003 by cutting NASA's other programs. As an 
initial step to deal with some of the problems caused by 
Russian non-performance on the ISS program, the White House had 
adopted NASA's recommendation to fund the Interim Control 
Module and approved on August 4, 1998, NASA's request to submit 
a reprogramming request to Congress in order to begin modifying 
the Space Shuttle fleet to perform some of the ISS reboost 
functions originally to be provided by the Russian Progress 
vehicles. Nevertheless, Mr. Lew testified that the White House 
thought it was premature to take steps to remove Russia from 
the ISS critical path. In the meantime, he stated that the 
White House believed the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request was 
adequate to meet NASA's ISS obligations in Fiscal Year 1999 and 
that any additional funds required by the ISS program would 
come from within NASA's total budget and would be made 
available by cutting other NASA programs.
    Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate Director for Technology in the 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, testified 
that NASA concurred with the findings of the CAV Task Force and 
that the Administration had developed and implemented specific 
measures to deal with continuing Russian problems in the ISS 
program. Dr. Moore testified that NASA's plan contained four 
elements. First, NASA was pressing Russia to launch the Service 
Module ``on-time'' in April 1999 and to deorbit Mir safely. 
(The Service Module was originally scheduled to be launched in 
April 1998. As of November 1998, the Service Module is 
scheduled for launch in July 1999, but NASA has indicated it 
may not be launched until the fall of 1999.) Second, the 
Administration wanted to begin modifying the Space Shuttle in 
order to enable it to perform some of the reboost functions 
that Russia committed to provide, but appeared unlikely to 
provide. Third, the Administration wanted to explore using 
additional Russian Soyuz vehicles for assured crew return to 
fill the gap between the time when ISS is expected to be 
capable of sustaining 6 crew and the time when NASA expects its 
own operational crew return vehicle to be available. Finally, 
the Administration sought to address the lack of aggressive 
Multi-Element Integrated Testing (MEIT) throughout the program 
by taking undetermined corrective measures. Finally, Dr. Moore 
confirmed that the Administration would seek to meet any ISS 
requirements for additional funds from within NASA's budget by 
cutting other NASA programs.
    Mr. Daniel Goldin, the NASA Administrator, testified that 
the Russian Space Agency had a requirement for $340 million in 
1998 just to meet its ISS obligations, but the Russian 
government had budgeted only $160 million, and RSA had received 
only $20 million. He conceded that this situation put the April 
1999 launch date of the Service Module at some risk. Mr. Goldin 
further noted that RSA could not sustain both the Mir space 
station and ISS in orbit at the same time and that Russia had 
an obligation to safely deorbit Mir at some time. Mr. Goldin 
continued by noting that NASA had developed and started 
implementation of a contingency plan to enable ISS development 
to continue in the face of continued Russian funding problems. 
That plan's initial step was to consult with the Russians 
regarding mechanisms for improving RSA's funding situation. 
According to Mr. Goldin, the second element of the plan was to 
develop capabilities necessary to provide backup for Russia's 
contributions, including taking the step of requesting 
Congressional concurrence the day of the hearing to reprogram 
funds in order to modify the Shuttle fleet and enable it to 
conduct some of the Russian reboost functions. Mr. Goldin also 
noted that the U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) effort was 
proceeding at pace with a successful flight test of the X-38 
technology demonstrator in March and a scheduled re-flight in 
October. Nevertheless, he confirmed that a U.S.-developed CRV 
would not be ready until 2003 at the earliest and that NASA was 
considering the use of Russian Soyuz vehicles to enable the 
Station to sustain a 6-person crew before the U.S. CRV was 
developed. Mr. Goldin concluded by noting that delays in the 
ISS assembly sequence had led NASA to rephase the purchase of 
spare parts for ISS by pushing the process out in time.

  4.1(y)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (International Space 
      Station: The Administration's Proposed Bail-Out for Russia)

                            October 7, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-79

Background

    On October 7, 1998, the Committee on Science held the last 
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space 
Station, Parts I-V.'' On September 29, 1998, the NASA 
Administrator sent the Committee a request for Congressional 
support of NASA's decision to begin paying the Russian Space 
Agency (RSA) $60 million immediately, ostensibly in return for 
some of Russia's research time aboard the International Space 
Station (ISS), but in reality in order to provide the Russian 
Space Agency (RSA) with funding to continue work on the Service 
Module. Normally, Congress has 30 days to review such requests, 
but NASA asked the Committee to provide a response in a time 
frame that would enable NASA to begin making payments to Russia 
on October 9th. The Chairman promptly announced a hearing on 
the subject to review NASA's request and its implications. On 
September 29, witnesses were informed by phone of the 
Committee's intention to hold a hearing on October 7, 1998. 
Formal invitations followed on October 2, 1998.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator; 
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council's Cost 
Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force; Professor Judyth 
Twigg, Virginia Commonwealth University; Mr. James Oberg, an 
independent aerospace consultant.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, testified that a 
General Designer's Review (GDR) had taken place in Russia on 
September 28, 1998, to review the status of the International 
Space Station (ISS) in preparation for the scheduled first 
element launch on November 20, 1998. As a result of the GDR, 
the Service Module's scheduled April 1999 launch date had been 
delayed to ``no earlier than summer 1999.'' Mr. Goldin 
testified that this delay was the result of a lack of funding. 
He noted that NASA's approach to deal with Russian 
uncertainties was one of ``incrementally buying down risk.'' 
One example of NASA's approach was the decision to develop the 
Interim Control Module. Mr. Goldin testified that research was 
a key goal of the ISS program. In order to improve the 
program's research capabilities, Mr. Goldin announced that 
additional delays in the International Space Station's research 
capabilities would be compensated for by adding a new Shuttle 
mission to NASA's plans in 2000 to give researchers more access 
to space. He also noted that NASA signed a protocol with the 
Russian Space Agency to purchase Russian crew time at the 
September 1998 GDR. Additionally, Mr. Goldin testified that 
NASA would pay the Russian Space Agency $60 million for this 
research time and that RSA would use these funds to continue 
making progress on the Service Module. If additional funds 
proved necessary, the Administration would make such 
adjustments in the initial Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 1999 
and in the budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Goldin also 
noted that NASA was seeking to develop its own capabilities to 
reduce the impact of Russian failures to meet its obligations. 
These steps included modifying the Shuttle orbiters to enable 
them to perform some of the Russian reboost functions and 
completing the Interim Control Module. NASA has completed a 
technical definition study for an independent U.S. propulsion 
capability and is evaluating the near-term initiation of long-
lead procurements for this module. Mr. Goldin also expressed 
his hope that European development of the Ariane Transfer 
Vehicle or the Japanese Hope Transfer Vehicle would provide 
some options for replacing continued reliance on Russia for 
various propulsion functions. Mr. Goldin also noted that the 
Russian financial situation had not improved, yet all of the 
ISS partner countries supported a decision to continue with the 
existing launch schedule. Mr. Goldin concluded by noting that 
resource issues would be dealt with in the initial Operating 
Plan submission to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999 and the Fiscal 
Year 2000 budget request.
    Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council's 
Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, testified that 
nothing had happened in Russia to improve the Russian financial 
situation with regard to the International Space Station. He 
also testified that Russian space capabilities continued to be 
critical to the International Space Station and that NASA 
remained dependent on Russia for propulsion, command and 
control, crew habitability, and crew return. Russia's failure 
to provide these capabilities will increase ISS costs. Mr. 
Chabrow testified that in the near term, finding a mechanism to 
enable Russia to successfully make its near-term contributions 
would be less expensive than proceeding with the International 
Space Station as planned without the Russian contributions. 
With that in mind, Mr. Chabrow stated that he supported NASA's 
near-term decision to provide RSA with $60 million in order to 
continue working on the Service Module. He did, however, 
express concern that NASA was not taking the steps recommended 
by the CAV Task Force to eliminate long-term dependence on 
Russia by beginning the procurement of long-lead items for a 
U.S. propulsion module. Mr. Chabrow stated, ``Each month that 
passes by without developing the capabilities necessary to 
achieve U.S. independence, puts the program at further risk for 
additional cost growth.''
    Dr. Judyth Twigg, Assistant Professor at the Virginia 
Commonwealth University, testified that the Russian aerospace 
industry is in a state of collapse and that additional funding 
for the Russian aerospace industry was necessary to improve its 
health, but that funding alone was not sufficient to solve the 
problems that the Russian aerospace industry was experiencing. 
She noted several factors contributing to the collapse of the 
Russian aerospace industry, including: (1) a flight of 
experienced and knowledgeable personnel; (2) a general neglect 
of infrastructure; and (3) a lack of modernization potential 
due to personnel loss and the neglect of infrastructure. 
Professor Twygg also noted that the Russian space program did 
not appear to be a high priority for the Russian government or 
population. Consequently, Professor Twygg concluded that a lack 
of funding was not the sole cause of Russia's failures to meet 
its obligations. She then offered alternative explanations for 
Russia's continuing failures to meet its obligations to the ISS 
program. First, the possibility existed that the Russian 
government was purposely introducing problems into the ISS 
program to express dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy 
related to NATO expansion. Second, the possibility existed that 
Russian industrial and programmatic ``culture'' simply did not 
take deadlines and schedules, which NASA is accustomed to using 
as management tools, seriously. Third, the Russians might be 
missing deadlines because they felt that the relationship with 
NASA was not in their best interests. Finally, delays might 
also be explained by Russia's own internal budgetary politics 
as a result of changes in government personnel, notably the 
departure of Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. For the 
future, Dr. Twygg concluded that additional short-term funding 
for the Russian space program would not resolve the systemic 
problems that were contributing to Russia's inability to meet 
its obligations to the International Space Station. Instead, 
she noted, ``bailouts from the West may, in fact, serve only to 
prolong the agony before Russia is forced to face the real work 
of significant financial and industrial restructuring.''
    Mr. James Oberg, an independent aerospace consultant and 
author of several books and articles dealing with the Russian 
space program, testified that: (1) Russia's inability to 
fulfill its promises was not the result of any temporary 
conditions in Russia; (2) the ``wobbly'' assembly strategy for 
ISS was a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong 
with the program; (3) based on the recent history of Russian 
space missions, alarm bells should be ringing that the Service 
Module will be reliable once delivered; (4) NASA overestimates 
the effectiveness of cash infusions on the Russian space 
program, in part due to ``deliberate blindness'' towards 
evidence of corruption within the Russian aerospace industry; 
(5) recent Russian attempts to extend the lifetime of Mir would 
violate agreements between RSA and NASA and shatter RSA's 
ability to support the International Space Station; (6) every 
promised benefit from bringing Russia into the program has 
collapsed; and (7) the rush to launch the first ISS element in 
six weeks was an attempt to prevent proper independent 
assessment of the situation.

   4.1(z)--Road from Kyoto, Part IV: Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S. 
   Energy Markets and Economic Activity (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)

                            October 9, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-76

Background

    On October 9, 1998, the Committee on Science held the last 
in a series of four separately published hearings entitled, 
``Road from Kyoto, Part IV: The Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S. 
Energy Markets and Economic Activity'' to examine the outcome 
and implications of the climate change negotiations concluded 
at the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto, 
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted 
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net 
greenhouse (GHG) emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels. In 
particular, this hearing examined the Protocol's impacts on 
U.S. energy markets and economic activity.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Jay E. Hakes, 
Administrator, Energy Information Administration, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Dr. W. David Montgomery, Vice President, 
Charles River Associates, Inc.; and Howard Geller, Executive 
Director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hakes presented an analysis by the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) that showed that the Kyoto Protocol would 
likely have significant negative impacts on U.S. energy use, 
prices and the economy in the 2008-2012 time frame. Dr. 
Montgomery compared the EIA study, an earlier analysis by the 
Administration, and a report by Charles River Associates on the 
impacts of the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Geller testified that the 
EIA's new study was seriously flawed and that promoting greater 
energy efficiency and support for innovative energy 
technologies could reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

                  4.2--subcommittee on basic research

4.2(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation's Fiscal 
                    Year 1998 Authorization, Part I)

                             March 5, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-10

Background

    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the first in a series of three hearings, entitled, Fiscal Year 
1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science Foundation 
(NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the 
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF is a key supporter of 
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 
throughout the United States. NSF provides approximately 25 
percent of basic research funding at universities and over 50 
percent of the federal funding for basic research in certain 
fields of science, including math, 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.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Richard Zare, Director, National 
Science Board, and Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science 
Foundation, accompanied by Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy 
Director, National Science Foundation.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Zare's testimony focused on the research and education 
activities supported by the NSF as well as the work of the 
National Science Board (NSB) in developing the NSF budget for 
FY 1998 and in achieving a better understanding of how federal 
agency research programs fit into the broader national picture 
of federal support for research. According to Dr. Zare, NSF's 
FY 1998 budget will fund thousands of research projects and 
efforts to improve the education in science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology. Dr. Zare highlighted a new NSF 
initiative, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), which 
seeks to improve the connection between research, teaching and 
learning technologies. He noted that the NSF's investments in 
the Next Generation Internet will be a part of the KDI package, 
but added that although NSF will have an important role in the 
development of the Next Generation Internet, NSF is looking 
beyond that project. Dr. Zare also indicated the NSB's 
intention to adopt revised criteria for proposal review, 
reducing the number of criteria from four to two, for NSF 
project selection. In addition, he announced that the revised 
plan has been open for public comment from the scientific 
community. The NSB, added Dr. Zare, will also be providing 
oversight of NSF as it develops methods and processes to comply 
with the Government Performance and Results Act. Dr. Zare 
pointed out that aside from the oversight of NSF, the NSB has a 
role in monitoring the health of science and engineering in the 
U.S. and in providing advise on national policy in research and 
education.
    Dr. Lane stated that the $3.367 billion budget request for 
the NSF in FY 1998 allows for investment in more than 19,000 
science and engineering research and education projects and 
emphasized the budget's compliance with the NSF Strategic Plan. 
He emphasized the NSF's efforts to develop performance 
measurements so that the next budget submission complies with 
the Results Act. Dr. Lane indicated that numerous innovations, 
from biotechnology to high-speed computational and 
communications technologies, have roots in the fundamental 
research and education supported through the NSF and other 
agencies and are the key to productivity in a wide array of 
industries and sectors. In addition, Dr. Lane pointed out that 
the NSF's role in support of university-based research and 
education, a vital link to the competitive position of U.S. 
industry, is among the most productive of all public 
investments. Responding to concerns over the recompetition and 
planned reduction in the number of the NSF's supercomputing 
centers, Dr. Lane indicated the NSF's goal for a seamless 
transition for high-end users under the new plan and stated 
that detailed information on the impact of the down-selection 
would be available later. Dr. Lane highlighted priorities in 
the FY 1998 request, including: a focused, multidisciplinary 
$58 million program of activities in support of KDI research, 
infrastructure development, and education; continued 
development of the program for the study of life in extreme 
environments; and support of innovative, systematic approaches 
to education and training at all levels to address the 
challenges of the changing scientific landscape facing students 
of the 21st century. Further, Dr. Lane indicated the NSF's 
understanding of the need for investment in research facilities 
to support the activities of researchers and educators. 
Addressing concerns of cost-overruns in the construction of new 
NSF-funded facilities, Dr. Lane informed the Subcommittee that 
the NSF is not only aware of the problem, but is actively 
designing a plan to minimize cost-overruns.

4.2(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation's Fiscal 
   Year 1998 Authorization (Part II): Math, Science, and Engineering 
                          Education Programs)

                             March 13, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-10

Background

    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``Fiscal 
Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the 
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). Witnesses were asked to 
assess the NSF's science, math, and engineering education 
programs. In addition to examining the budget requests for 
these programs, witnesses were also asked to address the 
impacts and expectations of the initiatives.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Richard P. Mills, Commissioner of 
Education, New York State Department of Education, and 
President of the University of the State of New York; Dr. 
Edward A. Friedman, Director, Center for Improvement of 
Engineering and Science Education, Stevens Institute of 
Technology; Dr. Nathan S. Lewis, Professor of Chemistry and 
Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology; and 
Dr. Alfredo de los Santos, Jr., Vice Chancellor for Student and 
Educational Development, Maricopa County Colleges.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Mills emphasized the importance of NSF education 
initiatives, not only as a source of revenue, but also as a 
strategic resource to improve the achievement level of New York 
State's students. According to Mr. Mills, as result of NSF's 
urging and the State's own needs, The New York State Systematic 
Initiative (NYSSI), from its inception in 1993, has evolved 
from an attempt to improve math, science, and technology 
education in New York's challenging urban schools to become the 
focus of the statewide effort to implement new learning 
standards in math, science, and technology. He explained that 
SSI is a philosophy of changes that help teachers develop 
habits of planning and teaching that guide students to a deeper 
understanding of concepts and an application of knowledge. Mr. 
Mills pointed out that the NSF's $10 million investment has 
been the driving force to bringing together the capacity to 
meet these higher standards. He added that NSF has brought 
vision and discipline to elementary and secondary education, an 
insistence upon results, and a systematic approach that allows 
students to engage in inquiry-based learning. However, Mr. 
Mills indicated that in addition to NSF's contribution to the 
establishment of higher standards, the curriculum, the teacher 
training, and the links with higher education are factors 
necessary for achieving better results in the education of the 
nation's children.
    Dr. Friedman expressed frustration that school systems 
currently lag behind industry and higher education in 
integrating information technology into the educational 
process. He also indicated his concern that some schools are in 
danger of moving ahead with hardware without the capability to 
implement the technology into classroom learning. According to 
Dr. Friedman, NSF should play a leadership role in transforming 
schools into technological front runners by developing an 
effective strategy and incorporating the technology into the 
mainstream of NSF's various educational programs. He stressed a 
need for the participation of practicing scientists in NSF 
education programs as well as support for multidisciplinary 
team efforts. As these programs develop, Dr. Friedman 
emphasized that they will need mechanisms to facilitate timely, 
wide-scale dissemination requiring coordination with 
publishers, educational television producers, and state 
departments of education. In addition, he indicated the 
advantage of regional centers where teachers and school systems 
can receive guidance and support for the integration of 
technology. Dr. Friedman suggested NSF engage in the 
implementation of an infrastructure that makes use of distance 
learning technologies with on-site support from such regional 
resource centers. He emphasized these training centers should 
be pursued in parallel with curriculum development, teacher 
enhancement, evaluation, and other programs which NSF supports. 
Mr. Friedman added that although teachers and students in some 
foreign countries, like Bulgaria, have superior training and 
education in math and science, the U.S. leads the world in the 
use of technology in the classroom. According to Mr. Friedman, 
the U.S. has a real opportunity to expand its effectiveness in 
math and science education by capitalizing on this resource.
    Dr. Lewis commended NSF for allowing Caltech to establish a 
national model for a coordinated, institution-wide effort to 
incorporate multimedia materials into the routine course 
experiences of the science and engineering student. His 
testimony focused on the new NSF-supported Teaching and 
InterDisciplinary Education program (TIDE) at Caltech which was 
designed to foster institute-wide development of multi-media 
educational tools involving the combined teaching skills and 
technical backgrounds of undergraduate students and Caltech 
faculty. Although the program was primarily designed to enhance 
the educational experience of Caltech students, according to 
Dr. Lewis, the project is now involved in expanding the effort 
to make the new media and technology widely available for many 
science and technology disciplines in order to educate the 
broadest cross section of students at different educational 
levels. Dr. Lewis cited the Caltech Chemistry Animation 
Project, one example of an effective teaching resource 
developed at Caltech, which is used in six countries by over 
half a million students to help teach chemistry to students and 
teachers. In addition to its support of education programs at 
Caltech, Dr. Lewis commended NSF for not putting all of its 
eggs into one basket and allowing for experimental technology 
integration programs at all educational levels. He added that 
networking among teachers is the highest leverage that the U.S. 
has to improve its entire educational system and advocated a 
teacher training center at which educators from the K-12 and 
community college level can share experimental ideas and 
results.
    Dr. de los Santos noted that increasingly, as adults must 
return to school to obtain new skills and upgrade old ones, the 
task of providing that education falls upon undergraduate 
institutions, especially community colleges. He explained that 
NSF, through their Division of Undergraduate Education, 
supports institutes, laboratories, and curriculum development 
projects that are having a substantial effect on the ability of 
community colleges to provide the high level of education and 
training necessary for a technology-based society. According to 
Dr. de los Santos, one of Division's programs, the Advanced 
Technology Education (ATE) program, is a unique partnership 
designed for associate degree-granting institutions to promote 
improvement in advanced technological education through the 
support of curriculum development and program improvement, and 
by targeting technicians being educated for employment that 
requires the use of advanced technologies. He explained that 
the ATE program's success can be measured in several ways: It 
produces new ways to train and educate the workforce; it brings 
business and education together in new and productive ways; 
and, it stimulates innovation among those competing for the 
grants. Dr. de los Santos added that ATE's greatest strength is 
the very close partnerships between industry and educational 
institutions it fosters, and he indicated that companies such 
as Motorola and Intel are contributing equipment, software and 
scholarships. He praised NSF for fostering a fundamental change 
in the relationships between community colleges and business 
and industry.

   4.2(c)--Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of the United States Fire 
                         Administration (USFA)

                             March 18, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-14

Background

    On March 18, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``The Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of the 
United States Fire Administration (USFA),'' to receive 
testimony on the Administration's FY 1998 budget request for 
the programs of the USFA and the National Fire Academy (NFA). 
In addition, the Subcommittee questioned witnesses about the 
effects of the repeal of the reporting requirements in the 
Hotel-Motel Fire Safety Act (P.L. 101-391) that occurred in the 
FY 1997 Department of Defense authorization (P.L. 104-206).
    In 1974, Congress created the USFA and the Fire Academy in 
response to the dismal assessment of the nation's fire problem 
presented in a report by the President's National Commission on 
Fire Prevention and Control, entitled ``America Burning.'' The 
USFA, which is housed in the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) building, is currently charged with helping to 
prevent and control fire-related losses. The USFA also 
administers the National Fire Academy which provides 
management-level training and education to fire and emergency 
service personnel in fire protection and control activities. 
The Fire Academy, located in Emmitsburg, MD, trains tens of 
thousands of fire and emergency personnel a year through its 
on- and off-campus programs.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Carrye Brown, 
Administrator, United States Fire Administration (USFA), 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Mr. Steve Robinson, 
Executive Director, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation; 
Mr. Tracy Boatwright, State Fire Marshal of Indiana, and 
Chairman, National Association of State Fire Marshals; and, Mr. 
Kenneth Newton, Director, National Volunteer Fire Council, 
Fireman's Association of New York.

Summary of hearing

    Administrator Brown stated the USFA's mission is to reduce 
the nation's loss of life and property due to fire by focusing 
on data collection and analysis, public education and 
awareness, technology and research, and fire service training. 
She commended Members of the Subcommittee for their continued 
support of the most visible program of the USFA: the state-of-
the-art leadership and management training at the National Fire 
Academy in Emmitsburg, MD. Administrator Brown stated that 
83,000 members of the fire and emergency communities received 
training by the National Fire Academy through all of its 
programs in 1996, and announced the USFA's goal to triple the 
number of trained firefighters within five years through the 
use of distance education programs. According to Mrs. Brown, 
self-study courses on CD ROM, interactive Internet, satellite 
transmitting courses, and other technologies will be utilized 
by the Fire Academy, in partnership with state and local 
training academies, to allow greater flexibility in when, where 
and how firefighters can receive training. Administrator 
Browner added that the USFA-sponsored a counter-terrorism 
training needs assessment symposium featuring a panel of 
domestic and international terrorism experts who developed a 
plan for training courses aimed to prepare personnel to 
mitigate and respond to the consequences of terrorism. In 
addition, she announced that the President's National Arson 
Prevention Initiative, headed by FEMA Director James Lee Witt, 
will be merged into the USFA's program to provide public 
education and promote public-private partnerships.
    Administrator Brown addressed the impact of the changes to 
the Hotel/Motel Fire Safety Act and assured the Subcommittee 
that while the USFA will continue to collect and publish the 
master list of hotels that comply with the 1992 Act, the Fire 
Administration will also work in partnership with stakeholders 
to improve the Act's implementation or augment the compliance 
section of the Act.
    In response to questions on the implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act, Ms. Brown stated that 
the mission of the USFA is very much performance-based and 
reported that results from the agency's self-assessment have 
been translated into priorities for the next two years: 
mitigation and prevention programs; stronger partnerships with 
the private and public sector; and, marketing prevention and 
mitigation efforts to individuals, communities and businesses.
    Mr. Robinson discussed the National Fallen Firefighters 
Foundation's efforts to follow the priorities set forth by 
Congress in 1992, including sponsorship of the annual National 
Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, Maryland; 
necessary expansion of the memorial site; promotion of state 
and local efforts to recognize firefighters who die in the line 
of duty; support of families of firefighters so that they may 
attend the national tribute; and establishment of programs to 
assist families of fallen firefighters with a family support 
network and scholarships for education and job training. He 
reported that through private donations, the Foundation has 
paid for a substantial amount of the costs associated with the 
annual memorial service in Emmitsburg, Maryland. In addition, 
Mr. Robinson announced that the Foundation will soon assume 
responsibility for the direction, planning, and management of 
the annual memorial service in cooperation with the U.S. Fire 
Administration. He also highlighted the Foundation's plans to 
work in partnership with government agencies and fire 
organizations to make information on federal, state, and local 
benefits available to all fire emergency service departments.
    Mr. Boatwright explained that the National Association of 
State Fire Marshals (NASFM) has established a partnership with 
the USFA at the state and local levels to assist firefighters 
and other emergency personnel in preparing to respond to fires 
as effectively, efficiently and safely as possible. Mr. 
Boatwright highlighted four important functions of the USFA: 
collecting and analyzing national data on fires to establish 
fire prevention and protection priorities; training by the 
National Fire Academy which provides key management and 
professional skills which are crucial supplements to local 
training academies of the NASFM; public fire safety education 
aimed at reaching populations most at risk; and technical 
guidance and support for innovative work in areas from arson 
prevention and investigation to data analysis and research into 
the causes of arson. He indicated that a critical part of the 
technical guidance and support from USFA is the fire research 
performed by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). 
However, Mr. Boatwright pointed out the NASFM's difficulty in 
working with NIST. He expressed concern that the NIST 
laboratory's priorities are targeted more toward serving 
industry than firefighters, leaving firefighter research needs 
unanswered. Mr. Boatwright recommended that the fire research 
facilities remain at NIST, but suggested that the USFA be given 
the authorization for those activities as well as the 
accountability for ensuring that the research agenda is 
responsive to the needs of the emergency responders entrusted 
to protect the lives and property of citizens.
    Mr. Newton stated that the National Volunteer Fire Council 
(NVFC) represents the interests of the nation's 800,000 
volunteer fire and emergency personnel who generally have full-
time professions in addition to donating their time and 
expertise for the safety of their communities. He pointed out 
that as more urban dwellers move to suburban and rural areas 
they will create an increased demand on the volunteer fire 
service. However, in spite of this trend, Mr. Newton reported 
that the ranks of volunteer fire service membership are 
dwindling at a rate of two to three percent each year. In order 
for the Nation's shrinking volunteer fire service to provide 
adequate protection for an increasing population, he indicated 
that programs of the USFA and the NFA have become increasingly 
important to provide education and training to fire and rescue 
personnel throughout the United States. According to Mr. 
Newton, the most visible and direct benefit that the USFA 
provides to the volunteer fire service is the hosting of the 
Volunteer Incentive Program at the Academy which compresses two 
weeks' worth of courses into an intense six-day session. In 
addition to the extensive training and educational programs, he 
stated that the USFA provides assistance to the NVFC in the 
form of cooperative agreements that provide the resources 
necessary to support local training and education programs. He 
commended the Academy's outreach program for allowing 
volunteers to remain in their communities for training without 
incurring travel expenses. Mr. Newton highlighted that as 
partners in the President's National Arson Prevention Program, 
the USFA and the NVFC conducted a workshop designed to give 
emergency responders the skills they need to combat arson in 
their communities.

4.2(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science 
 Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation Fiscal 
                Year (FY) 1998 Authorization, Part III)

                             April 9, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-10

Background

    On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the last in a series of three hearings entitled, Fiscal Year 
1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science Foundation 
(NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the National 
Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 1998 authorization. 
Witnesses testified on the results of the National Science 
Board's Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure 
(PACI) program as well as the new proposed facilities within 
the Major Research Equipment (MRE) Account of the NSF budget 
and the Internet II/Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Richard Zare, Chairman, National 
Science Foundation; Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science 
Foundation; Dr. Paul Young, Senior Advisor, Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering (CISE), National Science 
Foundation; and Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Member of the Executive 
Committee, National Science Board. Testimony on programs within 
the MRE Account and the Internet II/Next Generation Internet 
(NGI) initiative was received from Dr. Graham B. Spanier, 
President, Penn State University; Dr. Michael Kelley, 
Professor, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell 
University; and Dr. Paul A. Vanden Bout, Director, National 
Radio Astronomy Observatory.

Summary of hearing

            Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure 
                    (PACI) Program
    Dr. Zare announced the National Science Board's (NSB) 
approval for selection of two awardees for the PACI program and 
the phase out awards for two existing supercomputer centers. 
Dr. Zare emphasized that the rapidly shifting world of computer 
science and engineering has forced the Board to make difficult 
choices to curtail support for good projects and initiate 
support for others with promise to produce better results. 
According to Dr. Zare, this is why the NSB requested that the 
NSF develop a plan for supercomputing designed to take 
advantage of the newly distributed environment in information 
science and technology. He indicated that the new PACI program 
is made possible by breakthroughs in high-speed networking and 
advance computer architecture and is consistent with the 
Board's vision of the future in information science and 
technology. According to Dr. Zare, the program will keep the 
U.S. ahead in all fields of science and engineering while also 
pushing the technological advances that will fuel economic 
growth. Dr. Zare stated that the program will also allow 
students and scientists at all levels to enjoy a vast resource 
for education and training through the multitude of new 
participating PACI institutions. He emphasized that innovative 
partnerships, which increase the opportunities for more people 
to use these resources and push the frontiers of knowledge, are 
the core of the PACI program.
    Dr. Lane stated that NSF's PACI program goes well beyond 
the current paradigm of supercomputing centers and was 
carefully designed to build the infrastructure needed for both 
education and training of future generations of world leaders 
in science and technology. He stated that after ten years of 
the successful Supercomputer Centers Program, the NSB asked 
whether NSF should continue support for the current program or 
phase out the existing program to make room for a new one. To 
answer that question, Dr. Lane appointed the Hayes Task Force, 
comprised of high performance computing experts from academia, 
industry and government. It presented a vision of the future of 
supercomputing and proposed that NSF announce a new competition 
for a restructured High Performance Computing Centers program 
that would permit funding of selected sites for a period of 
five years. Dr. Lane stated the two major changes to the 
existing program recommended by the task force: (1) support of 
national ``leading-edge sites'' with a balanced set of high-end 
hardware and software capabilities, coupled with appropriate 
staff; and (2) partnering of each leading-edge site with 
experimental facilities at universities, NSE research centers, 
and/or national and regional high performance computing 
centers. According to Dr. Lane, the task force also urged that 
the new PACI program support the needs of the national 
computational science community through leading edge sites and 
their partners, rather than through independent basic research. 
He highlighted the report's recommendation that the 
computational capability of the leading edge centers should be 
one or two orders of magnitude beyond what is available at 
leading research universities. According to Dr. Lane, it was 
clear that a reduction in the number of sites would likely be 
necessary to achieve such economies of operation and to 
maintain the very high end capability.
    Dr. Young stated that the new PACI program is an important 
element in the Foundation's future infrastructure for the 
support of academic science and engineering, research and 
education. He announced that the selection of the National 
Computational Science Alliance (NCSA), led by the University of 
Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, and the National Partnership for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI), led by the 
University of California, San Diego, represents the formal 
beginning of the new PACI Program. Dr. Young indicated that the 
Hayes Task Force felt that two major technological factors 
called for a change in the structure of the Centers Program: 
the increasing dominance of scaleable parallel computers, with 
their promise of highly cost-effective computing power, and, 
the expected growth and ubiquity of high speed networks. 
According to Dr. Young, breakthrough technologies and 
intellectual challenges led the Task Force to recommend a new 
program based on extensive partnerships and on selection 
through a rigorous open competition for the best ideas and 
minds. He emphasized that the panel's decision was unanimous 
that two of the organizations had met the requirements in the 
program solicitation. The two successful proposals were highly 
complementary, forming together a balanced national program 
involving some of the best minds and the finest institutions in 
the country. Dr. Young also stated that the Board approved 
funds to phase out NSF's support for the current NSF 
Supercomputer Centers at Pittsburgh and Cornell, convinced that 
after a transition period, the new program would fully pick up 
the load and that the new directions were the best way to 
insure that computation would continue to flourish in the 
coming environment.
    Dr. Malcom provided insight into the processes and workings 
of the National Science Board in considering the proposals 
including those presented during the recompetition of the NSF 
Supercomputer Centers. She stated that in May 1994, the Board 
delegated to the Director the authority to approve awards up to 
$3 million in one year and $15 million over five years. Dr. 
Malcom indicated that the NSB reviews and acts directly on the 
proposals above that threshold. She stated that the NSF staff 
process includes reviews at higher management levels, 
including, for packages that come to the NSB, a review by the 
Director's Review Board (DRB). Once packages are approved by 
the DRB, they come to the Board and are assigned to one of our 
committees for in-depth consideration, then presented to the 
Board for action. According to Dr. Malcom, the NSF staff 
provided a presentation to the Board on the supercomputer 
centers' proposal packages, after which a lead reviewer and a 
secondary reviewer provided detailed reviews, commented on 
issues for which more information was needed, and made comments 
as to the fairness of the procedures and the appropriateness of 
the recommendations from staff. She emphasized that the Board's 
discussion of the proposals considered issues such as assurance 
that a diverse set of computer architectures were used by the 
partnerships, the management of large, far flung partnerships, 
the effects of budget reductions on the overall coherence of 
the proposed projects, and the transition process to the new 
program and its impact on the user community. Dr. Malcom 
assured the Subcommittee that the Board asked hard questions, 
reviewed reports from the merit review process and assured 
themselves that the review process was thorough, fair and 
consistent with NSF's high standards.
            Major research equipment (MRE) account programs and the 
                    Internet II initiative
    Dr. Spanier explained that in order to continue the rapid 
growth of the Internet, investment in both basic and applied 
research in networking will be necessary to meet the expanding 
information and communication needs of the 21st Century. He 
emphasized that the ``one size fits all'' Internet currently 
used must be overhauled to support a greater variety of uses 
and that there must also be an organized process through which 
discoveries at the basic research level are moved into the 
applied development phase and then transitioned into routine 
commercial use. Dr. Spanier explained that the Internet II will 
address the major challenges facing the next generation of 
university networks by: creating and sustaining a leading edge 
network capability for the national research community; 
directing network development efforts to enable a new 
generation of applications to exploit fully the capabilities of 
broadband networks; and, integrating the work of Internet II 
with ongoing efforts to improve production Internet services 
for all members of the academic community. According to Dr. 
Spanier, the President's Next Generation Internet (NGI) 
Initiative's goals are compatible to those of the Internet II; 
with the joint goal of ensuring that a developmental high 
performance network is available to the academic and research 
community at the earliest opportunity. However, he noted that 
like all partnerships, there are areas of NGI and Internet II 
that reflect the specific needs of the government and of the 
universities that will be conducted separately. Finally, Dr. 
Spanier recommended that the High Performance Connections (HPC) 
element of the NSF's Very High Performance Backbone Network 
System (vBNS) be used as the means to fulfill the federal role 
in implementing the first goal of the NGI program.
    Dr. Kelley announced that the proposed Polar Cap 
Observatory (PCO) will be the next evolutionary step in an 
existing chain of facilities sponsored by NSF. He indicated the 
Foundation's support of four existing stations: one at the 
magnetic equator near Lima, Peru (operated by Cornell 
University), the second near Arecibo, Puerto Rico (also 
operated by Cornell University), another near Boston, 
Massachusetts (operated by MIT) and the fourth station located 
in southern Greenland (operated by SRI International). 
According to Dr. Kelly, the need for the completion of this 
chain with an upper atmospheric observatory near the magnetic 
North Pole has become clear as scientists have realized the 
importance of the polar cap. He explained that the capstone 
instrument at each site is a high power radar, capable of 
measuring temperature, densities and wind velocity from the top 
of the atmosphere to thousands of kilometers into space. Dr. 
Kelley added the PCO will be able to measure the electronic 
field that originates from solar wind which interacts with the 
Earth's magnetic field and penetrates downward into the Earth's 
upper atmosphere sometimes causing disruptions in 
communications and satellite transmissions. He emphasized that 
space weather can also destroy satellites, damage electrical 
power grids and present a health hazard to astronauts. Dr. 
Kelley indicated that the PCO will be a major contributor to 
understanding space weather and assist in making timely and 
accurate space environment forecasts in order to prevent damage 
from powerful space storms.
    Dr. Vanden Bout stated that the Millimeter Array (MMA) will 
provide images of astronomical objects as they appear at 
millimeter wavelengths which exceed the quality of those at 
optical and infrared wavelengths taken with the Hubble Space 
Telescope. He highlighted the MMA's capability to provide an 
unprecedented view of the origins of galaxies, stars and 
planets. According to Dr. Vanden Bout, the MMA has had an 
extensive planning history, during which the community 
developed the concept in response to scientific requirements. 
He emphasized that no aperture syntheses telescope on the scale 
of the Millimeter Array has ever been built at millimeter 
wavelengths, and for that reason, two stages were proposed: a 
development phase and a construction phase. He explained that 
during the development phase, the antenna, key electronic and 
software systems will all be designed and prototyped. Dr. 
Vanden Bout stated that the goals of the development phase are 
working prototypes, architectures of software systems, firm 
cost estimates, schedule and a site, and established 
arrangements with partners. He added that a number of 
interested foreign partners for the endeavor are being pursued 
including Chile, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain and Mexico. In 
addition, he indicated that a series of workshops have been 
conducted to forge a possible cooperation between the MMA and a 
project proposed by Japanese radio astronomers.

         4.2(e)--National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

                             April 24, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-15

Background

    On April 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``1998 Budget Request for the National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,'' to receive testimony on 
the National Earthquake Hazards and Reduction Program (NEHRP). 
The hearing examined the Administration's FY98 budget request 
for NEHRP as well as issues related to a multi-year 
reauthorization of the program. The NEHRP program was created 
in 1977. Since its inception, NEHRP has focused on earthquake 
research (physical, seismic, structural, and social) as well as 
earthquake hazards mitigation. NEHRP activities in research and 
mitigation are executed by four separate federal agencies: The 
National Science Foundation (NSF); the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST); the United States Geological 
Survey (USGS); and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA).
    Witnesses included: Mr. Richard W. Krimm, Executive 
Associate Director and Mitigation Directorate, FEMA; Dr. P. 
Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS; Dr. Elbert L. Marsh, 
Acting Assistant Director of Engineering, NSF; Dr. Robert 
Hebner, Acting Director, NIST; Dr. David Simpson, President, 
the IRIS Corporation; Dr. Kerry Sieh, Professor of Geology, 
Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; 
Dr. Joanne Nigg, President, Earthquake Engineering Research 
Institute (EERI); Dr. Daniel P. Abrams, the NEHRP Coalition; 
and Dr. George Lee, Director, National Center for Earthquake 
Engineering Research (NCEER), SUNY Buffalo.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Krimm testified that FEMA is continuing its support of 
earthquake risk reduction activities through individual state 
and multi-state organizations. He noted that FEMA provides $5.4 
million, approximately one-third of its earthquake program 
budget, as grants or technical assistance to 38 participating 
states and three multi-state consortiums. He stated that the 
budget represents a funding decrease for the mitigation 
activities within FEMA because there had previously been some 
earmarks in its budget from Congress for the Portland Metro 
System and for the University Nevada Shake Table. Additional 
funding for those issues were not requested because they were 
add-ons by Congress.
    Dr. Leahy introduced a new USGS hazard information map for 
the contiguous United States that depicts how the shaking 
hazard varies across the country. He stated that federal 
agencies use the maps to set construction standards for 
critical facilities, and to allocate assistance funds to states 
for earthquake education and preparedness. Dr. Leahy noted that 
USGS develops partnerships that leverage scarce resources and 
link researchers to the practitioners. He said that these 
partnerships expedite the application of research results to 
loss reduction practices. He also expressed frustration with 
the $2 million decrease in the External Grants Program from FY 
95 to FY 97 ($8 million to $6 million) which has decreased that 
amount of work being conducted with the external community.
    Dr. Marsh testified that NSF remains the most important 
source of government funding for fundamental research in 
earthquake engineering, and for the investigation of the 
socioeconomic aspects of earthquake hazards. Dr. Marsh said 
that due to the success of the Southern California Earthquake 
Center and the National Center for Earthquake Engineering 
Research (NCEER) as well as a recommendation from the 
earthquake hazard reduction research community, NSF initiated a 
new competition for earthquake engineering research centers. He 
said that up to three such centers will be funded this fiscal 
year for a period of five years. Dr. Marsh also stated that NSF 
remains committed to the integration of research and education 
and to the wide dissemination of research results.
    Dr. Hebner emphasized the important role that standards 
play in earthquake hazards reduction. He noted that NIST 
conducts problem-focused research and development needed to 
link the research to particular standards and practices for 
buildings and lifelines. He testified that industry 
participation and partnerships have been very rewarding.
    Dr. Simpson praised NEHRP for its success which has 
impacted the course of research in seismology, engineering, and 
disaster planning, but stated that within the current funding 
levels of NEHRP, they cannot accomplish the work that needs to 
be done to reach the significant and attainable goals of the 
program. He noted that after the Kobe earthquake, Japan 
realized that its earthquake mitigation program, already 
superior in many ways to the U.S. program, was in serious need 
of improvement. He suggested that if we heed the warnings given 
by recent earthquakes we should be investing in hazard 
mitigation research and implementation at several times the 
current rate. Dr. Simpson testified that a major upgrade is 
required of U.S. facilities for earthquake monitoring and the 
analysis, distribution and archiving of data. He stated that 
such an upgrade should emphasize the collection of broadband 
and strong motion seismic data and geodetic data within a 
coordinated, standardized system for data collection, analysis 
and distribution.
    Dr. Sieh stated that the health of NEHRP is critically 
dependent on the following activities: (1) the engineers' 
ability to design safe buildings; (2) FEMA's ability to 
rationally assess hazards and encourage mitigation efforts; and 
(3) the private insurers' ability to establish premiums indexed 
to the real level of risk. He testified that the results of 
scientific research from the NEHRP program have had tremendous 
downstream consequences in terms of mitigation expenditures 
before an earthquake occurs.
    Dr. Nigg testified that in order to affect escalating 
earthquake disaster losses, substantial research efforts need 
to be undertaken in three principal areas including: (1) 
retrofiting existing building stock; (2) develop methodologies 
for assessing community vulnerability; and (3) knowledge 
transfer. She said that to increase the pace of implementing 
earthquake risk reduction measures, there must be a balance 
with research efforts among the earth sciences, engineering, 
and the social sciences. Dr. Nigg noted that despite these 
accomplishments, the losses in major recent earthquake 
disasters continue to exceed the social and economic costs 
created by other types of disaster events.
    Dr. Abrams stated that continuing improvements in our 
earthquake methods will result in significantly increased 
earthquake safety as new and replacement structures and 
infrastructure systems are built. He said achieving the 
national goals of reducing earthquake risk to an acceptable 
level, and creating a built-environment that is safe when 
subjected to earthquakes, requires a continuing long-term 
commitment of resources which is particularly important in 
terms of upgrading existing test facilities because of the 
capital investments required.
    Dr. Lee called for the need for more closely coordinated 
work among the NEHRP agencies, and stressed the importance of 
collaboration with those non-NEHRP agencies which have concerns 
about earthquake issues. He said that while we continue to work 
towards reliable mitigation solutions for the future, it is 
important to examine critically the practices of the past. Such 
an effort, says Dr. Lee, will inevitably require state-of-the-
art research and state-of-the-art facilities. In this regard, 
Dr. Lee encourages the continued support and the improvement of 
the nation's experimental research program and laboratory 
facilities. He stated that NSF has recognized this need and 
undertaken a major effort to develop an action plan to upgrade 
and modernize a network of national earthquake engineering 
experimental facilities.

 4.2(f)--Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II (Internet Domain Names, 
                                Part I)

                           September 25, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-59

Background

    On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held the first of two hearings entitled, ``Internet Domain 
Names, Parts I and II.'' The purpose of this hearing was to 
review the history and current status of the domain name 
system, the relationship between the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions Incorporated (NSI), 
NSF's role in the transition of the domain name system to 
private sector control at the termination of the cooperative 
agreement with NSI in 1998, alternative proposals on the 
process for the DNS transition to the private sector, and role 
of the Federal Government in the future of the Domain Name 
System.
    Witnesses include: Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy 
Director, National Science Foundation; The Honorable Larry 
Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Jonathan Postel, Director, 
Computer Networks Division; and Mr. Gabriel Battista, Chief 
Executive Office, Network Solutions Incorporated.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Bordogna stated that the Internet is now the domain of 
the venture capitalist, not the adventurous academic. He 
testified that while NSF has determined that their oversight of 
the Internet should be concluded, they are committed to helping 
find solutions to the Internet's ``growing pains,'' by ensuring 
that the Internet retain stability, is self supporting and 
maintains American leadership.
    Mr. Irving testified that the Clinton Administration 
supports the continued privatization and commercialization of 
the Internet and is committed to completing the transition to 
private sector governance. They realize, however, that the 
transition must be accomplished in a way that enhances the 
stability of the Internet and ensures its continued smooth 
operation.
    Dr. Postel noted that although the agencies of the Federal 
Government have supported the development of the Internet, it 
is important to recognize at the outset that this Internet 
Community was never brought under the control of any single 
government or other organization. He stated that competition in 
and expansion of the domain name registration system should be 
encouraged. He said that conflicting domains, systems, and 
registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the operation 
of the Internet. He also said that competition should involve 
not only the original choice of registrar, but also the 
continuing use of a registrar.
    Mr. Battista stated that NSI feels very strongly that there 
is an appropriate and necessary role for the United States 
Government in sponsoring a period of managed transition. He 
also suggested that the administrative functions of the 
Internet need to be managed by a body anchored in a legal 
authority that can assure the stability of the Internet, 
oversee policy regulations and reflect the concerns of a global 
community of users.

 4.2(g)--Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II (Internet Domain Names, 
                                Part II)

                           September 30, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-59

Background

    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held the second of a two-part series of hearings, entitled 
``Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II.'' The first hearing 
was held on September 25, 1997. The purpose of this hearing was 
the review the history and current status of Domain Name 
Systems, the relationship between the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions Incorporated (NSI), 
NSF's role in the transition of the Domain Name System to 
private sector control at the termination of the cooperative 
agreement with NSI in 1998, alternative proposals on the 
process for the DNS transition to the private sector and the 
role of the Federal Government in the future of the Domain Name 
System.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Donald M. Heath, President and CEO, 
Internet Society; Mr. Anthony M. Rutkowski, Director, World 
Internet Alliance; Mr. Andy Sernovitz, President, Association 
for Interactive Media; Ms. Barbara A. Dooley, Executive 
Director, Commercial Internet Exchange.

Summary of hearing

    Donald Heath, President and CEO of the Internet Society, 
opened his testimony by describing ISOC's involvement in the 
creation of the International Ad Hoc Committee, known as the 
IAHC. The IAHC was created to define, investigate and resolve 
issues resulting from international debate over a proposal to 
establish global registries and additional generic Top Level 
Domains (gTLDs). Mr. Heath explained that registrations of 
domain names were once free. In 1995, Network Solutions Inc., 
was authorized to charge fees for registrations. According to 
Mr. Heath, the Internet community was outraged. A proposal to 
break what many see as NSI's monopoly on registration was 
produced and debated internationally. Under this proposal there 
would be an unlimited number of domain name registrars, the 
registrars would form a Council of Internet Registrars (CORE) 
which would operate under a Memorandum of Understanding and 
would be overseen by a Policy Oversight Committee (POC) made up 
of individuals from the Internet community. Under this proposal 
a limited number of new gTLDs would be created, all shared 
among the registrants with CORE acting as the central data 
repository for the system. This would assure a level of 
competition among registrants. However, the fact that at this 
time the U.S. Government's policy on this issue is still 
unclear has made a number of would-be registrants hesitant to 
get involved. Mr. Heath concluded his statement by saying that 
the U.S. Government would help build confidence in this process 
by endorsing the CORE proposal. He stated that this proposal 
could be tested and implemented before the NSI agreement 
expires and that the proposal, written by Internet 
professionals, is a sound plan under which the Internet could 
continue to flourish. He concluded by stating that the U.S. 
Government should state its policy quickly and clearly, so that 
this process may continue.
    Anthony Rutkowski from the World Internet Working Alliance 
opened his testimony by stating that the Internet's Domain Name 
System is fairly simple. Namely it is basically a pyramid of 
service franchises. The main issues concerning the DN, in turn, 
are issues that deal with public models, antitrust and 
governance. This hasn't been a problem because the government 
was basically the one running the system. He argued that one of 
the main flaws of the CORE proposal was that the plan was being 
circulated under the auspices of the ITU. A second problem was 
that the plan did not have the support of the main contractor, 
the U.S. Government, and in fact, the proposal was strongly 
opposed by the U.S Secretary of State. He also described CORE 
as a Swiss-based cartel that has no external accountability. 
This is why, he argued, so few company's and countries have 
endorsed the CORE plan. Mr. Rutkowski argued the NSIUS 
agreement should be extended to give the U.S. Government more 
time to make sure that its policy is proper. He suggested that 
the U.S. Government establish a private-sector driven 
initiative to transfer the DNS, and stated that the U.S. has an 
important role to ensure that no group or nation can unduly 
assert its influence in this area.
    Mr. Andrew Sernovitz from the Association for Interactive 
Media opened his testimony by stating that the primary concern 
of the entrepreneurs who have invested billions of dollars into 
this system is the continuous stability of the Internet. 
Secondly, he stated that the U.S. Government should stop the 
CORE initiative because it is a threat to the stability of the 
Internet. He argued that the CORE plan gives too much power to 
Dr. Jon Postel and other CORE-affiliated individuals. Mr. 
Sernovitz was concerned that Dr. Postel, the Director of the 
IANA, which is a contractor of the U.S. Government, has been 
participating in this process. He also stated that he had 
concerns about the people that IANA and the CORE group has 
associated themselves with; specifically, individuals who may 
have done work with the Libyans and the Iraqis. In conclusion, 
he stated IANA and CORE are attempting to take over the Domain 
Name System. He called on the Committee to investigate these 
activities.
    Ms. Barbara Dooley, the President of the Commercial 
Internet Exchange Association, opened her testimony by 
explaining the role played by Internet Service Providers (ISP) 
in registering domain names on the Internet. She stated that 
ISP are primarily concerned about the stability of the Internet 
and that many are concerned that the software needed to run a 
shared registry system as outlined in the CORE proposal does 
not yet exist. She also stated that the private sector must 
take the lead in the process of transferring the DNS to the 
private sector. She concluded her testimony by stating that one 
of the goals of that process should be the institutionalizing 
of IANA.

4.2(h)--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II (Domain Name Systems: Where 
                          Do We Go From Here?)

                             March 31, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-78

Background

    On March 31, 1998 the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the first of two joint hearings with the Subcommittee on 
Technology entitled, ``Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II.'' 
The focus of this hearing was an examination of the Clinton 
Administration's ``Green Paper'' proposal concerning the 
transition of the Internet's DNS system to private sector 
control.
    Today's Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. Government 
investment in packet-switching technology and communications 
networks carried out under agreements with the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science 
Foundation (NSF). As a legacy, major components of the 
Internet's Domain Name System are still performed by or subject 
to agreements with agencies of the U.S. government. Due to the 
explosive commercial growth of the Internet, a consensus has 
emerged that further government involvement with the day-to-day 
operations of the Internet is inappropriate and that the DNS 
should be transferred to the private sector. Adding urgency to 
this situation is the fact that the two major government 
agreements that are critical to the Internet are near 
expiration. This hearing concerned the Administration's ``Green 
Paper'' proposal to transfer the DNS to the private sector.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to 
the President for Policy Development, Department of Commerce; 
Mr. Jim Courter, President, IDT Corporation and Spokesman for 
the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE); Ms. Barbara Dooley, 
Executive Director, Commercial Internet Exchange Association; 
Dr. Robert E. Kahn, President and CEO, Corporation for National 
Research Initiatives; and Professor David Farber, The Alfred 
Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems, Director, 
Distributed Computer Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President, opened his 
testimony by stating that the Administration's proposal, known 
as the Green Paper, is still a work in progress and is not a 
final statement of official policy of the Administration or of 
the Commerce Department. He described the Green Paper as a 
``discussion draft'' that can be modified to address concerns 
raised during the public comment period. Mr. Magaziner 
described the goal of the Green Paper process as an attempt to 
transfer the DNS to the private sector in a way that: (1) 
ensures the stability of the Internet; (2) allows for market 
mechanisms where appropriate; and (3) allows for private-
sector-led, bottom-up management of the Internet's DNS. He 
stated that the Green Paper has already taken into account many 
of the concerns raised in public comments about the transfer of 
the DNS and also stated that the Administration would continue 
to work with interested parties to generate a consensus. Mr. 
Magaziner stated, however, that due to the nature of the 
Internet, achieving 100 percent consensus will be extremely 
difficult. He concluded his testimony by restating that the 
goal of the Green Paper was to establish a new private sector 
entity to manage the DNS and to do so in a timely fashion. By 
moving to a private, more competitive, more international 
organization the Internet will be improved.
    Mr. Courter opened his testimony by stating that, in his 
opinion, the Green Paper is a step backwards rather than a step 
forward. He argued that the proposal written by the Internet 
Council of Registrars (CORE) allows for open competition within 
the DNS while the Green Paper does not. He argued that the 
Green Paper's establishment of five new gTLD's, each managed by 
an individual entity, in effect would create five new 
monopolies. According to Mr. Courter, the CORE proposal favors 
non-profit registries, while the Green Paper favors for-profit 
registries. CORE supports a single dispute resolution process, 
the Green Paper does not. Mr. Courter closed his testimony by 
arguing that the Green Paper is anti-competitive, and by 
comparing the Green Paper's proposed system to a phone system 
in which if you wanted to change your telephone company, you 
would have to change your phone-number as well. Mr. Courter 
argued that the CORE proposal, which was written by a group of 
Internet stakeholders, is a better proposal than one written by 
government bureaucrats.
    Ms. Dooley of the Commercial Internet Exchange Association 
opened her testimony by stating that, on the whole, the Green 
Paper is a fair, reasonable, practical and well-conceived 
proposal. However, many details still need to be worked out. 
She outlined her concerns with the Green Paper as follows: (1) 
commercial users and service providers would be 
underrepresented on the corporation's board of directors; (2) 
should there be a need for an increase in gTLDs, the new 
corporation must have a single, open, transparent and 
accountable set of standards and processes for adding new 
gTLDs; (3) the U.S. country code top level domain needs to be 
reformed; (4) the root server must become professionally 
managed; and (5) the transition team must have an international 
participation and adequate resources. Lastly, Ms. Dooley warned 
against allowing the Internet to be ``captured'' by one special 
interest group. The strength of the Internet, according to Ms. 
Dooley, has been its flexibility, diversity and grassroots 
organization. Ms. Dooley closed her testimony by arguing that 
the Internet would suffer if it lost these qualities.
    Dr. Robert Khan from the Center for National Research 
Initiatives opened his testimony by pointing out that the 
Internet was not an overnight success and is not now in any 
crisis. According to Dr. Kahn, the U.S. Government and Internet 
activists should take as much time is necessary to do what is 
right. He stated that in addition to ensuring the stability of 
the Internet, the government must also ensure the integrity of 
IP addresses, openness in the standards setting process and 
competition among service providers. A community commitment to 
the overall management of the Internet's infrastructure is also 
required. Importantly, Dr. Kahn pointed out that the DNS is 
merely the first addressing system used by the Internet. Over 
the coming years, many new addressing technologies will emerge. 
In transferring the DNS to the private sector, the government 
and the Internet community must make sure that they do not lock 
out future Internet addressing technologies. Dr. Kahn closed 
his remarks by stating that the IP functions and the DNS 
functions must be kept separate to ensure that the DNS 
addressing technology does not become bureaucratically locked 
into the Internet to the exclusion of newer technologies. 
Lastly, he restated his opinion that the integrity of the IP 
numbering system and the need for openness in the standards 
setting process are critical to the success of the Internet.
    Dr. David Farber of the University of Pennsylvania opened 
his testimony by stating that the Internet no longer only 
connects computers, but now connects people and cultures. As a 
result, any attempt by one country to control the Internet will 
be frowned upon internationally. Dr. Farber's testimony focused 
on some of the social issues that need to be addressed. Dr. 
Farber stated that the U.S. Government needs to address the 
fears of non-American Internet users and needs to ensure that 
representation on the new corporation's board of directors must 
be international. In addition, the new corporation must ensure 
basic human rights such as freedom of expression, free 
association, due process, and nondiscriminatory administration. 
He stated that the Internet is a public good and should not be 
used exclusively for private gain, but rather should be managed 
for the public benefit.

4.2(i)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization Request: National Science 
                               Foundation

                             April 22, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-54

Background

    On April 22, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization 
Request: National Science Foundation.'' The purpose of the 
hearing was to review the National Science Foundation's budget 
request for Fiscal Year 1999. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from the National Science Foundation and the National Science 
Board.
    The NSF request for FY 1999 of $3.773 billion was $344 
million, or 10.0 percent, above the FY 1998 Current Plan of 
$3.429 billion. Of the five directorates, only Major Research 
Equipment experienced a decrease from the FY 1998 level (-13.8 
percent). In it's Views and Estimates submitted to the 
Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Science supported 
this request, citing the importance of basic research to U.S. 
economic growth and to maintaining U.S. pre-eminence in 
fundamental science.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National 
Science Foundation; and Dr. John E. Hopcroft, Joseph Silbert 
Dean of Engineering and Professor of Computer Science at 
Cornell University and Member and National Science Board.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hopcroft testified that the National Science Board 
exercises two roles: that of a national science policy body and 
that of a governing body for NSF. He alluded to the Board's 
recent publications on national science education and 
government funding of scientific research. Concerning the 
proposed NSF budget, he said that the Board fully supported the 
10 percent increase in the NSF budget proposed by the 
Administration. This commitment to our national science 
infrastructure will enable NSF to maintain U.S. world 
leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics, and 
engineering. The NSF request would provide the means to fund 
thousands of worthwhile projects and improve science and math 
education. Dr. Hopcroft noted that NSF's Knowledge and 
Distributed Intelligence (KDI) and other themes (e.g., Life and 
Earth's Environment) are exciting initiatives that cut across 
disciplines. NSF also maintains strong programs in the 
traditional scientific disciplines, which will allow these 
multidisciplinary themes to succeed. The NSF budget will allow 
NSF to improve its core competency while providing the 
flexibility to take advantage of new opportunities that may 
arise. The Board also strongly endorses NSF efforts to promote 
inquiry-based, hands-on learning to train the next generation 
of scientists and engineers.
    Dr. Lane testified that NSF's request of $3.773 billion 
represents and investment in keeping U.S. science and 
engineering at the leading edge of learning and discovery. Much 
of his testimony focused on NSF's KDI theme. The KDI initiative 
is designed to turn the flood of information into a 
``wellspring of discovery, learning and progress.'' He stressed 
that this initiative goes beyond hardware to include the 
workings of the brain, how we learn and the nature of 
intelligent behavior (i.e., research into the ``neck-top 
computer''). Dr. Lane testified that another aspect of KDI is 
NSF's support of faster experimental computer and 
communications networks that will link researchers and 
educators. He also pointed to NSF's work in support of 
nanoscale science that has great potential. He credited much of 
our advances in this area to the biosciences (through work on 
DNA), noting how nanoscale science is a good example of the 
integration of the physical and biological sciences. It is 
these crosscutting aspects of the KDI and NSF's other two 
themes--Life and Earth's Environments and Educating for the 
Future--that will provide the foundation for NSF's investment 
strategy. He also emphasized the Foundation's continued to 
merit-based investments in learning and discovery that adhere 
to the highest standards of peer review. Dr. Lane closed by 
saying that the proposed budget is in keeping with the wealth 
of opportunity that science and engineering afford the nation 
and will help position America to retain its world leadership 
in the information-driven economy of the 21st century.

 4.2(j)--External Regulation Of DOE Labs: Status Of OSHA And NRC Pilot 
                                Programs

                              May 21, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-65

Background

    On May 21, 1998 the Subcommittee on Basic Research and the 
Subcommittee on Energy & Environment held a joint hearing 
entitled, ``External Regulation Of DOE Labs: Status Of OSHA And 
NRC Pilot Programs.'' The focus of this hearing was to examine 
DOE's pilot programs at its laboratories involving the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These two pilot programs 
were designed to help determine the desirability of 
establishing external oversight of worker safety and nuclear 
safety at DOE's research and nuclear facilities.
    The DOE is the only federal agency whose facilities are 
essentially exempt from regulation by the NRC for nuclear 
safety and by OSHA for worker protection. The Atomic Energy Act 
of 1946 established these exemptions for the Atomic Energy 
Commission, one of DOE's predecessor agencies, due to national 
security concerns originating with the production of and 
research on nuclear weapons and nuclear power. As a result, DOE 
has been criticized over the years for lax enforcement of its 
own worker and nuclear safety regulations, as well as for its 
environmental management practices in general.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Elizabeth Moler, Deputy 
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; The Honorable 
Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; The Honorable Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant 
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor; and Victor S. Rezendes, Director of 
Energy, Natural Resources, and Science Issues Resources, 
Community, and Economic Development Division, U.S. General 
Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Deputy Secretary Moler testified that the Department of 
Energy is pursuing the transition to external regulation and 
objected to the conclusion of the General Accounting Office 
that DOE has an unclear and inconsistent position on external 
regulation. Instead, she explained an outline of the 
Department's plan. Before conversion to external regulation 
several issues will need to be resolved: (1) the individual 
nature of DOE facilities which make them difficult to conform 
to universal regulations; (2) the cost of the regulatory 
transition; (3) DOE stewardship; (4) determination of each 
licensee; (5) determination that enforceable requirements in 
current compliance agreements are consistent with those 
established by external regulating agencies; (6) the cost of 
retrofitting requirements; and (7) the potential for multiple 
and/or overlapping regulators. She testified that DOE has begun 
a pilot program in order to work out these issues, and others 
that may arise, before the transition. Finally, she stressed 
the need for OSHA to be a partner in this effort.
    The Honorable Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman of the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, opened her testimony with a 
status report of the pilot program for the external regulation 
of DOE facilities. She explained that the all of the current 
activities the NRC is regulating at DOE facilities have been 
developed individually, and the NRC has not evaluated the DOE 
as a whole to identify all of the contributing factors prior to 
assuming regulatory authority. Benefits realized through the 
pilot program so far include more effective and consistent 
safety management, enhanced competitiveness, a strengthened 
partnership between the DOE and the laboratory contractor, 
increased credibility and public confidence, and cost savings. 
She reinforced the testimony of Deputy Secretary Moler that key 
issues must be resolved before transition from self-regulation 
to external regulation. She stated the need for adequate 
congressional appropriation and a clear statutory delineation 
of its authority as contingent factors for NRC oversight of DOE 
facilities. She concluded by stating that, based on the results 
of the pilot program, there are no insurmountable obstacles to 
external regulation of DOE facilitates.
    The Honorable Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of 
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health at the U.S. Department 
of Labor, testified that the ability of OSHA to assume added 
responsibilities of regulating DOE facilities is limited by 
both legislation and resources, and could adversely affect the 
Agency's ability to regulate the private sector currently under 
its jurisdiction. OSHA has taken steps in order to be able to 
assume such expanded responsibilities, including establishing 
an internal transition working group and initiating a pilot 
program at a DOE facility. Meanwhile, OSHA has been working 
with DOE in the process of privatization of other facilities. 
These efforts have given OSHA an understanding of some of the 
problems that may be encountered due to the external regulation 
of DOE facilities and OSHA is continuing to work to resolve 
such issues.
    Victor S. Rezendes, of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 
testified that the actions taken by DOE in preparing for the 
transition to external regulation have served to delay, rather 
than move along, this conversion. He gave as an example of such 
hesitation the pilot program undertaken by DOE. The pilot 
program does not represent the size and complexity of the DOE 
facility; therefore, it is unable to provide accurate 
estimates. Mr. Rezendes added that, although DOE has endorsed 
OSHA as its external regulator, OSHA is not involved in the DOE 
pilot program with the NRC. He concluded by testifying that 
DOE, NRC and OSHA have each created separate internal 
preparation structures, which are proceeding on different 
tracks and timetables toward external regulation without an 
integration of positions or strategies.

     4.2(k)--The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic 
 Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way to Improve K-12 Math and Science 
                               Education?

                             July 23, 1998

                         Hearing Volume 105-64

Background

    On July 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
an oversight hearing entitled, ``The National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) Systemic Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way 
to Improve K-12 Math and Science Education?''. The purpose of 
this hearing was to discuss the NSF's Systemic Initiatives, one 
of the primary programs through which the Foundation hopes to 
improve K-12 science and math education.
    The NSF's Education and Human Resources directorate is 
attempting to improve K-12 science and math education through 
``education system reform.'' Educational system reform at NSF 
involves catalyzing co-ordination with states, cities, rural 
areas, school systems and other organizations involved in 
education. The goal of the reform is to achieve a comprehensive 
impact on curriculum, policy, professional development of 
teachers, assessment or testing, resource allocation and 
student performance. The programs through which this effort is 
manifested are the Statewide, Urban, and Rural Systemic 
Initiatives. NSF has requested over $117 million for these 
programs in FY 1999 out of an overall education budget of $683 
million.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Daryl E. Chubin, Director, Division 
of Research, Evaluation, and Communications, Directorate for 
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation; Dr. 
Stan Metzenberg, Assistant Professor of Biology, California 
State University Northridge; Dr. Mark St. John, Consultant for 
the Inverness Research; and Mr. Thomas Baird, Director, Area 
Centers for Educational Enhancement, Florida Department of 
Education.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Daryl Chubin of the National Science Foundation opened 
his testimony by stating that, on the whole, the NSF's 
Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) have been successful in 
stimulating comprehensive and associated systemic reform in the 
districts participating in the programs. He briefly reviewed 
the standards used for evaluating progress made by SSIs. Dr. 
Chubin then delineated the key findings detected in the ongoing 
process of assessing individual SSIs and the program in 
general: One, systemic reform is arduous and requires more than 
five years to accomplish. Two, various methods of achieving 
higher performance standards can be successful. Three, an 
accountability infrastructure is vital to incremental progress. 
Four, scale-up of reform to new districts, schools and 
classrooms is problematic yet crucial. Five, NSF and site-based 
accountability requirements accelerate the pace of reform and 
function as an incentive for performance improvement. Six, 
aligned content instruction and assessment standards, against 
which to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness, 
are a central element in successful reform. He concluded by 
emphasizing the value of NSF support to SSIs, but added that 
the NSF should not indefinitely support steady state reform 
efforts.
    Dr. Stan Metzenberg testified that the endorsement by the 
National Science Foundation of the National Science Education 
Standards and the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science Benchmarks for Science is a bad decision. He asserted 
that both of these documents set standards for achievement that 
are so low as to be ineffective. He stated that the standards 
do not represent a consensus among scientists or educators nor 
are they based upon scholarly research. As a result, use of 
federal funding to promote such standards is an inefficient and 
even destructive use of resources.
    Dr. Mark St. John, who is a consultant for the Inverness 
Research, which has evaluated several of the National Science 
Foundation Systemic Initiatives, testified that the condition 
upon which success of the Systemic Initiatives hinge is not 
standards, but rather upon the professional development support 
given to teachers. He stated that the potential impact made by 
Systemic Initiatives may be their success in building capacity 
among those involved in every aspect of educational systems by 
connecting educators, legislators and professionals at various 
levels with each other. In addition, he believes the Systemic 
Initiatives have brought a systemic perspective--a way of 
thinking about education as a system to those involved in 
reform. Dr. St. John also pointed out the ability of the SSI's 
to focus expertise and resources on areas that otherwise might 
not have had access to them. He noted several issues critical 
to success. These included the limits of the National Science 
Foundation to provide expertise to individual school districts, 
the necessity of accountability of federal funds used at state 
or local levels and the recognition of the scale of each SSI.
    Mr. Thomas Baird spoke to the issue of funding and 
effectiveness of the Systemic Initiatives, based upon his 
experience as Project Director and Co-Principal Investigator of 
the Florida Statewide Systemic Initiative. He outlined several 
beneficial changes which the SSI spurred in Florida: 
coordination of funding groups, offices, divisions, and 
bureaus; support for the development and dissemination of 
higher student performance standards and curriculum frameworks; 
increased cooperation between the Florida Department of 
Education and the higher education community; and, development 
of model schools and an education infrastructure, including 
ongoing professional development. Mr. Baird also offered 
several observations and suggestions for the NSF SSIs. First, 
because the expectations of states are not commensurate with 
funding, specific populations should be targeted or fewer 
state-wide initiatives should be undertaken, thereby freeing up 
resources to augment the funding levels of SSIs. Second, rather 
than micromanaging the Systemic Initiatives, the NSF should 
heed the advice and expertise of the practitioners directly 
involved with the Initiative and use this knowledge to help 
states devise strategies. Finally, the NSF must develop a 
consistency in its expectations of the SSI's.

    4.2(l)--GAO Report On DOE National Laboratory Management Reform

                           September 23, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-85

Background

    On September 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a joint 
hearing entitled, ``GAO Report On DOE National Laboratory 
Management Reform.'' The focus of this hearing was DOE's 
progress on management reform of the National Laboratories. A 
General Accounting Office (GAO) report assessing the agency's 
progress on management reform, Department of Energy: Uncertain 
Progress in Implementing National Laboratory Reforms, was 
released and discussed at the hearing.
    DOE manages the largest laboratory system of its kind in 
the world. Since the days of the World War II Manhattan 
Project, the DOE laboratories have played a major role in 
maintaining US leadership in research and development. With 23 
laboratories in 14 states, a budget of over $6 billion a year, 
and a scientific and technical staff of about 60,000, DOE has a 
responsibility to ensure the laboratory system is managed in an 
effective and efficient manner.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Ernest Moniz, Under Secretary of 
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Dr. John P. McTague, 
Vice President for Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company and 
Member of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), and 
Vice-Chairman, DOE Laboratory Operations Board; Dr. Charles V. 
Shank, Director, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory; and Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director of Energy, 
Natural Resources, and Science Issues Resources, Community, and 
Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Moniz testified that he agreed with many of the 
conclusions made in the GAO report on DOE laboratory reform in 
accordance with the Galvin Report saying that while the 
Department doesn't agree with every detailed recommendation, 
there is notable merit in its general endorsements. Dr. Moniz 
named three areas: establishing stronger business practices and 
strategic planning, and governance of these programs. He 
suggested that the Department has already begun to address many 
of these issues and have even exceeded several of the 
recommendations found in the report. He concluded that it is 
his goal to institutionalize the improvements that have been 
made in the labs throughout the Department, in conjunction with 
the Laboratories Operations Board.
    Dr. McTague testified that changes in the approach used to 
govern the labs should take place to encourage output. He 
stated that flexible approaches produce more efficient outputs 
than prescriptive regulations. He went on to say that the 
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board felt encouraged that most 
significant programs had one or more merit review process in 
use, and that 85 percent of the research programs rated above 
average or excellent. The suggestion of the Board is that the 
DOE focus on the success when addressing and improving 
procedures and structures. He stated that the labs to have 
serious management problems on all levels, and that as the labs 
went towards leaner management, that it must attract and train 
better managers with a technical understanding of the labs. He 
concluded that the largest problem facing the labs is a complex 
management structure throughout, and that the implementation of 
fundamental structure changes may require legislation.
    Dr. Shank testified that the DOE, the SEAB and the 
laboratories would restructure the labs to eliminate costly 
administrative systems, unnecessary prescriptive oversight, and 
diffuse responsibilities. He reported that significant progress 
has been made in increasing productivity with restructuring. 
This productivity, he said, was a direct effect of adhering to 
new operating principles that were ``simply common sense''. Dr. 
Shank cited changes that had reduced operational cost and 
increased overall production. He discussed how these 
improvements were being developed as institutions within the 
lab system and that continuing this course would increase 
efficiency and output.
    Mr. Rezendes reported that while the national labs did 
tremendous research, that often this research was unfocused, 
micro-managed and incohesive with other research being done in 
other national labs and at private facilities. He testified 
that though DOE has suggested that they had begun to 
restructure the laboratories, it still had not produced a 
comprehensive road map by which changes to process structure 
would be made. He testified that studies of the DOE labs each 
noted the same outcome which is that the problems in 
accountability that result in unclear chains of command and the 
inability to manage as an integrated system affect the 
efficiency and output of the labs. He concludes that though the 
DOE has made some headway, many actions are still underway or 
have unclear goals and that if reform is not produced within 
the structure, legislation with consequences may ultimately be 
needed.

                         4.2(m)--Remote Sensing

                           September 28, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-87

Background

    On September 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing entitled, ``Remote Sensing.'' Specifically, the 
focus of the hearing was to review steps which the research and 
commercial communities are taking to apply remote sensing 
technologies for the next century.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National 
Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. Thomas M. Lillesand, Director, 
Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin; 
Mr. Lawrie E. Jordan III, President, ERDAS, Inc.; and, Dr. 
Scott Pace, Senior Policy Analysis, RAND Science and Technology 
Policy Institute. Dr. David Brannon, Director of the Commercial 
Remote Sensing Program at the Stennis Space Center, NASA was 
invited to testify but was unable to attend due to Hurricane 
Georges.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Colwell testified that she has seen the power of remote 
sensing technology first hand. As an aquatic microbiologist, 
she said she spent over 30 years studying the microbial 
disease, cholera, with the use of remote sensing technologies. 
Cholera is a disease caused by drinking water contaminated with 
a bacterium known as vibrio cholerae. Cholera can cause sever 
diarrhea and dehydration, and in some cases death. The key 
breakthrough came when she discovered (with the assistance of 
remote sensing) that the cholera bacterium lives in the gut of 
microscopic aquatic animals, the zooplankton.
    Dr. Colwell said the use of satellite data and remote 
sensing technologies led to a greater understanding of how 
global environmental change influences the spread of the 
cholera disease. Through her research she found that cholera 
epidemics can now be related to climate and climate events, 
including ocean warming events such as El Nino. She felt that 
further refinements of these studies with the use of remote 
sensing technologies could allow the research to save thousands 
of lives each year through effective monitoring and prediction 
of conditions conducive to cholera epidemics.
    Dr. Lillesand began his testimony by noting that several 
interrelated factors are currently influencing the form and 
significance of land remote sensing from space. Among these 
factors are: a continued transition toward an information-based 
society in general; a recognition of the interdependence 
between environmental quality and sustainable economic 
development; and, the continued maturation and application of 
remote sensing, GIS, GPS and related technologies in the 
context of an evolving national and international spatial data 
infrastructure.
    Dr. Lillesand also stated that remote sensing and its 
kindred geospatial technologies are truly enabling 
technologies. It is beginning to pervade the entire array of 
disciplines where the spatial dimension of complex interrelated 
phenomena is important--from geoscience to human epidemiology. 
Geospatial analysis not only makes the asking of old scientific 
questions more efficient, it is enabling the science community 
to address a whole new series of questions over a range of 
spatial and temporal scales. This is not only providing an 
improved understanding of how the earth works as a system, it 
is also providing a new paradigm for the management of natural 
resources and the environment, as well as the conduct of 
business.
    Mr. Jordan testified that the Federal Government must find 
a way to enable the commercial remote sensing industry to 
compete without competing against the private sector. The first 
step, he said, is to recognize that special algorithm 
developments should not require the recreation of already 
existing foundation technology. All government-developed remote 
sensing software should be object oriented, based upon a 
commercial off the shelf (COTS) foundation, with fully 
documented APIs so it can be readily plugged into any 
commercial software package. Through this ``adopt an 
algorithm'' approach, government and academia-based technology 
development will be commercially viable, thereby allowing mass 
distribution and technical support.
    Mr. Jordan also said that the Federal Government, as an 
enabler, must not get too caught up with cost reimbursement for 
the development of both algorithms and geospatial data. If 
access to TIGER files allows UPS to run 20 percent fewer 
trucks, the greater good of reducing road maintenance costs and 
ozone pollutants far exceeds the buying fee of the data.
    Finally, Mr. Jordan said the government must adopt data 
format standards rather than create them. There is nothing 
wrong with the government providing geospatial data in 
commercial formats provided the format is open, documented and 
royalty free. Unfortunately, as data standards proliferate 
within the government, valuable resources in commercial 
organizations are siphoned off simply to write I/O routines for 
the next versions of awkward government specification such as 
SDTS, NLAPS and others. Commercial data formats are proven, and 
as most commercial companies share their formats with each 
other, the appearance of endorsing a given commercial product 
is negligible.
    Dr. Pace said that as remote sensing technologies improved, 
cost/benefit ratios increased the end users ability to lower 
production costs, reduce planning schedules, provide rapid and 
quantitative assessments of socio-economic and environmental 
impacts, simulate and model end result opportunities, and allow 
for a comparative analysis of alternative options.
    Dr. Pace stated that remote sensing applications continue 
to be applied in the field of agriculture and in government 
research laboratories. The National Oceanic Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Department of Defense 
(DoD) have expressed interest in the use of remote sensing 
technologies. Private industry, including the forestry, 
fishery, insurance/disaster management, oil and gas and 
transportation industries are also utilizing remote sensing 
technologies.
    Dr. Pace believes that cooperative work between the private 
and public sectors has produced a marked improvement in the 
ability to manage, transfer, manipulate and interpret large 
data sets. The newer commercial and government satellite 
systems in orbit, or about to be launched, have spectral 
recognition capabilities that are more appropriate for 
detecting information and developing models with ``ground truth 
measurements.'' Currently, major studies are underway world 
wide to evaluate the technology and test the data handling 
system to see if the right remotes sensing products can be 
delivered to the end user in a timely and dependable way.

                   4.2(n)--High Performance Computing

                            October 6, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-93

Background

    On October 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing entitled, ``High Performance Computing.'' The hearing 
focused on the President's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee Interim Report to the President and the 
Administration's and academic community's response to its 
findings and recommendations. The Subcommittee also examined 
the current state of high-performance computing throughout the 
Federal Government, including funding, research needs and 
priorities, and interagency coordination.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair, President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC); Dr. Neal 
Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 
Policy and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; 
Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director, National Science 
Foundation (NSF); Dr. Edward Lazowska, Professor and Chair, 
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington; and 
Dr. Joe Thompson, William L. Giles Distinguished Professor of 
Aerospace Engineering at Mississippi State University.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Kennedy summarized the findings and recommendations of 
PITAC's ``Interim Report''. He testified that the principal 
finding of the report was that over the last decade there has 
been a pronounced shift in federal funding away from long-term, 
high-risk projects and toward short-term, applied research. The 
majority of this funding is confined to mission agencies. He 
noted that while there has been explosive growth in the size of 
the information technology (IT) endeavor as a proportion of the 
economy, federal funding has grown at about the rate of 
inflation. In addition to its economic importance, IT is also 
critical to solving problems in business, science, medicine and 
education. It is PITAC's view that the shift away from 
fundamental research needs to be reversed if we are to preserve 
the Nation's economic leadership in the coming decade.
    Dr. Kennedy said that reallocating existing resources, 
while tempting, will not solve the problem and take away from 
important national needs. Moreover, he noted how difficult it 
is for start-up companies to find money for fundamental 
research. To address this problem, PITAC proposes increasing 
the IT budget to $2 billion over the next five years. The PITAC 
``Interim Report'' summarizes a number of areas that would 
benefit from this increased support. These include: secure, 
robust, and reliable software; scaleable information 
infrastructure; and high-end computing and communications. The 
report also recommends funding for the sociological and 
economic impacts and workforce impacts of IT and calls for a 
new management structure and funding strategies to coordinate 
current and new programs.
    Dr. Kennedy also spoke to the growth in scaleable parallel 
computation. He said that this strategy has many problems, and 
that these problems cannot be solved simply by purchasing more 
supercomputers. Although he would support a program to 
replicate the Department of Energy's Advanced Strategic 
Computing Initiative (ASCI) for use in civilian science, such 
investments should be accompanied by greater investments in 
software and architectures to make these machines usable across 
a wide array of applications. He concluded his testimony by 
emphasizing that PITAC believes that increasing investment in 
IT R&D, with an emphasis on fundamental research, is the best 
way to ensure that the benefits of the information revolution 
will be enjoyed by the Nation in the decades to come.
    Dr. Lane began his testimony by noting that the nation's 
security, health care, education, and environment all depend on 
our ability to master the power of IT. However, IT is an 
industry that requires constant innovation. The rate of change 
is linked to the ability of businesses to invest in new 
products, and these innovations are tightly linked to IT 
research begun decades earlier. In addressing the PITAC 
``Interim Report'', Dr. Lane said that it concludes that we 
need to increase overall federal support for IT and that we 
need to manage the effort in a way to take advantage of 
opportunities when they arise. He said that the Administration 
agrees with many of PITAC's findings and is working to address 
their recommendations. Under the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), an interagency team has been 
assembled to respond to PITAC's advice. He noted that OSTP was 
able to build on the foundation of interagency coordination 
that began with the High-Performance Computing and 
Communication Program. During the coming months, this group 
would develop a plan that the President can bring forward with 
his budget request. Dr. Lane said that the research problems 
facing IT are unique and that the interagency group will draw 
on its management experience in considering new approaches to 
IT research.
    Dr. Bordogna said that the U.S.'s commanding lead in IT was 
the result of a partnership among government, industry, and 
academia. Resting on our laurels, however, is not a viable 
option. R&D conducted by private firms is almost entirely 
focused on products and activities that yield short-term 
payoffs. The PITAC report sets out a plan for more long-term 
research and recommends that NSF play a lead coordinating role. 
Dr. Bordogna said that NSF can and should play a strong role, 
but contended that any IT partnership could only proceed 
through consensus, trust, and close cooperation among 
participating agencies. He outlines three priorities for NSF in 
IT: (1) fundamental, high-risk research, including software, 
scaleable infrastructure, and high-end computing; (2) 
competitive access to high-end computing and networking; and 
(3) education at all levels.
    Dr. Lazowska testified that IT is more than high-
performance computing. He said that the Science Committee has 
demonstrated an awareness of four things: (1) computing enables 
all of science and engineering; (2) sustaining the Nation's 
science effort requires more than just buying hardware and 
cable--investment in computing and computational research is 
needed; (3) there is more to IT than enabling other fields of 
study--computing science and engineering are disciplines of 
their own; and (4) a broad-based research program is required 
to support these other goals. What the PITAC report says is 
that to advance computer science, engineering, and 
communications requires investment in research in those areas 
closely coupled to the demands of applications. He said that 
the PITAC has five bottom-line messages: (1) leadership in IT 
is critical; (2) the return on past IT research has been 
spectacular; (3) current Federal support for IT is inadequate; 
(4) there is too much focus on short-term problems; and (5) 
critical problems are going unsolved. Dr. Lazowska also 
supports the report's proposals for a balanced research 
program. He pointed to the importance of software research, 
which featured in the PITAC report, and endorsed further 
research in the other areas identified in the report: scaleable 
information infrastructure; high-end computing; and socio-
economic and workforce impacts. He closed his testimony by 
noting that the best in IT is yet to come and that, considering 
the impact of IT on the economy and science, increased federal 
funding is justified.
    Dr. Thompson also endorsed the PITAC ``Interim Report'' and 
made two general points: (1) we have neglected to fund software 
research to the same degree as we fund hardware acquisitions; 
and (2) we are reaping the fruits of last decade's research 
while we have neglected research this decade. He noted that 
high-end computing is not only being used by government and 
academia; industry is now a big user, with 162 of the top 500 
supercomputing sites now being at industrial locations. He 
added that we cannot allow other nations to exceed our 
capabilities and that more powerful machines do not increase 
capability proportionally until software suitable to the 
hardware is developed. Current software development models, 
which are labor-intensive and prone to error, are no longer 
adequate. PITAC describes software as the new physical 
infrastructure of the information age, and Dr. Thompson said 
that it is among the most complex of human engineered 
structures.
    Dr. Thompson also supported PITAC's suggestion that NSF 
take a lead role in a multi-agency effort, but said that, 
because of the multi-disciplinary nature of much of the 
research, NSF may have to make adjustments. One suggestion he 
offered was that NSF require individual investigators to 
associate a proposed research project with a relevant research 
center, similar to the associates research program of the 
National Research Council. High-bandwidth connectivity of 
universities, regardless of location, is also critical to the 
national research effort and to match efforts overseas. 
Increased funding for graduate assistantships in IT was also 
proposed. In concluding, Dr. Thompson said that IT now 
constitutes fundamental infrastructure, noting that, ``Never 
has such a particular area of research been so critical to the 
nation in such a fundamental and pervasive way.''

 4.2(o)--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II (Transferring the Domain 
Name System to the Private Sector: Private Sector Implementation of the 
               Administration's Internet ``White Paper'')

                            October 7, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-78

Background

    On October 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research and 
the Subcommittee on Technology held the second of two joint 
hearings entitled, ``Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II,'' to 
focus on the Administration's ``White Paper'' proposal and how 
to transfer the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) from public 
sector control to private sector control. Specifically, the 
hearing focused on two issues: (1) an examination of the 
National Science Foundation and the Commerce Department's 
involvement in the transition process, and (2) an examination 
of private sector initiatives to implement the details of the 
White Paper by establishing a non-profit corporation that, if 
found acceptable to the U.S. Government under guidelines 
spelled out in the White Paper, would assume responsibility for 
the management of the Internet's DNS system.
    The National Science Foundation, which has managed part of 
the DNS since its inception, and most recently through a 
cooperative agreement with Network Solutions' Inc., is in the 
process of transferring its authority over the DNS to the 
Department of Commerce. According to NSF's interpretation of 
the Administration's White Paper, the Commerce Department will 
have full legal authority over the DNS throughout the proposed 
two-year period during which the DNBS will be transferred to a 
private sector nonprofit entity.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable J. Beckwith Burr, 
Associate Administrator, National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, Office of International Affairs, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Gabriel Battista, CEO of Network 
Solutions Inc.; Mr. Joe Sims, Representing Internet Assigned 
Numbers Authority; and Dr. Tamar Frankel, Moderator, 
International Forum on the White Paper and Professor of Law, 
Boston University Law School.

Summary of hearing

    Beckwith Burr from the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration opened her testimony by giving a 
status report on the five tasks that the U.S. government has 
undertaken to fulfill its obligations outlined in the 
Administration's White Paper. First, the USG has started to 
ramp down the cooperative agreement with Networks Solutions, 
Inc. by signing a detailed agreement with NSI on October 6, 
1998. Secondly, the US government has received from the private 
sector, as required by the White Paper, a proposed charter and 
by-laws of a non-profit corporation to accept responsibility 
for managing the DNS. The new corporation is known as the 
``Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers'' 
(ICANN). Third, the USG has asked the World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) to develop recommendations 
concerning the issues involving trademarks and the DNS. Fourth, 
the USG will continue to meet with members of the Internet 
community to discuss the evolution of the Internet. Fifth, the 
USG has organized an executive branch group to discuss the 
security issues concerning the Internet's root server system. 
According to Ms. Burr, significant progress has been made over 
the past few months, and NTIA is confident that shortly the USG 
will be able to recognize the authority of a private sector 
entity and transfer to it the responsibility of managing the 
Internet's DNS.
    Mr. Battista, the CEO of Network Solutions Inc. opened his 
testimony by stating that the White Paper is a bold step 
towards global corporate governance of the Internet. He added, 
however, that the process is an experiment and should be 
carefully overseen. Mr. Battista went on to outline NSI's 
activities as part of the International Forum on the White 
Paper, its negotiations with IANA and its activities with the 
USG, specifically the Department of Commerce. Under the 
agreement with the Commerce Department, the NSI cooperative 
agreement would be extended for two more years and NSI would 
allow for other companies to register. COM domain names 
independent of NSI by June 1, 1999. In addition, the agreement 
also stipulated that NSI will assist WIPO in creating a 
database to assist the trademark community in domain name/
trademark searched and NSI would also continue to manage the 
Internet's root server system. Finally, when it is established, 
NSI will enter negotiations with ICANN. Mr. Battista closed his 
testimony by stating that NSI is proud of its involvement with 
the Internet and is committed to ensuring its stability.
    Mr. Sims, representing John Postel of the Internet Assigned 
Numbers Authority (IANA), opened his testimony by stating that, 
as expected, the process up to this point has been somewhat 
chaotic. He stated that the ICANN proposal that was filed with 
the NTIA on October 2, 1998 is fully responsive to the 
guidelines put forth in the White Paper. In support of that 
premise, Mr. Sims argued that the proposed Board of Directors 
for the corporation has international representation, the 
corporation's by-laws allow for separate supporting 
organizations to address issues of names, numbers and 
protocols, and allow for a process for electing a permanent 
board. In addition, Mr. Sims argued that the by-laws allow for 
open and transparent decision-making process and also include 
provisions prohibiting government representation on the board 
of directors. He stated that this is a critical first step in 
the process. Mr. Sims closed his testimony by recognizing the 
leading role of Dr. Jon Postel, the Director of IANA, who could 
not attend due to heart surgery.
    Professor Frankel from Boston University School of Law, the 
moderator of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP), 
opened her testimony by stating that creating the ICANN 
corporation has been difficult because the Internet community 
is extremely diverse. She then described the International 
Forum on the White Paper process. The IFWP held a series of 
meetings throughout the summer to discuss the transfer of the 
DNS to a private sector entity. Meetings were held in Virginia, 
Geneva, Singapore and Argentina. These meetings produced 
competing proposals, one of which is the ICANN proposal. 
Professor Frankel stated that she has a few concerns about the 
ICANN proposal. Her main concern was about accountability. As 
presently written, ICANN is not a ``membership'' organization, 
so the board of directors has no membership to be accountable 
to, though it is accountable to the Attorney General of 
California. She was also concerned about the decision to 
incorporate the ICANN in California. She closed her testimony 
by stating that the Internet community has demonstrated a 
remarkable achievement, but that this is only a beginning and 
that the ICANN will need to build public trust in order to 
succeed.

              4.3--subcommittee on energy and environment

 4.3(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
 Energy--Office of Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System 
                              Acquisitions

                             March 6, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-30

Background

    On March 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE)--Office of 
Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System 
Acquisitions,'' to hear testimony on the justification of the 
DOE's FY 1998 budget request. This hearing also reviewed the 
management practices of DOE with regard to their major system 
acquisitions and the status of these major system acquisitions.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Martha A. Krebs, Director, Office 
of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy; and Mr. Victor 
S. Rezendes, Director, Resources, Community, and Economic 
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Krebs testified on the DOE's FY 1998 Energy Research 
(ER) budget request of $2,536,991,000--an increase of 
$71,597,000, or 2.9 percent, above the FY 1997 comparable 
appropriation of $2,465,394,000--for ER programs, including 
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, 
Basic Energy Sciences, Computational and Technology Research, 
Energy Research Analysis, Energy Research-Energy Supply R&D 
Program Direction, High Energy and Nuclear Physics, and General 
Science Program Direction. Mr. Rezendes testified on the 
results of a November 26, 1996 GAO report entitled ``Department 
of Energy: Opportunity to Improve Management of Major System 
Acquisitions'' (GAO/RCED-97-17, Nov. 26, 1996), which addressed 
(1) DOE's performance in completing its major system 
acquisitions; (2) the key factors that hinder the timely, cost-
effective, completion of the acquisitions; and (3) what is 
being done to improve DOE's performance.

 4.3(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Environmental 
               Protection Agency Research and Development

                             March 11, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-23

Background

    On March 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency Research 
and Development,'' to hear testimony providing justification 
for EPA's Research and Development FY 1998 budget request. This 
hearing also reviewed the peer review practices of EPA. 
Portions of the EPA budget under the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment include the Science 
Advisory Board (in Environmental Programs and Management), 
Science and Technology, Superfund R&D, Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) R&D, and Oil Spills Response R&D.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Joseph K. Alexander, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr. Mark A. Harwell, 
Chairman, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, EPA 
Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr. Stanley J. Czerwinski, 
Associate Director, Resources, Community and Economic 
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Alexander testified on EPA's FY 1998 R&D budget request 
of $658.2 million--an increase of $67 million, or 11.3 percent, 
above the FY 1997 enacted level--and on the Agency's recently 
implemented new peer-review procedures to ensure that peer 
review becomes an integral part of EPA R&D. Dr. Harwell 
testified on the activities of the SAB, and noted that while 
the SAB does advise the EPA on the President's budget with 
regard to the Office of Research and Development, it had not 
yet studied the FY 1998 budget request. Mr. Czerwinski 
discussed the EPA's implementation of their peer review policy, 
and stated that the GAO found that EPA continued to implement 
peer review unevenly.

   4.3(c)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's 
    (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 
        Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III

                             March 12, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-21

Background

    On March 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the first in a series of three hearings 
entitled, ``The Science Behind the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-
III'' to hear testimony on the scientific justification for 
EPA's proposed standards for ozone and particulate matter 
levels.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Chairman, Clean 
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), Director of External 
Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Dr. George T. 
Wolff, CASAC, Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental 
and Energy Staff; Dr. Morton Lippmann, CASAC, Professor of 
Environmental Medicine, Institute of Environmental Medicine, 
New York University Medical Center; and Mr. Daniel S. 
Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute.

Summary of hearing

    Drs. Mauderly, Wolff, and Lippmann, all members of CASAC, 
supported the EPA's proposal to replace the current one-hour 
ozone standard with an eight-hour standard. Dr. Mauderly stated 
that this change is founded largely on information indicating 
that multiple-hour exposures below the current standard can 
affect lung function and symptoms in children and adults 
exercising outdoors. Regarding particulate matter (PM), CASAC 
strongly recommended that EPA immediately implement a targeted 
research program to address any unanswered questions and 
uncertainties with PM. The three witnesses agreed that a five-
year study on PM would be beneficial. Mr. Greenbaum, President 
of the Health Effects Institute (HEI)--a non-profit corporation 
whose mission is ``to provide public and private decision-
makers with high-quality, impartial, and relevant science on 
the health effects of pollutants from motor vehicles and other 
sources in the environment''--testified on the HEI Particle 
Epidemiology Evaluation Project, which had reanalyzed key 
epidemiological studies used as part of the scientific basis 
for EPA's particulate matter standards.

4.3(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic 
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine 
                       Revitalization Act of 1997

                             March 13, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-18

Background

    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine Revitalization 
Act of 1997,'' to hear testimony on the justification of NOAA's 
FY 1998 budget request and reauthorization of the Sea Grant 
program.
    Witnesses included: Panel 1--Dr. D. James Baker, 
Administrator, NOAA, and Under Secretary, Oceans and 
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; and Panel 2--Mr. Frank 
DeGeorge, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; and 
Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Baker testified on NOAA's FY 1998 budget request of 
$2,051.2 million--an increase of $78.5 million, or 4 percent, 
above the FY 1997 level--for NOAA programs, including the 
National Ocean Service, Ocean and Atmospheric Research Service, 
National Weather Service, and National Environmental Satellite, 
Data, and Information Service.
    Mr. DeGeorge's testimony focused on the NOAA Fleet and 
Corps, the Polar and Geostationary satellite programs, the 
National Weather Service's modernization program, and the 
proposed NOAA facility at Goddard Space Flight Center in 
Greenbelt, Maryland.
    Mr. Willemssen testified on the preliminary findings of the 
ongoing GAO work relating to the National Weather Service's 
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AIWPS), and 
recent GAO reports concerning NOAA's Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellite (GOES) system and the NOAA Commissioned 
Corps.

  4.3(e)--FY 1998 Budget Request: Department of Energy, Fossil Energy 
R&D, Clean Coal Technology Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
 Energy, and, H.R. 363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 1992 to Extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public 
                   Information Dissemination Program

                             March 19, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-72

Background

    On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``FY 1998 Budget Request: 
Department of Energy, Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal Technology 
Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and, H.R. 
363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 
extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public 
Information Dissemination Program,'' to hear testimony on the 
justification of DOE's FY 1998 budget requests and the 
extension of the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research program.
    Witnesses included: Panel 1--the Honorable Patricia Fry 
Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department 
of Energy; Panel 2--the Honorable Christine A. Ervin, Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy; and Panel 3--Dr. Paul Gilman, 
Executive Director, Commission on Life Sciences, National 
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, and Mr. Charles 
J. Boeggeman, Senior Engineer, PECO Energy (representing Edison 
Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association).

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Godley testified on DOE's Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Fossil 
Energy Research and Development budget request of $346.41 
million--a decrease of $18.30 million, 5 percent, below the FY 
1997 comparable appropriations--and on the Clean Coal 
Technology Program, which has been appropriated at $2.425 
billion as of FY 1997.
    Ms. Ervin testified on DOE's FY 1998 Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy budget request of $774.627 million--an 
increase of $155.605 million, or 25.1 percent, above the FY 
1997 appropriated level of $619.022 million--which included the 
Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies and Energy 
Conservation Research and Development Programs.
    Dr. Gilman and Mr. Boeggeman testified on the Electric and 
Magnetic Fields (EMF) Research and Public Information 
Dissemination Program. With regard to H.R. 363, Dr. Gilman 
testified that the extension should continue until 1999, while 
Mr. Boeggeman testified that an extension of one additional 
year would be adequate.

 4.3(f)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
   Energy (DOE)--Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety and Health; and 
       Environment Restoration and Waste Management (Non-Defense)

                             March 20, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-61

Background

    On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy; 
Environment, Safety and Health; and Environment Restoration and 
Waste Management (Non-Defense),'' to hear testimony on the 
justification of DOE's FY 1998 budget request.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Terry R. Lash, Director, Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Mr. Peter N. Brush, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department 
of Energy; and, Mr. James M. Owendoff, Acting Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. 
Department of Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Lash testified on DOE's FY 1998 Nuclear Energy budget 
request of $330.667 million--an increase of $87.798 million, or 
36.2 percent, above the FY 1997--for programs including Light 
Water Reactor, Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Oak Ridge 
Landlord, Test Reactor Area Landlord, Advanced Test Reactor 
Fusion Irradiations, University Nuclear Science and Reactor 
Support, Termination Costs, Uranium Programs, Isotope Support, 
and Program Direction.
    Mr. Brush testified on DOE's FY 1998 Environment, Safety 
and Health (Non-Defense) budget request of $108.916 million--a 
decrease of $937,000, or 0.9 percent, below the FY 97 
comparable appropriation of $109.853 million--which included 
funding for the Technical Assistance, Policy, National Energy 
Policy Act, Health Studies and Management and Administration 
programs, and a Program Direction decision unit for all ES&H 
employees.
    Mr. Owendoff testified on DOE's FY 1998 Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management (Non-Defense) budget request 
of $684.684 million--an increase of $91.638 million, or 15.5 
percent, above the FY 1997 comparable appropriation of $597.891 
million--for the Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, 
and Nuclear Materials and Facility Stabilization programs.

 4.3(g)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
    Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research & 
Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                             April 9, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-17

Background

    On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research and Development, 
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' to hear 
non-government testimony on the justification of all of these 
FY 1998 budget requests.
    Witnesses included: Panel 1--Mr. Fred L. Smith, Jr., 
President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Ms. 
Anna Aurilio, Staff Scientist, U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group (U.S. PIRG); Dr. David Baldwin, Senior Vice President, 
General Atomics; Mr. Ralph DeGennaro, Executive Director, 
Taxpayers for Common $ense; Mr. Scott Sklar, Solar Unity 
Network; and Mr. Aris Melissaratos, Vice President, Science, 
Technology, and Quality Division Westinghouse Electric 
Corporation; and Panel 2--Mr. Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural 
Resource Studies Division. CATO Institute; Mr. Michael S. 
Leavitt, Commercial Weather Services Association; Mr. David R. 
Smith, Secretary-Treasurer, National Weather Service Employees 
Organization; Dr. Christopher F. D'Elia, Director, Maryland Sea 
Grant College Program, University of Maryland; and Dr. James J. 
Sullivan, Director, California Sea Grant College System, 
University of California.

Summary of hearing

    Panel 1--Mr. Smith, Ms. Aurilio, Mr. DeGennaro and Mr. 
Taylor stated their views on the government subsidization of 
industries. Ms. Aurilio also testified against nuclear and 
fossil energy R&D funding, and supported the EPA funding 
request. Mr. DeGennaro added that the government should 
eliminate all energy subsidies and the Department of Energy.
    Dr. Baldwin testified that energy research and development 
funding is needed on a broad front and that all types of 
energies--renewable, nuclear, and fossil--will be utilized in 
the future. Mr. Sklar recommended that in order for new 
technology to succeed, the government should cost share with 
the companies that have the new technology. Mr. Melissaratos 
testified on behalf of DOE's Advanced Turbine System and the 
Advanced Concept Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Programs, which 
are intended to advance the state-of-the-art of fossil fuel 
power generation.
    Panel 2--Mr. Leavitt testified on the National Weather 
Service (NWS), and stated that NWS's emphasis should be on 
fulfilling its core mission of collecting and archiving raw 
data and providing severe weather warnings. Mr. Smith stated 
that the Administration's FY 1998 NWS budget request was 
inadequate. And Drs. D'Elia and Sullivan both testified on 
behalf of the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College 
Program.

   4.3(h)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's 
    (EPA's) Proposed Revisions To The National Ambient Air Quality 
        Standards For Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III

                              May 7, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-21

Background

    On May 7, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The 
Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III'' to 
hear testimony on the scientific justification of the EPA's 
proposed standards for ozone and particulate matter levels and 
EPA's PM and ozone research programs.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Joseph M. Norbeck, Director of the 
Bourns College of Engineering, University of California-
Riverside; Ms. Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive Officer, 
California Air Resources Board; Mayor Carl E. Krentz, Mayor of 
La Porte, IN; and Mr. Mark T. Maassel, Vice President of 
Marketing and Sales, NIPSCO Industries.

Summary of hearing

    All four witnesses expressed their belief that more study 
is needed and that EPA's decision to establish new standards 
was premature. Dr. Norbeck expressed his view that the science 
on which the new standards are based is inconclusive and is not 
adequate to proceed with promulgating the new standards, and 
supported more study of fine particulate matter and ozone.
    Ms. Terry voiced her concern about the addition of 
PM2.5 monitoring stations around the nation and the 
burden of funding for these new stations.
    Mayor Krentz testified that with these new standards the 
city of LaPorte, as well as other cities across the U.S., will 
be in non-attainment, and could cause some cities to lose the 
potential for economic growth.
    Mr. Maassel noted that establishing these new standards 
would create more non-attainment areas--thereby forcing 
companies to locate to adjacent rural areas with resulting 
urban sprawl--and could also jeopardize current voluntary 
programs designed to meet and maintain attainment status.

   4.3(i)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's 
    (EPA's) Proposed Revisions To The National Ambient Air Quality 
        Standards For Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III

                              May 21, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-21

Background

    On May 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held the last in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The 
Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III'' to 
focus on the science behind the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) recent proposals for new National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter 
(PM). The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable Carol 
Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Browner testified that ``the standard-setting process 
includes extensive scientific peer review from experts outside 
of EPA and the Federal Government. Based on our reading of the 
best available science, I have proposed new standards for 
particulate matter and ozone that I believe are required to 
protect the health of the American people.'' She also stated 
that ``at this point we have only proposed revisions to the 
standards for these two pollutants and we are reviewing 
comments on them'' and that she did ``not intend to make a 
final decision until comments on all of those alternative 
options have been carefully considered.'' She also said that 
``throughout the three-and-a-half year process of developing 
our proposed standards, we have remained committed to analyzing 
the science in an open public forum and ensuring broad public 
input.''

4.3(j)--S. 417, To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy 
         Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002

                             July 31, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-44

Background

    On July 31, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``S. 417, To extend energy 
conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act through September 30, 2002.'' The hearing focused on 
subsections 1(7), 1(8), 1(9), 1(11) and Section 3 of S. 417, as 
passed by the Senate on June 27, 1997.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Allan R. Hoffman, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Office of Utility Technologies, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Mr. William H. Peerenboom, Vice 
President, ATA Foundation; and Mr. David Nemtzow, President, 
Alliance to Save Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hoffman stated that the Administration strongly 
supported reauthorization of the Committee on Renewable Energy 
Commerce and Trade (CORECT) and the Committee on Energy 
Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT) programs.
    Mr. Peerenboom expressed support for the Alternative Fuel 
Truck Commercial Applications Program, and Mr. Nemtzow 
addressed the Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade 
(COEECT) Program.

                     4.3(k)--Preparing for El Nino

                           September 11, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-29

Background

    On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Preparing for El Nino.'' 
The hearing focused on the state of the science regarding the 
forecasting of El Nino, the potential U.S. impacts of this most 
recent El Nino event--expected to be the most severe since the 
El Nino of 1982-1983, and ways in which federal and state 
agencies are preparing to reduce these impacts.
    Witnesses included: Panel 1--Dr. J. Michael Hall, Director, 
Office of Global Programs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA); Dr. Tim Barnett, Research Marine 
Physicist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and Dr. Andrew 
R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute; and Panel 2--Mr. Michael Armstrong, 
Associate Director, Office of Mitigation, Federal Emergency 
Management Administration (FEMA); Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez, Under 
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA); and Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler, 
Secretary for Resources, State of California.

Summary of hearing

    Panel 1--Dr. Hall of NOAA testified on NOAA's climate and 
El Nino-related research programs. Dr. Barnett testified on the 
economic analyses and recent experience with prolonged weather-
related extremes which, he said, demonstrated the significant 
social and economic benefits associated with the development 
and application of new capabilities to forecast climate 
conditions up to a year in advance. Dr. Solow estimated the 
value of the El Nino prediction to U.S. agriculture to be $300-
$400 million per year.
    Panel 2--Mr. Armstrong testified on the readiness of FEMA 
and the Federal Government to combat the impacts of El Nino. 
Dr. Gonzalez testified about U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) collaboration with NOAA and how the USDA was attempting 
to provide improved El Nino forecasts to its customers for 
better decision-making. Mr. Wheeler testified about the State 
of California's preparations for El Nino, which included 
improving emergency response coordination and operation, and 
improving and expanding existing flood data.

 4.3(l)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III (Countdown to Kyoto, Part I: 
          The Science of the Global Climate Change Agreement)

                            October 7, 1997

               Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)

Background

    On October 7, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the first in a series of three hearings 
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear 
testimony on the state of understanding of the science of 
global climate change and the ability to predict the impacts of 
various climate change policies on the global climate, the 
uncertainties inherent in such predictions, and further 
research efforts required to reduce these uncertainties. A 
particular focus of the hearing was on potential global climate 
agreements that may be considered at the meeting of the Third 
Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework 
Convention Climate Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December 
1-10, 1997.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist 
for Climate Studies, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center; Dr. 
Alan Robock, Professor, Department of Meteorology, University 
of Maryland; Dr. Aristides A. Patrinos, Associate Director of 
Energy Research and Director, Office of Biological and 
Environmental Research; and Dr. Ronald G. Prinn, TEPCO 
Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Director, Center for 
Global Change Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Spencer testified on the uncertainties of current 
climate models and their predictions of global warming. Dr. 
Robock stated his support for the conclusions of the 1995 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 
I report that ``the balance of evidence suggests that there is 
a discernible human influence on global climate,'' and 
recommended that the current response to the threat of global 
warming be one of adaptation, improved knowledge, and 
mitigation. Dr. Patrinos testified on the science of climate 
change, and, in particular, the current status of large-scale 
climate models. Dr. Prinn testified that current climate models 
cannot realistically simulate natural climate changes; that 
small-scale features like clouds are not individually resolved 
in these models because the computational demands involved in 
these simulations already tax the capabilities of the world's 
largest computers; and that our knowledge about the relevant 
physical, chemical, or biological processes is incomplete.

                4.3(m)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III

                            October 9, 1997

               Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)

Background

    On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the second in a series of three hearings 
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear 
testimony on the state of understanding of the economics of 
global climate change and the ability to predict the impacts of 
various climate change policies on the U.S. economy, the 
uncertainties inherent in such predictions and further research 
efforts required to reduce these uncertainties. A particular 
focus of the hearing was on potential global climate agreements 
that may be considered at the meeting of the Third Conference 
of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention Climate 
Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December 1-10, 1997.
    Witnesses included: Dr. W. David Montgomery, Vice 
President, Charles River Associates; Mr. Marc W. Chupka, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Dr. Joseph J. Romm, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Mr. Michael Buckner, Research Director, 
United Mine Workers of America; and Dr. Stephen J. DeCanio, 
Professor of Economics, University of California-Santa Barbara.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Montgomery testified that the proposals currently being 
discussed in the climate negotiations could have major negative 
economic impacts on the countries of the world, including the 
United States, and that non-participating countries could gain 
a competitive advantage. Mr. Chupka and Dr. Romm discussed two 
recent climate change reports sponsored by the Department of 
Energy (``Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential 
Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond and The 
Impact of High Energy Price Scenarios on Energy-Intensive 
Sectors: Perspectives from Industry Workshops''). Mr. Buckner 
testified on the results of a DRI/McGraw Hill economic forecast 
that projected severe economic consequences for the U.S. if 
greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to 1990 levels by 2010. 
And, Dr. DeCanio testified on the problems of climate change, 
and its science and economics.

                4.3(n)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III

                            November 6, 1997

               Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)

Background

    On November 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held the last in a series of three hearings 
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear 
testimony to examine the President's proposed negotiating 
stance-including scientific, economic, and policy 
considerations-for the upcoming meeting of the Third Conference 
of Parties'' (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December 1-10, 
1997.
    Witnesses included: Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT); Mr. 
Marc W. Chupka, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary 
for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Mr. Fred L. Smith, Jr., President and Founder, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute; Dr. Robert T. Watson, 
Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and Dr. 
Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, 
University of Virginia.

Summary of hearing

    Senator Lieberman testified that--in his opinion--global 
warming is not a myth, and supported President Clinton's 
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide through a 
balanced and enforceable global treaty. Mr. Chupka described 
the President's climate change proposal to reduce greenhouse 
emissions to 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period. Mr. 
Smith reviewed the science of global warming, its economic 
impacts and politics, and challenged the Administration's plan. 
Dr. Watson testified that human-induced climate change is 
inevitable, and that unless action is taken, such change could 
result in an increase of vector-borne diseases, a sea level 
rise of approximately one meter, and a significant disruption 
to ecological systems. Dr. Michaels testified on the climatic 
affects of the President's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions to 1990 levels, and said that if the entire world 
accepted the President's program, the amount of saved warming 
over the next 50 years would be 0.13 degrees Celsius--an amount 
so small that it could not be measured by surface thermometers.

 4.3(o)--DOE FY 99 Budget Authorization Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide 
 For The Consolidation Of The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable 
    Energy, And Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The 
                      Hydrogen Future Act of 1996

                           February 25, 1998

               Hearing Volume No. 105-52 (Vol. I and II)

Background

    On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``DOE FY 99 Budget 
Authorization Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide For The 
Consolidation Of The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable 
Energy, And Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996'' to focus on the Department of 
Energy's (DOE's) Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget authorization 
request for the DOE programs under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Science. In addition, the Subcommittee received 
testimony on H.R. 1806 and S. 965.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Martha A. Krebs, Director, Office 
of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Ms. Patricia Fry 
Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department 
of Energy; Mr. Dan W. Reicher, Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. 
William D. Magwood, Associate Director, Policy and Analysis, 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Mr. Peter N. Brush, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department 
of Energy; and Mr. James M. Owendoff, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of 
Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Krebs testified that the DOE FY 1999 Budget Request is 
about $2.7 billion, $246 million above the 1998 appropriations, 
and that it includes initiation of the construction of the 
$1.3-billion Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. Ms. Godley testified that the major 
portion of the increase in the FY 1999 Budget for Fossil Energy 
is a project called Vision 21-- a venture to develop a future 
energy concept that continues to use coal. Mr. Reicher 
presented the DOE's FY 1999 Budget for the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) totaling about $1.2 
billion. Mr. Magwood described the $325.8 million FY 1999 
budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & 
Technology. Mr. Brush spoke to the $150 million FY 1999 budget 
request for the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health to 
be, a 6% reduction from the level of funding appropriated in FY 
1998. Mr. Owendoff described the $462 million FY 1999 budget 
request for the Non-Defense Environmental Management 
appropriation. In addition, Ms. Godley and Mr. Reicher spoke in 
opposition to H.R. 1806; and Mr. Reicher stated the DOE 
endorsed the concept of reauthorizing title II of the Hydrogen 
Future Act of 1996, as included in S. 965, but recommended 
inclusion of additional hydrogen production technologies such 
as wind, solar thermal, hydropower and land-fill gases as other 
potentially cost-effective approaches to be considered.

             4.3(p)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request: NOAA

                             March 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-77

Background

    On March 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration'' to hear testimony on the Administration's 
fiscal year (FY) 1999 request for programs of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. This hearing also 
reviewed the findings of a new GAO report covering the National 
Weather Service (NWS) ``shortfall'' during FY 1998 and an 
update on the NWS's modernization program.
    Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for 
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Baker testified that the total FY 1999 budget request 
for NOAA was $2.116 billion, a net increase of $123 million 
from FY 1998. Mr. Willemssen testified on the GAO's work 
regarding updates on AWIPS problems and related Year 2000 
computing concerns; on a report GAO issued last year on Weather 
Service coverage in the Erie, Pennsylvania area; and on the 
confusion on key events surrounding the Fiscal Year 1997 
Weather Service budgets.

         4.3(q)--Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D Budget Authorization

                             March 11, 1998

               Hearing Volume No. 105-48 (Vol. I and II)

Background

    On March 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D 
Budget Authorization'' to focus on the Administration's fiscal 
year (FY) 1999 request for Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) research and development (R&D) programs.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Henry Longest, II, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development, Office of Research 
and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
Dr. Ishwar Murarka, Vice-Chairman, Research Strategies Advisory 
Committee (RSAC), EPA Science Advisory Board; Dr. Philip Hopke, 
Member, Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA 
Science Advisory Board; Dr. Costel Denson, Chairman of the 
Executive Committee, EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC); 
and Dr. Charles E. Kolb, Member, Committee on Research 
Opportunities and Priorities for the EPA, National Research 
Council.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Longest testified that the Agency's total FY 1999 
request in the Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation 
account was $633.5 million and 2,428 total work years, an 
increase of $2.5 million and 68.6 work years over FY 1998. Dr. 
Murarka testified on the RSAC review of the FY 1999 Budget 
Request for the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which 
found that the ORD funding level had decreased dramatically in 
the last ten years as a fraction of the overall EPA budget. Dr. 
Hopke reported on CASAC's review of the EPA's particulate 
matter (PM) research program needs and strategies. Dr. Denson 
provided testimony on two major reviews conducted by the EPA's 
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). And Dr. Kolb, testifying 
as a member of the National Research Council's Committee on 
Research Opportunities and Priorities for the EPA, advised the 
EPA to adopt a strategy wherein a large portion of its research 
budget is devoted to a core environmental research and 
development agenda.

             4.3(r)--Diesel Technology for the 21st Century

                             March 18, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-56

Background

    On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Diesel Technology for 
the 21st Century,'' to explore the state of diesel technology 
today, where we should be ten years from now and how research 
and development by government and industry over the next decade 
can help truck owners meet environmental mandates.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Dan W. Reicher, Assistant 
Secretary, Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy (accompanied by Mr. James J. Eberhardt, 
Director, Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department 
of Energy); Dr. John C. Wall, Vice President, Research and 
Development, Cummins Engine Company, Inc.; Mr. Ronald Robinson, 
President, Technology Division, Texaco, Inc.; and Mr. Robert J. 
Crites, Chairman and CEO, Condor Freight Lines.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Reicher testified that the DOE was working to make 
diesel engines for heavy and medium trucks more fuel efficient 
and less polluting and was also working on the design of low-
emission diesel engines that can replace gasoline engines in 
light trucks. Dr. Wall stated that the developing diesel 
technologies will reduce NOx and particulate matter 
emissions, and will provide clean diesels. Mr. Robinson 
testified that the largest advances in diesel technology 
include engine improvements and after-treatment devices, and 
that Texaco was continuing to evaluate and develop several gas-
to-liquids technologies using advances in catalyst 
technologies, reactor design, and process control. Mr. Crites 
testified on the importance of the diesel engine to Condor 
Freight Lines and the trucking industry as a whole, and 
suggested that a more innovative and reward-based approach was 
needed for the trucking industry to meet Clean Air Act goals.

     4.3(s)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization Request for the 
   Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency Research & 
    Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                             March 25, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-63

Background

    On March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
Authorization Request for the Department of Energy, 
Environmental Protection Agency Research & Development, and 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,'' to hear 
testimony from non-Federal witnesses on Fiscal Year 1999 budget 
authorization requests for the DOE, EPA and NOAA.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Joel N. Myers, President, 
AccuWeather, Inc.; Mr. Joe F. Colvin, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Scott Sklar, 
Executive Director, Solar Unity Network; Dr. Donald L. Klass, 
President, Biomass Energy Research Association; and Mr. Fred L. 
Smith, Jr., President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise 
Institute.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Myers testified that a strong commercial weather 
industry was the key to both the future downsizing of the 
National Weather Service and improvements in their severe 
weather warnings capability. Mr. Colvin testified that there is 
a vital link between nuclear energy and the environment. Mr. 
Sklar testified on the importance of continued research in 
renewable energy programs. Dr. Klass described the importance 
of biomass energy consumption and summarized BERA's 
recommendations regarding DOE's FY 1999 budget for mission-
oriented biomass research. Mr. Smith testified to the validity 
of Federal funding of R&D in DOE, EPA and NOAA.

 4.3(t)--Electric Utility Deregulation: Implications for Research and 
                              Development

                             March 31, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-43

Background

    On March 31, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Electric Utility 
Deregulation: Implications for Research and Development,'' to 
examine the effects of electric utility deregulation on 
electricity research and development. This hearing focused on 
the changes in R&D funding by the utility industry, by utility 
industry consortia and government/private sector partnerships, 
by electricity generation equipment manufacturers, and by high-
tech companies. In addition, witnesses provided their 
perspectives on the continuing role of the federal government 
in funding electricity R&D.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director, 
Energy Resources & Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO); Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Executive Advisor to the 
President of Advanced Power Technologies, Inc.; Mr. Kurt E. 
Yeager, President and CEO, Electric Power Research Institute 
(EPRI); Mr. David Rohy, Vice Chair, California Energy 
Commission (CEC); and Dr. Robert Shaw, Jr., President, Arete 
Incorporated.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rezendes summarized the 1996 GAO report, ``Federal 
Research: Changes in Electricity-Related R&D Funding,'' and 
presented an updated analysis of changes in the DOE's 
electricity R&D appropriation using more recent data, including 
DOE's 1999 budget request. Dr. Hirsch testified to changes in 
the electric power industry and related R&D impacts, trends in 
electricity related to R&D, the future of electricity R&D, and 
the public sector role. Mr. Yeager testified on R&D 
collaboration among private and public institutions, and on the 
importance of R&D investment incentives. Mr. Rohy testified on 
the implications for R&D and the renewable energy industry from 
electric industry restructuring, including collaborative 
efforts among states, the DOE, EPRI, GRI and other parts of the 
industrial community; and on renewable energy in California. 
Dr. Shaw testified on the financial investment and regulatory 
environment of the utility industry, and discussed the impact 
of restructuring and the move toward micro-generation 
technologies.

  4.3(u)--EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings: Has EPA Met The Research 
                   Requirements Of The Clean Air Act?

                              May 20, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-51

Background

    On May 20, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings: 
Has EPA Met The Research Requirements Of The Clean Air Act?,'' 
to examine the science behind the EPA's proposed new rule to 
control volatile organic compounds in Architectural and 
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) paints and coatings. This hearing 
focused the status of the scientific study mandated in Section 
183(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, and on 
EPA's contention that while a complete scientific study of 
VOC's has not been done, the hazards posed by VOC's are 
nevertheless compelling enough to proceed with the new rules.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. C. Boyden Gray, 
Former White House Counsel; Dr. William L. Chameides, 
Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia 
Institute of Technology; and Mr. Dennis Fitz, Manager, 
Atmospheric Processes Research, Center for Environmental 
Research and Technology, University of California-Riverside.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Brenner discussed the science issues associated with 
EPA's study of emissions from consumer and commercial products 
and the proposed rule to reduce emissions of VOCs from 
architectural coatings. Mr. Gray testified on the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments that include provisions regulating the 
content of volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') in paint and 
other ``consumer and commercial products.'' Dr. Chameides 
testified on the impacts of VOCs and how they are produced. Dr. 
Fitz testified on instrumentation to measure gaseous and 
particulate pollutants and the management of environmental 
chamber laboratories.

   4.3(v)--The Human Genome Project: How Private Sector Developments 
                     Affect the Government Program

                             June 17, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-66

Background

    On June 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``The Human Genome 
Project: How Private Sector Developments Affect the Government 
Program,'' to focus on a recent announcement of the formation 
of a new private-sector genomics company that would complete 
the entire sequencing of the human genome within three years at 
a fraction of the cost of the 15-year government program. This 
hearing explored changes that should be made to the government 
program in light of this development.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Aristides A. Patrinos, Associate 
Director of Energy Research for Health and Environmental 
Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Craig Venter, The 
Institute for Genomic Research; Dr. Francis Collins, Director, 
National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes 
of Health; Dr. David Galas, President and Chief Scientific 
Officer, CHIRO Science R and D, Inc.; and Dr. Maynard Olson, 
Professor of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University 
of Washington.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Patrinos testified on the future of the Federal Human 
Genome Project (HGP) and how the new private sector venture 
would help that effort. Mr. Collins testified on the progress 
of genetics and encouraged a partnership with the private 
sector on the HGP. Dr. Venter testified on the impacts of the 
Institute for Genomic Research's new developments on the 
federally-funded human genome effort. Dr. Galas stated that he 
did not believe that it was sensible for the federally 
supported project either to continue unchanged with the 
strategy currently in effect, or to reduce the level of effort; 
and supported a partnership between the public and private 
sectors. Dr. Olson suggested that the public effort on the HGP 
be maintained to preserve a high scientific standard.

   4.3(w)--The Science of Risk Assessment: Implications for Federal 
                               Regulation

                             July 15, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-62

Background

    On July 15, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``The Science of Risk 
Assessment: Implications for Federal Regulation,'' to examine 
the state of risk assessment in the Federal Government and how 
it might be modified to better protect public health and 
safety. Legislation before both houses of Congress have 
proposed to change the way the government evaluates risks and 
then creates and enforces regulations to protect the 
environment, and public health and safety based on those risks.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Gil Omenn, Chairman, the 
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and 
Risk Management and Executive Vice President of Medical 
Affairs, University of Michigan; Dr. George Carlo, Chairman, 
the Science and Public Policy Institute, George Washington 
University; Dr. George Gray, Deputy Director, Center for Risk 
Analysis, School of Public Health, Harvard University; and Dr. 
Lois Gold, Director, the Carcinogenic Potency Project, National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Center for 
Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, 
Berkeley, and Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Omenn explained that risks cannot be measured and 
described the risk management framework devised by the 
Presidential/Congressional Risk Commission. Dr. Carlo testified 
on the trends in both environmental and public health 
legislation and the ability of those legislative actions to 
protect public health. Dr. Gray testified that risk assessment 
is a tool for considering scientific information in important 
social decisions; however, risk characterization needs to be 
improved for a better appreciation of the strengths and 
limitations of risk assessment for informing risk comparisons. 
Dr. Gold stated concerns about regulatory policy from her 
experience in cancer risk assessment.

 4.3(x)--S. 1418, Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1998

                           September 15, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-84

Background

    On September 15, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``S. 1418: Methane Hydrate 
Research and Development Act of 1998.'' S. 1418, which passed 
the Senate on July 17, 1998, and on July 20 was referred to the 
Science Committee with a subsequent referral to the Resources 
Committee, would direct the Secretary of Energy to coordinate 
an interagency research and development program to develop 
methane hydrate resources.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Robert Kripowicz, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. 
William P. Dillon, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey; 
and Mr. Arthur Johnson, Senior Staff Geologist, Chevron USA 
Production Company.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kripowicz described the Department's new effort in 
hydrates based on prior research on their location and 
thermodynamic properties, and endorsed S. 1418. Dr. Dillon 
described methane hydrates, its environment, potential uses and 
the need to learn more about the processes that influence gas 
hydrates. And Mr. Johnson offered some industry perspectives on 
S. 1418.

  4.3(y)--Here Comes La Nina: What To Expect From the Weather in the 
                          Winter of 1998-1999

                            October 2, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-91

Background

    On October 2, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Here Comes La Nina: What 
To Expect From the Weather in the Winter of 1998-99,'' to focus 
on an announcement by NOAA scientists that conditions in the 
equatorial Pacific point to a strong ``La Nina'' event and what 
this means for weather across the United States during the 
winter of 1998-99, including agricultural impacts. The 
Subcommittee also looked at lessons learned from El Nino in 
climate research and inter-agency coordination in preparing for 
its impacts.
    Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary 
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Charles F. Kennel, Director, 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez, 
Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Mr. Al Peterlin, 
Chief Meteorologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Baker testified on NOAA's forecast of La Nina. Dr. 
Kennel testified on Scripp's efforts to support NOAA by 
providing models of experimental forecasts and perceived 
impacts of the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon to prepare 
communities. And Dr. Gonzalez described the effects of weather 
and climate fluctuations on the agricultural industry.

               4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

4.4(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI. (NASA Posture 
                  Hearing--FY 1998 NASA Authorization)

                             March 4, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On March 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held the first in a series of six hearings entitled, ``Fiscal 
Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created in 1958 
(PL 85-568), largely in response to the Soviet Union's launch 
of Sputnik 1 in 1957. 1997 marks the 40th anniversary of this 
historic launch. The objectives of the agency as laid out by 
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 include: 
expansion of human knowledge, improvement of aeronautical and 
space vehicles, development of vehicles to travel through 
space, sharing of knowledge between military and civilian space 
communities, international cooperation, and preservation of the 
United States' role as a leader in aeronautics, space science, 
and technology.
    The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee is responsible for 
overseeing and authorizing appropriations for all the 
activities within NASA as well as the commercial space 
activities within the Department of Commerce (Office of Space 
Commerce) and the Department of Transportation (Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation). The NASA budget is divided 
into four appropriations lines: Human Space Flight (HSF); 
Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT); Mission Support 
(MS); and Inspector General (IG). Human Space Flight contains 
the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle. Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology funds the research and development 
activities including science, global monitoring, aeronautics, 
education programs, mission communication services and direct 
program support. Mission Support includes the civil service 
workforce, space communication services, safety and quality 
assurance activities, and maintenance activities for the NASA 
facilities.
    Witnesses included: Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Daniel S. Goldin testified that the President's fiscal 
year 1998 budget request of $13.5 billion, and the funding plan 
for the outyears will give America a robust space and 
aeronautics program. He noted that NASA is spending more on 
research and development and less on overhead. In 1992, NASA 
spent only 31 percent of its budget on science, aeronautics, 
and space technology. For fiscal year 1998, Mr. Goldin reported 
that 44 percent of the budget will now be devoted to those same 
areas. He reviewed delays currently facing the construction of 
the International Space Station, but insisted that NASA wanted 
to continue to work with the Russian government in completing 
this ``most complex mission.'' In closing, Mr. Goldin stated 
that the future of NASA is about making airlines safer, 
exploring the solar system, and building the International 
Space Station.

4.4(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (NASA's Office 
          of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology)

                             March 12, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On March 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the second in a series of six hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' 
The Office of Aeronautics has been redesignated this year as 
the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology 
to reflect the inclusion of Space Transportation and Commercial 
Technology programs. These two programs were transferred as a 
result of the dissolution of the Office of Space Access & 
Technology (Code X). Specifically, the Space Transportation 
Division (headed by retired Air Force colonel Gary Payton) and 
the Commercial Development & Technology Transfer Division 
(headed by Dr. Bob Norwood) of Code X were added to the Office 
of Aeronautics (Code R, headed by Dr. Robert Whitehead), to 
create the new office.
    The rationale for merging aeronautics and space 
transportation was that in the future, many of the technologies 
required for advanced aeronautical systems and next generation 
space vehicles will overlap, and that considerable synergy will 
be possible by integrating the efforts. Commercial technology 
was added because of the Office of Aeronautics' demonstrated 
success with technology transfer to the commercial aviation 
industry.
    The new office is, therefore, responsible for carrying out 
three areas of activity: (1) aeronautics and aviation safety 
research and development; (2) experimental reusable launch 
vehicle (X-33 and X-34) demonstration, and advanced space 
transportation technology programs; and, (3) technology 
transfer and Small Business Innovation Research programs.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, Associate 
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology, NASA; and, Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate 
Administrator (Space Transportation Technology), and Director, 
Space Transportation Division, NASA.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, NASA's Associate Administrator for 
the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, 
noted that NASA combined the Aeronautics and Space 
Transportation Technology enterprises in 1996. He stated that 
the current enterprise is shaped around three technology 
pillars for success: (1) global civil aviation, (2) 
revolutionary technology leaps, and (3) access to space.
    Mr. Gary E. Payton, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator 
for Space Transportation Technology and Director of the Space 
Transportation Division, discussed the accomplishments of the 
DC-XA program and the selection of the designs for the X-33 and 
X-34 vehicles.

 4.4(c)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA 
                 Authorization: Space Shuttle Program)

                             March 13, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the third in a series of six hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' 
The Space Shuttle program was the principal development program 
undertaken by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
during the 1970's. This space transportation system would use, 
to the maximum extent possible, a reusable components systems 
approach in order to reduce the cost per pound to orbit. The 
design authorized was a reusable orbiter which would be 
propelled into low-earth orbit (LEO) by two solid rocket 
boosters (SRBs) augmented by the Orbiter's main engine, all of 
which were mounted on an expendable external fuel tank. Once 
aloft, the SRBs would be jettisoned and recovered at sea, while 
the Orbiter would complete its mission and return to either an 
east coast or west coast recovery site. At this site, it would 
land much like a conventional aircraft and then be reprocessed 
and returned to the launch site for its next mission. The first 
launch of the Space Shuttle took place in April 1981.
    Several successful missions were flown with the system 
during the next 4\1/2\ years, though the projected cost savings 
and annual launch rate were never realized. Instead of becoming 
a routine space transportation system, the Shuttle program was 
still an inherently high-risk operation and remained in a 
quasi-developmental stage. The public, however, was becoming 
accustomed to watching the Shuttle missions on television and 
in the collective mind of the American people the event had 
become routine.
    The Challenger accident in the winter of 1986 was a 
devastating blow to NASA and the nation. A faulty O-ring in one 
of Challenger's two solid rocket boosters failed leading to the 
catastrophic destruction of the entire vehicle and the loss of 
the crew. Following the tragedy, the Rogers Commission was 
formed to examine causal factors of the accident and to 
recommend changes or improvements to the NASA Administrator. 
Among these recommendations were: eliminate the isolation of 
program managers from the engineers, increase the flow of 
information between the Shuttle workforce and the various 
program managers and properly staff and support a more robust 
safety organization within the program.
    When the program resumed operations following a lengthy 
standdown, it did so under the guidelines of a completely 
restructured safety program. NASA fostered an environment more 
conducive to open communications among the workforce and moved 
astronauts into program management. The restructured safety 
program was accompanied by a vastly increased Safety, 
Reliability and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) element. Later 
reports would put the size of this expanded program at some 
4,000 individuals at a cost approaching $400 million annually. 
Though there is no doubt that the safety of the program has 
improved, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the 
cumbersome safety review process and the failure of the program 
to achieve a certain level of cost-effectiveness and 
responsiveness to the launch customer remains. Prior to 
Challenger, the Shuttle had not matured from a developmental 
program. Since the accident, the program has moved even further 
away from the goal of routine operations.
    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 requires an overall reduction in agency 
personnel, which in the case of human space flight programs, 
has led to questions about the impact this reduction will have 
on safety. Over the past couple of years, the Agency 
commissioned a series of reviews of both internal and 
independent teams to provide recommendations for reaching the 
requisite budget goals while avoiding any compromise to program 
safety. One of these studies, the Shuttle Workforce Review 
(completed in 1995) 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.
    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 process 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 recommendations were to relinquish the operational 
responsibility of the program to a prime contractor, reducing 
NASA's involvement in daily operations of the Shuttle, and 
minimizing modifications to the Shuttle fleet to only those 
which would improve safety or otherwise reduce operating costs 

    In response to the recommendations of the Kraft report, 
NASA commissioned a study by Science Applications International 
Corporation (SAIC) to perform a risk-assessment study of the 
entire Shuttle mission profile in order to assess where 
concentrated efforts would reduce operating costs without 
compromising flight safety. The study looked at all the 
potential events which could lead to a critical failure with 
the goal of producing a more focused risk reduction effort. 
Though this process would reduce the potential for a mishap, 
the inherent risks associated with such a complex program 
cannot be eliminated. An illustration of this is the report's 
conclusion that the ``median estimate of failure'' for a given 
mission has been reduced to one in 248 launches from one in 78 
at the time of the Challenger accident.
    Oversight by Congress led to ongoing studies of the 
restructuring of NASA in general and its effects on the Shuttle 
program. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reviewed the 
findings of the Rogers Commission and applied them to the 
current restructuring plans of NASA. GAO has identified a few 
key principles which it believes should remain as guideposts 
during the transition of the Shuttle program: open 
communication of safety concerns; sufficient parallel safety 
reviews and communications channels; accessible management 
information systems that provide complete and accurate data in 
a timely manner; and, program priorities that place safety 
ahead of schedule or cost.
    In following the recommendations of the Kraft report, NASA 
is in the process of consolidating contracts for the operations 
of the Space Shuttle Program 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. Many observers recognize the 
transition from today's multiple prime contracts to a single 
prime as the first step in the broad policy goal of privatizing 
the Space Shuttle program. Under this single prime contract, 
the firm chosen will obtain general control over the day-to-day 
operations of the Space Shuttle program, while ultimate 
authority to certify and fly the system will continue to be 
held by the Federal Government. Privatization would likely 
transfer this ultimate authority to the private firm, while 
NASA's role would be reduced to that of being a ``customer'' of 
the privatized system.
    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 contractor. Initial letters of 
intent, due to the Agency by September 14, 1995, were submitted 
by Boeing; McDonnell Douglas; BAMSI Corporation; and United 
States Space Alliance (USA), a Lockheed Martin and Rockwell 
joint venture. It was NASA's intention to award the contract in 
October 1996.
    NASA abruptly terminated the competition in the spring of 
1996 and announced that a sole source contract would be awarded 
to USA. 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 other contracts involving 
developmental work which will remain under the auspices of NASA 
managers.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Steve Oswald, Deputy Associate 
Administrator (Space Shuttle), NASA; Mr. Paul M. Johnstone, 
Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; and, Mr. Kent Black, 
Chief Executive Officer for United Space Alliance.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Steve Oswald, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for 
the Space Shuttle program, testified that NASA is flying the 
Space Shuttle more safely and accomplishing more on orbit than 
ever before. He maintained that NASA's Space Shuttle program is 
living up to the promises that were made to Congress and the 
American people by meeting the commitment of flying safely for 
less money.
    Mr. Paul M. Johnstone, Chairman of the Aerospace Safety 
Advisory Panel, noted that relations between NASA and United 
Space Alliance, the Shuttle's single prime contractor, seem 
excellent. He said that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 
believes that the transition to a single prime contract has not 
changed flight or ground risks of the program. However, Mr. 
Johnstone pointed out that there is a clear need on the part of 
both NASA and United Space Alliance to take steps to ensure the 
availability of a skilled and experienced work force in 
sufficient numbers to meet ongoing safety needs of the Shuttle 
program.
    Mr. Kent Black, Chief Executive Officer of United Space 
Alliance, testified that one of the objectives of the Space 
Flight Operations Contract (SFOC) is to reduce the cost of 
flying payloads on the Shuttle by adding new customers to 
reduce the costs. Mr. Black mentioned the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and commercial customers as potential resources to help 
defray the costs of operating the Shuttle.

 4.4(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA 
                Authorization: Mission To Planet Earth)

                             March 19, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the fourth in a series of six hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' 
President Bush initiated Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) in 1990 
to study the earth's environment, in particular its climate 
system. At the time, the expectation was that NASA's budget 
would grow by 10% per year--peaking at about $20 billion by 
fiscal year 2000--to accommodate this new initiative. NASA's 
budget, however, has consistently fallen since fiscal year 
1993. The fiscal year 1998 request for NASA is $13.5 billion 
including $1.42 billion for MTPE. MTPE is the largest component 
of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 
which exists to study the earth's environmental system.
    Concern has been expressed by General Accounting Office 
witnesses at Science Committee hearings that Mission to Planet 
Earth is too heavily weighted in its spending on hardware to 
collect data, as opposed to paying scientists to analyze 
existing and new data. Ideally, the program would prioritize 
scientific research over data collection. For example, at a 
March 1996 hearing, it was revealed that the USGCRP hopes to 
spend approximately 30% of its budget on ``process studies,'' 
as opposed to data collection hardware. MTPE's budget for 
``process studies,'' however, was only 9% of its total. Dr. 
Robert Watson, Associate Director for the Environment at the 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, confirmed 
that this was not the ideal balance between hardware and 
science. (Committee on Science, Hearing: U.S. Global Change 
Research Programs: Data Collection and Scientific Priorities, 
No. 49, March 6, 1996, pp. 354-355).
    The hearing helped Members focus on Mission to Planet 
Earth, its accomplishments, its goals, its strengths, and its 
weaknesses during the budget process for fiscal year 1998.
    Witnesses included: Mr. William F. Townsend, Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA; 
Mr. Sam Venneri, Chief Technologist, NASA; Dr. Steven C. Wofsy, 
Gordon McKay Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental 
Sciences, Harvard University; and, Dr. Stamatios Krimigis, Head 
of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory, 
Johns Hopkins University.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. William F. Townsend, NASA's Associate Administrator for 
the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, provided an overview of 
MTPE noting that program runout costs for the second series 
have been reduced by 30 percent due to planned technology 
infusion; Earth Observing System (EOS) spacecraft are smaller, 
cost less and have shorter development times; and that the 
commercial strategy for the program includes partnerships with 
industry including science data purchase and commercial remote 
sensing.
    Mr. Sam Venneri, NASA's Chief Technologist, discussed the 
findings and recommendations of the Reshape Implementation 
Options Study which examined ways MTPE could use advanced 
technology to design a complete space-to-ground system.
    Dr. Steven C. Wofsy, Gordon McKay Professor of Atmospheric 
and Environmental Sciences at Harvard University, discussed 
recommendations for the program from Earth Systems Science 
Applications Advisory Committee (ESSAAC), which he chaired. He 
noted that ESSAAC was concerned with the balance of funding 
between space hardware and data analysis in the program.
    Dr. Stamatios Krimigis, Head of the Space Department at the 
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, discussed 
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) Midcourse 
Space Experiment (MSX) and its potential applications to MTPE. 
Dr. Ed Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies at the CATO 
Institute, conveyed the CATO Institute position that MTPE 
should not be reauthorized this year because government 
involvement in the program discourages private sector 
development of space infrastructure.

 4.4(e)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA 
              Authorization: International Space Station)

                             April 9, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held the fifth in a series of six hearings entitled, ``Fiscal 
Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The International 
Space Station is a multinational effort to create an advanced 
life and microgravity sciences research laboratory using the 
unique environment of space. In 1993, the Clinton 
Administration ordered a redesign that led to a station 
configuration known as Alpha. Shortly thereafter, the 
Administration invited the Russians to participate in the 
program in the interest of promoting international cooperation 
in space. By 1994, NASA settled on a design that included the 
Russians, who were supposed to build about half of the 
facility's pressurized space. They joined the United States and 
its other international partners, Canada, Japan, and the 
European Space Agency. The new design was expected to cost 
$17.4 billion between 1994 and completion in 2002, after which 
it was to operate for ten years. Additionally, the 
Administration placed an annual $2.1 billion spending cap on 
the International Space Station in order to impose fiscal 
restraint on the program. During the 104th Congress, there was 
strong bipartisan support for the International Space Station 
and amendments to terminate it were defeated by margins of over 
100 votes.
    The program is divided into three phases. Phase I involves 
a series of cooperative flights by the U.S. Space Shuttle to 
the Russian space station, Mir. NASA is paying the Russian 
Government approximately $472 million for this Phase, which 
includes long-duration stays on Mir by U.S. astronauts and 
logistics provided by the Space Shuttle. Phase I is well 
underway and there have been six Shuttle flights to the Mir (1 
rendezvous and 5 docking). No funds were requested for U.S.-
Russian cooperation in the FY1998 budget request, but not all 
funds appropriated in the past have been expended.
    Phase II constitutes the first stage of construction, in 
which the United States and Russia launch sufficient elements 
of their total contributions to enable the Space Station to 
accommodate a permanent human presence. Phase II was scheduled 
to begin in November 1997, with the launch of the Functional 
Cargo Block (FGB) and end in April 1999. However, NASA is now 
considering delaying launch of the FGB due to Russia's problems 
in funding development of the Service Module. NASA paid the 
Russians approximately $190 million for the FGB through a 
contract with the Space Station's U.S. prime contractor, 
Boeing.
    Phase III begins with the contributions of our other 
partners, namely Japan and the European Space Agency. 
Technically, Phase III ends in the middle of FY2002, before the 
European Space Agency's Columbus Orbital Facility (COF) is 
actually delivered to the Station. The Europeans have requested 
the delay in the launch of COF.
    To date, the development program is slightly over 56% 
complete and NASA's contractors have built over 162,000 pounds 
of flight hardware. Problems with the U.S.-built Nodes 
experienced last year have been resolved and NASA is working to 
meet its Node delivery schedule. Node 2 is already fabricated 
in the United States. However, NASA recently announced an 
agreement with Italy in which Italy will provide Node 2 and 
possibly a third Node not currently baselined in the design. 
NASA is still working towards a 2002 completion date and has 
planned for accumulated reserves of about $2 billion between 
now and assembly complete. The annual reserves in FY1997 and 
FY1998, however, are very small.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Rick N. Tumlinson, President, Space 
Frontier Foundation; Dr. Robert Park, Professor of Physics, 
University of Maryland at College Park; Dr. Larry DeLucas, 
Director, Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, University 
of Alabama, Birmingham; and, Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's 
Associate Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's Associate Administrator for the 
Office of Space Flight, informed the Subcommittee that NASA is 
rescheduling the first element launch for the International 
Space Station for no later than October 1998. Mr. Trafton 
reviewed NASA's current contingency plans in light of the 
impending delay of Russian contributions to the International 
Space Station including: (1) modifying the FGB to enhance its 
attitude control capabilities and to make it refuelable; and 
(2) pursuing development of an existing, proven system built by 
the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory as an Interim Control Module 
(ICM). He indicated that a decision must be made by early May 
1997 to baseline into the budget either the Russian Service 
Module or an ICM for launch in December 1998. Finally, Mr. 
Trafton advised the Subcommittee that these contingency plans 
will require resources outside of the planned International 
Space Station program. Specifically, NASA will submit a revised 
operating plan for fiscal year 1997 that will reallocate $200 
million from the Shuttle program to the U.S./Russian 
Cooperation funding line (designated U.S./Russian cooperation 
and program assurance); and will request a similar funding line 
with a placeholder amount of $100 million for fiscal year 1998.
    Dr. Robert Park, Professor of Physics at the University of 
Maryland, College Park, argued that the International Space 
Station is yesterday's technology and its stated scientific 
objectives are yesterday's science. He maintained that the 
International Space Station stands as the greatest single 
obstacle to continued exploration of space. In closing, Dr. 
Park noted that during the recent trend of cuts to the NASA 
budget, the Station remains a fixed cost, exempted from these 
budget cuts. Additionally, cost overruns in construction have 
been accommodated by postponing what little science is planned 
for the Station.
    Dr. Larry DeLucas, Director of the Center for 
Macromolecular Crystallography at the University of Alabama, 
Birmingham, noted that scientific microgravity experiments 
should be conducted over long periods of time as opposed to 
current experiments on the Space Shuttle with durations of one 
to two weeks. He maintained that carrying discoveries through 
to fruition where research can be used for practical benefit, 
must be done as an ongoing process. Dr. DeLucas endorsed the 
International Space Station because it will allow scientists to 
have a laboratory where research can be conducted 365 days a 
year.
    Mr. Rick N. Tumlinson, President of the Space Frontier 
Foundation, recommended having a facility in space in which 
Americans can conduct experimentation on new products, new 
services and new ideas. He advocated turning the International 
Space Station over to private interests to begin operating it 
in the same way that industry operate buildings, ships, ports, 
and airports. In closing, Mr. Tumlinson maintained that a 
successful Space Station will use a partnership between 
government and the private sector.

  4.4(f)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY98 NASA 
                    Authorization: Science Programs)

                             April 10, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-7

Background

    On April 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the last in a series of six hearings entitled, 
``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The Office 
of Space Science is responsible for planetary exploration as 
well as physics and astronomy missions. The Mission Operations 
and Data Analysis (MO&DA) account is separated into two parts, 
Mission Operations and Data Analysis. Mission Operations 
provides funding for ground networks; monitoring the health of 
spacecraft; and mission data processing, analysis, and 
archiving. Data Analysis provides funding for individual 
investigators, interdisciplinary scientists, and researchers. 
Three-quarters of the Data Analysis funds are spent at hundreds 
of universities nationwide in the form of grants.
    The Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications is responsible for aerospace medicine, chemical 
research, and the physical effects of microgravity on the human 
body. NASA's Life Sciences program sponsors basic and applied 
research in biomedicine, biology, and environmental sciences. 
The program's goals are to: (1) use gravity, microgravity and 
other characteristics of the space environment to conduct 
research; (2) develop scientific and technological foundations 
for safe and productive human presence in space; and (3) apply 
knowledge and technology gained to improve our life on Earth. 
The Microgravity Science Research and Analysis program supports 
ground-based research and definition studies for flight 
experiments. The goal of the microgravity research program is 
to advance fundamental scientific knowledge in physical, 
chemical and biological processes and to enhance the quality of 
life on Earth by conducting experiments in the low-gravity 
environment of space.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., Associate 
Administrator, Office of Space Science, NASA; Dr. Arnauld E. 
Nicogossian, Associate Administrator, Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications, NASA; Dr. Neal Pellis, 
Head of the Biotechnology Program, Johnson Space Center, NASA; 
Dr. Claude R. Canizares, Chair, Space Studies Board, National 
Research Council and, Director, Center for Space Research, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, 
Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey; and, Dr. V. Reggie 
Edgerton, Vice Chair, Physiological Science Department, 
University of California Los Angeles.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., NASA's Associate Administrator 
for the Office of Space Science, discussed five near-term 
objectives for NASA's science initiatives. First, to open up a 
new area in exploring the surfaces of planetary bodies such as 
Mars, comets, and asteroids. Second, conduct extensive 
investigations of the surface of Mars. Third, to complete the 
initial reconnaissance of our solar system with a mission to 
Pluto. Fourth, to invest in the technologies required to 
develop a successor to the Hubble space telescope. Fifth, to 
invest in technologies required to develop new techniques that 
we will need in order to search for Earth-like planets around 
other stars.
    Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, NASA's Associate Administrator 
for the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications, mentioned that because of the delay in the 
assembly sequence of the International Space Station, NASA has 
started studying remedial actions which include the use of 
Shuttle flights during the early years of Station assembly. 
These flights would provide the research community with 
continued access to space until transition to the Space Station 
is possible.
    Dr. Claude R. Canizares, Chair of the Space Studies Board 
at the National Research Council and Director of the Center for 
Space Research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
reiterated the need for additional Shuttle flight research 
opportunities because of developing problems with the 
International Space Station. He insisted that space research 
provides innumerable benefits that enhance the quality and 
character of life for the American public.
    Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, Scientist Emeritus at the U.S. 
Geological Survey, discussed near-Earth asteroids and research 
that NASA is supporting at three separate institutions that 
survey Earth-crossing asteroids. During his testimony, Dr. 
Shoemaker argued for the necessity of asteroid research and 
maintained that a 40 percent budget increase could reduce by as 
much as two thirds, the time required to discover 90 percent of 
the Earth-crossing asteroids larger than one kilometer in 
diameter. Dr. Neal Pellis, Head of the Biotechnology Program at 
NASA's Johnson Space Center, discussed the benefits of 
biotechnology and NASA's goal of engineering human tissue, 
starting from individual cells, using the microgravity 
environment and advanced technology such as the bioreactor.
    Dr. V. Reggie Edgerton, Vice Chair of the Physiological 
Science Department at the University of California Los Angeles, 
discussed different strategies for researching the field of 
neural repair. He argued that continued investment in this type 
of research is critical to efforts to optimize the recovery of 
elderly individuals who suffered neural dysfunctions and neural 
trauma patients.

 4.4(g)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial 
         Space Act of 1997: Commercial Remote Sensing, Part I)

                              May 21, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-16

Background

    On May 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held the first in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The 
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In 1992, Congress 
passed the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
555). The law established mechanisms by which private entities 
may obtain licenses to operate commercial remote sensing 
satellites to image the Earth in a variety of spectral bands. 
In 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision 
Directive (PDD) 23 and announced publicly his policy that U.S. 
commercial remote sensing companies would be allowed to collect 
space-based, high-resolution images. Currently, remote sensing 
imagery collected from government spacecraft and private-sector 
aircraft is applied to improve life on Earth in a variety of 
situations, including disaster relief, land use, resource 
planning, urban development, and precision agriculture. Since 
the announcement of the 1994 White House policy, the Federal 
Government has issued seven licenses to U.S. companies to 
operate remote sensing satellites. Experience with the legal 
and regulatory environment since 1992 has revealed several 
possibilities for improving the business environment of remote 
sensing.
    Historically, designing, building, launching, and operating 
an Earth-observing satellite has been an extremely expensive 
proposition. Until recently, governments have been the only 
entities capable of raising the capital required to image the 
Earth from space. For national security purposes, the U.S. 
intelligence community has been taking pictures of the planet 
from low-Earth orbit for decades. During the 1970s, NASA 
developed and launched the Landsat spacecraft to study the 
Earth's environment. Landsat 4 and 5 are still in operation 
today. Landsat 7 is scheduled for launch next year as part of 
NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program.
    In recent years the pace of technological change has 
dramatically reduced the cost and technical challenge 
associated with Earth observation from space. Whereas the 
United States and Soviet Union were the principal owners and 
operators of Earth observation satellites during the Cold War, 
several countries currently operate or plan to operate their 
own remote sensing system. Many of these nations are in the 
Third World. Canada, China, Brazil, the European Space Agency, 
France, India, Israel, Japan, and South Africa sponsor remote 
sensing programs in their respective countries. Other countries 
that have expressed an interest in purchasing or developing 
their own remote sensing satellites include South Korea, Spain, 
and the United Arab Emirates. The current commercial market in 
remote sensing is estimated to be about $350 million annually, 
with expectations that the market could reach $2 billion by the 
year 2000. This does not include the value-added industry, 
which interprets the data and generated $275 million in revenue 
during 1994.
    The reasons for the explosive growth in the industry are 
two-fold. First, the aforementioned drop in the price of 
technology has reduced the cost of designing, constructing, 
launching, and operating commercial remote sensing satellites. 
Second, during the course of government Earth observation 
programs, the user community has developed a wide range of 
applications for remotely-sensed data that directly benefit 
people on Earth. This has created a demand pull for the 
technology and images. Remote sensing technology and images are 
being used in mineral and oil exploration to focus the work of 
ground-survey teams and reduce the costs of exploration. Images 
are also being used for agricultural assessment and precision 
farming, so that agricultural yields are maximized with greater 
efficiency, requiring less fertilizer. Remote sensing images 
are also being used to monitor the environment and assess the 
environmental damage associated with clear-cut logging in the 
rain forest. Images have been used to predict, monitor, and 
assess major flood damage and are proving valuable in policing 
ocean use. In general, Earth remote sensing is increasingly 
being used to manage resources more efficiently.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of 
the Office of Air and Space Commercialization, Department of 
Commerce; Dr. Susan Moran, Physical Scientist for the Southwest 
Watershed Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr. 
Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow for Resources for the Future; Dr. 
John Townshend, Professor at the University of Maryland; and, 
Mr. Jeff Harris, President of Space Imaging Incorporated.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of the Office of Air 
and Space Commercialization at the Department of Commerce, 
discussed a new era that he termed ``new space.'' He maintained 
that new space differs dramatically from the previous era of 
traditional aerospace in three significant ways: (1) it is 
privately funded; (2) it is international; and (3) it will be 
Earth's new economic frontier. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor also noted 
that the U.S. government is beginning, and must continue, to 
treat new space as an industry segment where data is tracked 
and analyzed in much the same way as commodities futures or 
crop reports are, so that businesses can intelligently 
anticipate the future of the aerospace industry.
    Mr. Jeff Harris, President of Space Imaging Incorporated, 
discussed opportunities that commercial remote sensing can 
offer the U.S. He also explained the reasons for expanding 
interest in commercial remote sensing, including: (1) adequate 
technology is available; (2) commercial remote sensing has 
become more cost-effective; (3) international clientele 
opportunities; and (4) a U.S. aerospace industry that is poised 
and ready to further develop this emerging industry.
    Dr. Susan Moran, Physical Scientist for the Southwest 
Watershed Research Center at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, testified regarding applications of remote sensing 
imagery that help to improve life on Earth and discussed the 
value of commercial remote sensing to precision farming. Dr. 
John Townshend, Professor at the University of Maryland, said 
that to assist development of the commercial remote sensing 
industry, we (government and industry) should: (1) ensure that 
the scientific community plays a major role in planning the 
acquisition of remote sensing data; (2) provide reliable 
information on the availability of remote sensing data to the 
scientific user; (3) involve the scientific community in 
validation and quality assessment of products derived from 
remote sensing; and (4) assure that remote sensing products are 
delivered in a timely fashion.
    Dr. Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow for Resources for the 
Future, noted that the profitability of the commercial remote 
sensing market is going to depend on continued technological 
improvements and cost reductions in spacecraft and 
instrumentation. She also suggested that government agencies 
could ``auction'' research spacecraft after their original 
missions were complete. This would help commercial providers by 
eliminating expensive research and development costs.

 4.4(h)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial 
                Space Act of 1997: Space Transportation)

                              May 22, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-16

Background

    On May 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The 
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In the early 
1980's, various U.S. private companies (including government 
contractors and entrepreneurial firms) began to develop 
expendable launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services 
to private and public customers here and abroad. The U.S. 
industry did not grow quickly, however, due to regulatory 
burdens and competition from NASA's Space Shuttle. The 
regulatory problems faced by these companies led to Congress 
passing the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which created 
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Department 
of Transportation. This office has the responsibility of 
regulating and licensing commercial space launches. Two years 
later, after the Challenger disaster, the Reagan Administration 
directed that commercial satellites would no longer be launched 
by the Space Shuttle, and the three primary Air Force 
expendable launch vehicle contractors (McDonnell Douglas, 
General Dynamics, and Martin Marietta) began offering 
commercial launches using updated versions of vehicles which 
were derived from Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). 
In the decade since, the commercial space transportation 
industry has grown both domestically and internationally. 
Technology has progressed to the point where commercial reentry 
vehicles are now feasible. In the near future, it is expected 
that private firms will develop their own (multi-stage) 
reusable launch vehicles. Internationally, the European 
industry consortium, Arianespace, continues to dominate the 
world market, launching roughly 70% of the world's commercial 
communications satellites to geosynchronous (GEO) orbit. Many 
other nations have entered the launch market, including China, 
Russia, Ukraine, and Japan. The market for space transportation 
has also grown beyond GEO-based communications satellites to 
include low Earth orbit-based communications, navigation, and 
remote sensing satellites.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Edward A. Frankle, General Counsel 
for NASA; Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator 
(Acting) for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA); Mr. Edward Brady, Managing Partner, 
Strategic Perspectives Incorporated; and, Mr. Michael S. Kelly, 
President & CEO, Kelly Space & Technology Incorporated.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Edward A. Frankle, General Counsel for NASA, noted that 
policy makers need to review several areas before making a 
decision to regulate in-space transportation. These areas 
include: international obligations of the U.S.; pubic health 
and safety; safety of property; and national security and 
foreign policy interests of the U.S. However, Mr. Frankle 
stated that he did not believe that there is any logical basis 
for regulating in-space transportation at this time.
    Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator (Acting) for 
Commercial Space Transportation at FAA, testified it was 
essential that Congress pass authorizing legislation granting 
FAA the authority to license reentries. Further, she maintained 
that without such authority, the government would not be able 
to provide for public safety or ensure adequate oversight of 
commercial space transportation activities involving reentry or 
reusable vehicles.
    Mr. Edward Brady, Managing Partner for Strategic 
Perspectives Incorporated, focused on the necessity to 
establish international standards for commercial space 
operations. He maintained that commercial space activities 
cannot be implemented in a cost-effective manner without 
standards that are nationally and internationally recognized 
and used.
    Mr. Michael S. Kelly, President & CEO of Kelly Space & 
Technology Incorporated, said that he believed that authority 
to license reentry should be granted to the FAA and that the 
government should not continue the practice of financing 
commercial launch service providers with taxpayer money.

 4.4(i)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial 
         Space Act of 1997: Commercial Remote Sensing, Part II)

                              June 4, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-16

Background

    On June 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held the last in a series of hearings entitled, ``The 
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In 1992 Congress 
passed, and President Bush signed, the Land Remote Sensing 
Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555), which made it possible for 
the U.S. commercial sector to design, build, launch, and 
operate commercial remote sensing satellites to image the Earth 
from space. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act charges the 
Secretary of Commerce with carrying out its provisions and 
establishing a process for licensing these remote sensing 
satellites. In order to ensure that U.S. national security 
concerns and international obligations are taken into 
consideration during the licensing process, the law directs the 
Secretary of Commerce to consult with the Secretaries of 
Defense and State prior to issuing any license. The State and 
Defense Secretaries are then charged with recommending to the 
Secretary of Commerce any conditions that should be placed on 
the license to make it consistent with U.S. national security 
and international obligations. The Commerce Department has 120 
days from the time a license application is submitted to work 
its way through this interagency process and make a ruling on 
the license application. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) is the agency within the Commerce 
Department that carries out the Department's responsibilities 
under the law.
    The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a system of orbiting 
satellites that transmit precise information about their 
location over the Earth. Using a small receiver, an individual 
on the ground can determine his or her precise position (within 
a few feet) on Earth in three dimensions. While GPS is 
primarily a military system, it provides a slightly less 
accurate signal to civilian users for various non-military 
applications. An entire industry that uses the GPS signal has 
developed as a result and the applications have multiplied well 
beyond precise navigation. These applications currently include 
farming, surveying, recreation, and vehicle fleet management. 
The National Academy of Public Administration estimated that 
annual revenues from this civil industry were about $2 billion 
in 1995 and could grow to $31 billion by the year 2000.
    Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for 
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; Ms. Cheryl 
Roby, Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Command, 
Control, Communications, and Intelligence, Department of 
Defense; and, Mr. Mike Sweik, Executive Director, GPS Industry 
Council.
    While drafting H.R. 1702, the Commercial Space Act of 1997, 
the Committee on Science attempted to seek input from various 
agencies and businesses in an effort to make the bill as 
favorable, for both the Congress and the Administration, as 
possible. Therefore, the Department of State was invited to 
participate in this hearing, but unfortunately, a witness was 
not sent despite the Committee's attempts over several weeks to 
obtain a representative who could provide input from the 
Department. The Committee sought input from the Department of 
State because the Department makes recommendations, based on 
U.S. international obligations, to the Secretary of Commerce 
regarding licenses for commercial remote sensing. Subsequent to 
the hearing, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman 
and Ranking Member each received a position paper from the 
Department of State regarding H.R. 1702. While the Committee 
appreciates the input from the Department, such input is 
valuable legislatively only to the extent that members have the 
opportunity to ask questions and explore issues on the record. 
The Department's failure to appear before the Committee and 
offer its comments in a public forum limit the value or import 
that can be given to the Department's concerns, many of which 
appear to be inconsistent with existing law in the Land Remote 
Sensing Policy Act of 1992 and the President's publicly 
released statements of policy on remote sensing.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce, testified that 
it is the goal of the Department of Commerce, and the 
Administration, to provide a policy and regulatory regime which 
nurtures and fosters the development of commercial remote 
sensing, so that the U.S. does not squander the lead and allow 
other countries to gain competitive advantage in this high-
skill, high-wage industry. Dr. Baker noted industry concerns 
about the vagueness of the standard for determining when 
imaging must be restricted. Therefore, he reported that the 
Department of Commerce is developing regulations which will 
achieve a better balance between the burdens on a licensed 
operator and national security requirements and international 
obligations of the U.S. regarding remote sensing practices.
    Ms. Cheryl Roby, Principal Deputy to the Assistant 
Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence at the Department of Defense, testified that the 
recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review commits the 
Department to maximize the use of emerging commercial remote 
sensing capabilities. She maintained that for reasons of 
national security, the Defense Department is convinced that 
provisions allowing for shutter control in emergency situations 
should continue. However, Ms. Roby noted that the Defense 
Department did not anticipate that shutter control would occur 
often or over significant periods of time.
    Mr. Mike Swiek, Executive Director for the Global 
Positioning System Industry Council, testified that the Global 
Positioning System (GPS) has become one of the greatest success 
stories of government and industry cooperation. He noted that 
proposed language in the Commercial Space Act of 1997 
reiterates the need to establish a clear, high-level commitment 
to a stable policy environment for the development of 
international standards facilitating both private and public 
sector investments in GPS. In closing, Mr. Swiek argued that 
the most important near-term initiative that the government can 
take to promote long-term GPS growth is through passage of 
language that supports current efforts to secure international 
agreements with our allies to establish GPS and its 
augmentations as an accepted international standard.

                      4.4(j)--Space Shuttle Safety

                            October 1, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-24

Background

    On October 1, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Space Shuttle Safety.'' 
The hearing focused on the current status of the Space Shuttle 
program. Specifically, the hearing examined the overall program 
safety and how improvements instituted since the Challenger 
tragedy will be maintained during the ongoing consolidation of 
the program under a single prime contractor. Of particular 
interest to the Committee was the recent reallocation of $190 
million from the Shuttle program's uncosted carryover funds in 
FY1997 to the International Space Station (ISS) program. In 
addition, the Subcommittee was interested in receiving 
testimony about NASA's future upgrade and maintenance plans for 
its Orbiter fleet for operations through the next decade, as 
well as hearing the agency's proposals for the privatization of 
the Shuttle program.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associated 
Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Paul M. 
Johnstone, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Mr. Allen 
Li, United States General Accounting Office; and, Mr. Jim 
Adamson, Chief Operating Officer, United Space Alliance.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associate Administrator for the Office 
of Human Space Flight, NASA, testified that the transfer of 
$190 million in fiscal year 1997 from the Space Shuttle program 
to the International Space Station program was generated 
primarily from prior year operational efficiencies and program 
restructuring. The savings realized from the Shuttle program 
restructuring process, started in FY1993, were transferred into 
reserve accounts. Mr. Trafton stated that these accounts were 
then used to mitigate the impact of the significant reductions 
in new obligation authority during fiscal years 1994 and 1995. 
He also emphasized that Space Shuttle safety, NASA's number one 
priority, has not been jeopardized by the transfer of funds. 
Mr. Trafton detailed the near perfect safety record of Shuttle 
flights in recent years. Mr. Trafton testified that any 
significant interruption in the International Space Station 
assembly would drive the Shuttle well below the five to six 
year minimum rate recommended to maintain a safe schedule. In 
conclusion, Mr. Trafton believed that transferring the $190 
million was the right thing to do and stated that NASA planned 
to follow the same strategy in fiscal year 1998.
    Paul M. Johnstone, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel, testified that the panel he chairs does not review 
budgetary matters and relies upon the affected programs to 
provide assessments of the consequences of funding changes on 
operations. Mr. Johnstone then stated that the Space Shuttle 
program had not informed the panel of any functional changes as 
a result of this uncosted carryover funds transfer. Mr. 
Johnstone noted that the panel does not have any indication 
that the transfer of funds will have any impact on the ongoing 
efforts to reduce risk. Mr. Johnstone also applauded NASA's 
utilization of the delay in the ISS assembly schedule to 
perform integrated testing of components on the ground prior to 
launch. He did indicate, however, that this delay could promote 
potential strain on Space Shuttle personnel resources. He 
concluded by stating that despite all of the changes NASA is 
undergoing, in his panel's estimation, safety remains the 
number one tenet.
    Mr. Allen Li, United States General Accounting Office, 
testified on the upgrade activities and carryover balances of 
the Space Shuttle program. Mr. Li stated that upgrade 
activities are necessary not only to improve safety and 
reliability, but are also essential to overcome component 
obsolescence, enhance Shuttle performance, and reduce operating 
costs. Mr. Li detailed three points about the funding transfer: 
(1) the $190 million transfer did not adversely impact current 
upgrade projects; (2) the money was available because of the 
large amount of carryover within the Shuttle program; and (3) 
depending on the upgrades selected, future costs could range 
from hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars. The 
questions surrounding funding, in Mr. Li's estimation, will 
provide the key parameters that will help shape future policy 
decisions.
    Mr. Jim Adamson, Chairman, United Space Alliance, testified 
that the United Space Alliance has felt no pressure to reduce 
costs or accelerate production at the expense of savings. Mr. 
Adamson reported that the Shuttle Flight Operations Contract 
(SFOC) is on track and proceeding well. In conclusion, Mr. 
Adamson stated that, in his opinion, after one full year under 
the SFOC, the safety of the Space Shuttle program has never 
been better.

 4.4(k)--NASA's Study of Space Solar Power (Space Solar Power: A Fresh 
                                 Look)

                            October 24, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-37

Background

    On October 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``NASA's Study of Space 
Solar Power'' to discuss recent developments relating to the 
concept of space-based collection of solar energy for use on 
Earth. In particular the hearing focused on a recently-
completed NASA study on ``Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look''. 
Testimony before the Subcommittee addressed three main topics: 
(1) the approach and results of NASA's ``Fresh Look'' study; 
(2) the potential direct and indirect economic, environmental, 
and space exploration benefits of space solar power; (3) what 
role NASA can and should play in pursuing the opportunities of 
space solar power, including carrying out the technology risk 
reduction roadmap suggested by the Fresh Look study.
    Witnesses included: Mr. John Mankins, Manager, Advanced 
Concepts Studies, Office of Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Greg 
Maryniak, President, Sunset Energy Council, and Senior 
Scientist, Futron Corporation; and, Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of 
Aerospace and Science Policy, American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics.
    In 1968 a Czech-American engineer at Arthur D. Little, Dr. 
Peter Glaser, first conceived of a satellite which could 
collect solar energy in space and beam it down to the Earth 
using microwaves or lasers. Stationed 22,000 miles above a 
ground receiving antenna in ``geosynchronous'' orbit, the Solar 
Power Satellite (SPS) would use photovoltaic cells to convert 
the direct, unfiltered sunlight which is available 24 hours a 
day in space into electrical energy before transmission to the 
surface.
    The energy crises of the 1970's stimulated both government 
and private sector interest in the SPS concept, leading to a 
Department of Energy-led study (with significant NASA 
participation) which determined the concept was feasible and in 
line with forecasts of early 21st century fossil and nuclear 
sources. An oversight study by the National Academy of Sciences 
released in late 1981, however, declared that the costs and 
technical risks made SPS unfeasible. In particular, the costs 
of launching and assembling huge satellites in orbit, the long 
period of time from initial investment until power could 
actually be generated (and hence the payback begin), and the 
risks of pursuing a system which required several new and 
unproven technologies, all militated against proceeding with 
full-scale development in the 1980's timeframe. There were also 
concerns about the environmental impacts of microwave power-
beaming from space to the Earth's surface.
    At the request of the House Committee on Science and 
Technology, the former Office of Technology Assessment issued 
its own report in 1981, which indicated that ``too little is 
currently known about the technical, economic, and 
environmental aspects of SPS to make a sound decision whether 
to proceed''. It therefore suggested that an ``SPS research 
program could ultimately assure an adequate information base 
for these decisions.''
    However, neither the Department of Energy (DOE) nor NASA 
pursued the SPS concept further for 15 years, apparently 
believing the idea was politically, as well as economically and 
technically, unfeasible. Meanwhile, private organizations such 
as the Space Studies Institute, the Sunsat Energy Council, and 
the California Space Institute all pursued research into a 
variety of concepts and technologies for what became the more 
generic and accepted term of ``Space Solar Power.''
    Still other Space Solar Power advocates, including Dr. 
Glaser, studied the possibility of shorter-term applications 
for the basic technologies of ``wireless power transmission'' 
(i.e. the means of sending the energy from the satellite to the 
Earth). Glaser proposed that there were economically viable 
interim steps along the way to full-scale SPS development which 
could be pursued earlier, making it possible to reduce the risk 
and cost of SPS by inventing it piecemeal. Despite the U.S. 
government's lack of interest during the 1980's, other nations, 
particularly Japan and France, began hosting conferences and 
sponsoring preliminary research efforts regarding SPS.
    In 1995, after the establishment of the Office of Space 
Access and Technology within NASA and its subsidiary Office of 
Advanced Concepts, NASA initiated its first significant look at 
Space Solar Power since the DOE study. The team included NASA 
employees from NASA Headquarters, the Marshall and Lewis 
Research Centers, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as well as 
experts from the electric power and aerospace industry. The 
study took account of significant advances in automation and 
robotics, space launch, small satellites, and photovoltaics in 
the past 15 years, as well as changes in the world energy 
forecast, particularly in the developing world.
    Starting with a mandate of economic feasibility, rather 
than a more typical engineering focus, the study identified 
several potential systems concepts--two of which were 
determined to be promising--and laid out a measured technology 
risk reduction strategy. Because of high costs for existing, 
let alone additional, power capacity in the developing world, 
the study determined that Space Solar Power would be an 
important energy option for the 21st century, and 
could begin meeting peak power demands economically in as few 
as 15-20 years. The study also found that there were 
significant benefits to other space activities, including in-
space transportation and space-based power needs.
    In mid-study (late 1996) NASA reorganized its space 
technology activities, and the Office of Advanced Concepts was 
abolished. The study activity continued, however, and the final 
report was issued early in the summer of 1997.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. John Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 
Office of Space Flight, NASA, initiated his testimony by 
stating that NASA is not the lead in the Federal Government for 
power systems technology development for earth applications, 
and that commercial Space Solar Power is not a priority within 
NASA's current strategic plan. He noted that funding for any 
focused NASA effort in support of solar power technology is 
neither included in NASA's existing budget, nor contemplated at 
this time for future NASA budgets. He indicated that past solar 
power satellite efforts were deemed too expensive and immense 
to undertake. However, Mr. Mankins then detailed the latest 
effort to explore this topic, NASA's Fresh Look Study. 
According to Mr. Mankins, the study determined that the older 
modules of a solar power satellite system would cost between $1 
billion and $10 billion to start commercial operations and 
would have to produce power at 1 to 10 cents a kilowatt per 
hour in order to compete commercially. The study, according to 
Mr. Mankins, also detailed two new concepts: the SunTower and 
the Solar Disk. These concepts both address a global energy 
market and are largely self-assembling and self managing. Mr. 
Mankins also stated that these new systems would cost less to 
assemble and have a diverse range of commercial space 
applications. Mr. Mankins concluded by stating that aggressive 
technology development would be needed to realize the potential 
of these new space solar power concepts. Based on the 
conclusions of the Fresh Look Study, the time has come for a 
reconsideration of power from space as a potential global 
energy option.
    Mr. Greg Maryniak, President, Sunset Energy Council and 
Senior Scientist, Futron Corporation, testified that 
terrestrial solar power is critically important throughout the 
world, especially in residential areas where density is fairly 
small. Cities and industries, however, require an energy 
density that exceeds what can be collected in a local area. In 
Mr. Maryniak's opinion, Space Solar Power solves that problem 
by collecting the energy and transmitting it to earth. Mr. 
Maryniak stated that Space Solar Power would also have 
immediate benefits for wireless power technology, the 
International Space Station, and future space transportation. 
Mr. Maryniak believes that NASA's mission in this area should 
be to improve the technologies and reduce the risk for 
commercial players. In his opinion, NASA has been reluctant to 
pursue this strategy because of the intense interest and 
investment in a manned mission to Mars. In conclusion, Mr. 
Maryniak believes that research and funds should be balanced to 
include this potentially important technology.
    Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of Aerospace and Science Policy at 
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 
testified that in creating the Human Exploration and 
Development of Space division (HEDS), NASA chose to include two 
oftentimes very different goals into the same enterprise; 
exploration and development. Dr. Grey concluded that the 
mission-oriented hardware needed for a Mars mission are 
generally not consistent with the equally important 
developmental goals that are achieved through the use of space 
technologies. He then noted that these two enterprises could 
eventually be reconciled because key technologies are shared in 
both endeavors. To do this, however, NASA must recognize that 
the development of space by humans for economic return and 
public access is at least as important as traveling to Mars. In 
conclusion, Dr. Grey stated that because the technological 
programs are widely dispersed throughout the agency's various 
enterprises, NASA's technology advancement programs need to be 
coordinated by a single office whose responsibility is very 
specific: planning for and building the capability for both 
exploration and development of space by humans.

           4.4(l)--Indemnification and Cross Waiver Authority

                            October 30, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-36

Background

    On October 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Indemnification and 
Cross Waiver Authority'' to discuss two different kinds of 
legal authority being sought by NASA from Congress: (1) 
indemnify experimental aerospace vehicle (eg, X-33 and X-34) 
developers against third-party liability claims; and (2) sign 
mutual waivers of liability with domestic contractors and other 
entities. The hearing addressed the Clinton Administration's 
proposed legislative language to provide these authorities and 
the Senate's alternative approach, as included in S. 1250, the 
FY1998-99 NASA Authorization bill.
    Witnesses included: Ms. June Edwards, Associate General 
Counsel, NASA; Mr. Jerry Rising, Vice President, Reusable 
Launch Vehicles, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Sector; and, Dr. 
Robert Lindberg, Vice President, X-34 Program, Orbital Sciences 
Corporation.
            Background (indemnification)
    NASA's X-33 and X-34 experimental reusable launch vehicle 
projects are leading examples of the space agency's ``new ways 
of doing business.'' In the case of the X-33, a ``cooperative 
agreement'' was signed between Lockheed Martin and NASA which 
calls for the company to build and flight test the X-33 as an 
``industry-led'' project. Because Lockheed Martin owns the X-33 
vehicle itself, it would presumably be liable for any damages 
caused to third parties during the flight test program. A real-
world example would be windows broken in someone's house due to 
the ``hypersonic boom.''
    But because this flight test program is being conducted for 
the public good as part of an experimental technology 
demonstration effort, the Administration and many outside 
experts believe this liability risk is an unfair expense for 
the company to bear. NASA, therefore, proposes to amend the 
National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568, as amended) so 
they can indemnify or ``protect against or keep free from loss 
or damage'' [Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College 
Edition, 1988] the developers and operators of experimental 
vehicles such as Lockheed Martin for the X-33. Likewise, NASA 
would be able to indemnify Orbital Sciences Corporation, the 
developer of the X-34.
            Background (cross-waiver)
    In order to maximize resources available to space research 
(by minimizing that spent on legal issues), NASA has 
historically signed mutual waivers of liability with its 
research partners, whether they are domestic or foreign 
contractors, universities, individuals or government agencies. 
By agreeing to be responsible for one's own hardware and any 
damages it suffers, both NASA and the other entity can avoid 
spending resources protecting themselves against the greatest 
source of litigation: damages to directly-involved parties.
    For example, if a university wishes to fly a payload on the 
Space Shuttle, the cost of obtaining insurance against the 
potential damage to the Shuttle orbiter if something went wrong 
with the payload could well exceed the total cost of the 
payload and the launch. Because it is in the public interest to 
encourage the greatest efficiency in use of research funding, 
NASA and the university would sign a ``cross-waiver'' of 
liability claims. If the university was working with several 
scientists, each of whom contributed part of the payload, the 
university could extend this cross-waiver to cover them as 
well.
    While NASA has historically claimed the authority to sign 
these cross-waivers with both domestic and international 
partners, the Department of Justice has raised questions about 
this authority vis-a-vis domestic waivers. (The President 
clearly can delegate his constitutional foreign affairs 
authority to NASA to reciprocally waive liability rights with 
international partners.) NASA is therefore seeking the explicit 
authority to sign such waivers with all domestic partners, 
again as a permanent amendment to the NASA Act (P.L. 85-568, as 
amended).
            NASA's proposed legislation and S. 1250
    As stated earlier, NASA is proposing that it be granted 
indemnification and cross-waiver authority through permanent 
amendments to the NASA Act of 1958 (as amended). In keeping 
with the broadly empowering nature of the Act itself, the 
Administration's proposed legislative language gives NASA broad 
and permanent authority which includes not only coverage of X-
33 and X-34 but also the International Space Station and 
operators of a privatized Space Shuttle.
    Senator Frist's and Rockefeller's staff on the Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on 
Science, Technology, and Space have, after extensive 
discussions with NASA, experimental vehicle developers Lockheed 
Martin and Orbital Sciences Corporation, and their own 
legislative counsel, produced significantly different language 
which Senator Frist has included in S. 1250. Senator 
Rockefeller is a co-sponsor of the bill.
    S. 1250's language provides much narrower powers, limiting 
both indemnification and cross-waiver authority to just the X-
33 and X-34 programs. Instead of permanently amending the NASA 
Act (P.L. 85-568, as amended), S. 1250 provides a temporary, 
stand-alone provision which sunsets in either 2002 or, at the 
discretion of the Administrator, in 2005.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. June Edwards, Associate General Counsel, NASA, 
testified regarding the cross-waiver and indemnification 
concepts located in section 308 of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Act as contained in NASA's Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization 
Bill. Ms. Edwards described cross-waivers as first or second-
party liability where each party agrees to bear its own risk of 
participation in a joint space activity and is thus freed from 
the concern that it may be liable for other parties' 
contributions. She noted that cross-waivers save money and also 
encourage space activity by reducing uncertainty and risk, 
especially in the commercial context. Ms. Edwards stated that 
NASA was seeking an explicit statement of ability to waive 
claims of the United States Government in its domestic cross-
waiver. Without the amendment, Ms. Edwards stated, the 
commercial aerospace industry supporting NASA's aerospace 
activities could be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-
vis their international partners and their contractors. She 
noted that under a presidential delegation, NASA can waive 
these claims in international agreements but may not be able to 
provide the same level of insurance in domestic activities. Ms. 
Edwards also testified that new indemnification approaches are 
needed to meet the new and emerging commercial space 
initiatives. In conclusion, Ms. Edwards stated that the 
proposed legislation, which she feels addresses a fair and 
equitable allocation of risk, would provide a significant 
benefit to the United States' space program.
    Mr. Jerry Rising, Vice President, Reusable Launch Vehicles, 
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Sector, testified regarding the X-
33 program and the importance for providing for a financial 
responsibility and risk allocation regime comparable to other 
current aerospace activities. Mr. Rising testified that in 
regard to the X-33 program, NASA agreed to fund the high-risk 
advanced technologies to a level that will most likely include 
private capital investment for the full-scale operational 
vehicle. He noted that the X-33 program is being carried out 
under a cooperative agreement, rather than under a conventional 
NASA contract. While this agreement has many advantages in 
terms of flexibility and responsibility of government and 
industry, it has become evident that there are limits to NASA's 
authority in the context of this new legal mechanism. Mr. 
Rising then explained that the NASA X-33 Industry Cooperative 
Agreement has placed the X-33 flight test program in a gap 
wherein traditional government coverage for a third-party 
liability is unavailable. Therefore, in Mr. Rising's opinion, 
the launch insurance and the indemnification regime provided by 
the proposed NASA legislation is essential for the continuation 
of the X-33 program. Mr. Rising testified that Lockheed Martin 
would like to see the Congress give NASA clear authority to 
provide for insurance and indemnification for loss in excess of 
what NASA determines to be reasonable and affordable insurance 
for the contractor to provide on experimental programs. In 
conclusion, Mr. Rising stated that the support of experimental 
programs, like the X-33 and eventually the VentureStar Reusable 
Launch Vehicle, is essential for affordable space launch 
capabilities in the future.
    Dr. Robert Lindberg, Vice President, X-34 Program, Orbital 
Sciences Corporation, testified on the impact that 
indemnification has on the X-34 program. Dr. Lindberg explained 
that the X-34 is an experimental, air-launched hypersonic 
rocket-powered vehicle, that will demonstrate new approaches 
that will dramatically reduce the time and the number of people 
that are required to process and launch a future reusable 
launch system. Before even one flight is conducted, Dr. 
Lindberg testified, it is necessary to have in place the means 
of protection against damage, loss or injury that might result 
for the operation of our experimental vehicle for the benefit 
of NASA. Dr. Lindberg then explained that the risks involved in 
the operation of the X-34 exceed the indemnification limits 
associated with the general risk of hazardous operations within 
the industry of the United States. Expendable launch vehicle 
operations conducted for NASA are indemnified by NASA through 
authority granted in the Space Act. The Space Act, Dr. Lindberg 
noted, does not extend that authority to a non-commercial but 
non-government owned reusable launch system such as the X-33 or 
X-34. Dr. Lindberg testified that if the United States is to 
develop low-cost access to space in the foreseeable future, the 
Federal Government must indemnify and provide provisions of 
cross-waiver of liability for flight programs with experimental 
technologies. Dr. Lindberg stated that Orbital Science 
Corporation supports NASA's initiative to seek authority to 
indemnify these new reusable launch programs, consistent with 
their authority to indemnify expendable launch vehicles through 
the Space Act.

  4.4(m)--Status and Cost Overruns of the International Space Station 
                                Program

                            November 5, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-28

Background

    On November 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Status and Cost Overruns 
of the International Space Station Program.''
    Testimony before the Committee focused on: (1) the cost and 
schedule performance of the International Space Station program 
to date; (2) the projected fiscal status of the International 
Space Station program, including cost increases resulting from 
design changes, contractor performance, and schedule variance; 
(3) past, current, and projected Russian performance on its 
commitments to the International Space Station; (4) the reasons 
the program is experiencing cost growth; (5) the current 
financial status of Boeing's contract with NASA on the 
International Space Station; (6) Boeing's plans for containing 
cost growth in the future; (7) GAO's judgment about NASA and 
contractor plans to contain cost growth and maintain schedule 
on the International Space Station in the future; and (8) the 
issue areas surrounding the International Space Station that 
may require Congressional action.
    Witnesses included: Wilbur C. Trafton, Associate 
Administrator, Human Space Flight, NASA; Douglas C. Stone, Vice 
President and Program Manager, International Space Station, The 
Boeing Company; and, Alan Li, Associate Director, National 
Security and International Affairs Division, General Accounting 
Office.
    In late 1993, the Clinton Administration initiated a 
redesign of the Space Station Freedom. Canada, the European 
Space Agency, and Japan were international partners of the 
United States at the time. The design that the Administration 
and NASA settled on was dubbed ``Alpha.'' Just as the redesign 
was completed in 1994, the Administration invited the Russian 
Government to join the program as an international partner. The 
station was again redesigned to include Russian participation. 
The first element of the newly redesigned Space Station with 
Russian participation, now known as the International Space 
Station (ISS), was to be launched in 1997 with a completion 
date in June 2002. According to the Administration, bringing 
the Russians into the redesigned space station would save the 
American taxpayer $2 billion and expedite launch of the 
station's first elements by two years. The total U.S. cost of 
the program with the Russians was set at $17.4 billion between 
FY94 and FY02, with a self-imposed annual spending cap of $2.1 
billion. Additionally, ISS was to have early science 
capabilities.
    The Administration established the Gore-Chernomyrdin 
Commission (GCC), in which Vice President Gore routinely meets 
with the Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, to resolve 
issues that arise during the course of U.S.-Russian scientific 
cooperation. Since then, Vice President Gore has been the 
Administration's ``point man'' in dealing with Russia on ISS 
issues.
            Russia's role
    At the time of the redesign, Congress was concerned that 
the Russian Government would not be a reliable partner in ISS 
for several reasons. First, members were concerned about 
Russia's political stability as the former Soviet republics 
worked out their relations as independent states. The 
possibility that an ultra-nationalist, such as Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky, would become President of Russia and pull it out 
of the ISS program was particularly worrisome. Second, members 
were concerned about Russia's economic situation, which was 
chaotic in 1993 and was expected to have an impact on Russia's 
ability to actually build the hardware it pledged to build. 
Members also recommended keeping Russia out of the critical 
path for completing ISS, meaning they wanted Russia to play an 
enhancing role, not an enabling role. None of the other 
international partners were in the critical path. Consequently, 
they would not hold up the space station if they failed to 
produce their promised hardware.
    As the Committee has conducted repeated oversight hearings 
of this program since 1993, it has become clear that Russia's 
economic situation is having an adverse impact on the country's 
ability to meet its ISS commitments, contributing to a seven-
month delay in the launch of the first element (from November 
1997 to June 1998) and nearly a year and a half schedule slip 
in the scheduled final launch (from June 2002 to December 
2003). Furthermore, it is also clear that the Russians are in 
the ISS critical path and that the highly-capable station that 
NASA promised to build for $17.4 billion cannot be built 
without the Russians, who are to provide: (1) command, control, 
living quarters, and reboost capabilities with the Service 
Module; (2) early space-based power and roll control in the 
Science Power Platform; (3) crew rescue capabilities in the 
Soyuz spacecraft; and (4) logistics and resupply through 
launches of unmanned Progress spacecraft.
    In late 1995, the Russian Space Agency (RSA) informed NASA 
that it was unable to honor its commitments to the 
International Space Station due to a lack of funding from the 
Russian Government. At that point, RSA proposed attaching the 
U.S., European, Canadian and Japanese components of ISS to 
Russia's aging Mir space station, which was already in orbit. 
NASA rejected this option, but revised its relations with RSA 
by extending its existing $400 million Shuttle-Mir contract and 
adding another $72 million in scheduled payments from the 
United States to Russia and by agreeing to alter the assembly 
sequence and provide additional support to Russia's ISS 
hardware needs. With these new American commitments, Russia 
renewed its promise to honor its commitments to the ISS. 
Unfortunately, throughout 1996, RSA and its contractors 
continued to receive inadequate funding and Russia fell further 
behind in its work on ISS components.
    The Russian fiscal year begins on January 1. Although the 
Russian Government's budget for RSA and its commitments to the 
International Space Station totaled 1.8 trillion rubles in 
1997, RSA and its contractors did not receive their funding 
during the first three months of 1997. In February 1997, at the 
regularly scheduled meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin 
Commission, the Russian Government promised to provide 800 
billion rubles to RSA by the end of May. It did not. 
Consequently, RSA and its contractors continued to fall behind 
the schedule for building their portions of ISS. During the 
second quarter of 1997, the Russian government made several 
promises to provide RSA with its entire budget for the year in 
cash. It did not keep these promises. In April 1997, NASA 
announced the first major delay in the construction schedule 
for ISS partly as a result of Russia's failure to fund its 
contractors. At that point, the Russian government arranged to 
borrow funds from private Russian banks to finance some of its 
space activities. According to a recent NASA briefing, RSA and 
its contractors have received about 1 trillion of the 1.8 
trillion rubles promised this spring, while a decree by Yeltsin 
has been issued promising another 530 billion rubles for RSA 
during the last three months of 1997. This would still leave 
RSA and its contractors 270 billion rubles short of their 
promised budget. Nevertheless, according to NASA, RSA and its 
contractors are at work on the near-term Russian contributions 
to the ISS: Service Module, Science Power Platform, Soyuz, and 
Progress spacecraft. The Service Module is approximately two 
months behind schedule in preparing for a December 1998 launch.
            Problems with the U.S. portions of the program
    Most of the attention focused on ISS to date has been on 
the Russians, largely due to their repeated failures to honor 
their commitments. In the United States, however, serious 
programmatic problems have also developed. In this case, they 
have nothing to do with the government's inability to provide 
funding, since the Congress has given NASA full funding of the 
amounts requested in the President's budget as well as another 
$100 million that was not requested in FY1998.
    Significant cost growth has occurred in the program, but it 
is not clear how much money is involved or the reasons that 
NASA is unable to live within its self-imposed $2.1 billion 
annual spending cap. One reason for the ambiguity in cost 
growth is that NASA has deferred work from year to year while 
insisting that development costs would not grow in the 
outyears. For example, in the latest revision of the ISS 
assembly sequence, NASA delayed the launch of the U.S. 
habitation module by 22 months, from its original launch in 
February 2002 to a new launch date in December 2003. Even as it 
adopted this delay, NASA initiated studies to determine if the 
habitation module could be replaced with an Italian-built Node 
3 not contained in the original ISS design or with something 
called ``Trans-hab'' which could serve as a technology test bed 
for sending people to Mars. Such design changes so late in the 
program make it difficult to estimate the cost impact of 
changes to the program until they are finalized and their 
impact assessed. Nevertheless, changes that have been finalized 
can be determined. NASA Administrator Goldin testified before 
the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, 
Technology, and Space on September 18, 1997, that ``Authorized 
program changes alone count for application of over $1 billion 
in reserves.''
    It is clear, however, that NASA has required considerably 
more resources for construction of the ISS than laid out in the 
program's original budget. One manner NASA has used to acquire 
additional funds without asking Congress for additional budget 
authority has been to transfer funds budgeted for early science 
missions aboard ISS into ISS construction accounts. The 
following chart summarizes these past, current, and planned 
transfers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal year--
                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                    1996      1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original science budget FY96....     250.8     308.4     400.5     434.5     454.0     314.3     260.7    2423.2
Transfer to construction........     -50.0    -177.0    -235.0     -70.0        --    +190.0    +165.0    2246.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The funds transferred from science to construction total 
$532 million between FY96 and FY99. NASA currently plans to 
transfer $355 million back to science in F01 and FY02, leaving 
a $177 million shortfall in science funding.
    In addition to transferring funds from science to ISS 
construction, NASA also transferred funds from the Space 
Shuttle budget. On April 9, 1997, NASA announced in testimony 
before the Subcommittee that it wanted to transfer $200 million 
in FY97 funding from the Space Shuttle to ISS construction. In 
the end, it transferred $190 million from the Space Shuttle and 
$10 million from payload and utilization into ISS construction.
    On September 18, 1997, NASA wrote Chairman Jerry Lewis of 
the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and 
informed him that NASA required $430 million in FY98 funding 
over and above the President's request of $2,121.3 million for 
ISS development. In the letter, NASA identified a $100 million 
increase in ISS funding provided by House appropriators and the 
authority to transfer an additional $150 million from Science, 
Aeronautics, and Technology into ISS development. NASA did not 
identify which programs it planned to cut in transferring $150 
million from other programs or where it would obtain the 
remaining $180 million shortfall.
    House and Senate authorizers asked for similar notice, 
which NASA did not provide until October 10, 1997 when the 
agency sent Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Minority Member 
Brown a letter summarizing those actions taken by the 
appropriations conference. Briefly, the appropriators: (1) 
increased NASA's total funding by $148 million, $100 million of 
which went for ISS; (2) redirected funding totaling $50 million 
within Human Spaceflight to ISS construction; and (3) 
transferred $80 million from Mission Support to ISS 
construction. The October 10 letter also did not identify which 
program NASA intended to cut to come up with the $430 million 
it claimed to need. Instead, it indicated that the agency would 
determine what the impact of a $230 million increase in ISS 
construction would be as opposed to a $430 million increase.
    In addition to these funding transfers, NASA has spent a 
considerable portion of its budgeted reserves on ISS 
development, even before the first element is launched. In 
conjunction with a March 28, 1996 hearing on the International 
Space Station NASA Administrator Dan Goldin confirmed in 
writing that the ISS program was two weeks behind schedule, 
that NASA estimated a $44 million cost overrun because of 
contract performance, and that the program had $3 billion in 
reserves available. At a hearing before the Subcommittee on 
April 9, 1997, Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's Associate 
Administrator for Human Spaceflight, testified that the program 
had $2 billion in reserves remaining, indicating that 
approximately $1 billion must have been spent since Mr. 
Goldin's March 28, 1996 testimony. Mr. Trafton pointed out in 
his testimony that most of those reserves were not available 
until after FY99. This raises the natural question of how NASA 
managed to spend $1 billion in reserves that it did not have 
budgeted between March 28, 1996 and April 9, 1997.
    Much has been reported about Boeing's estimate that it will 
overrun its prime contract on the ISS by $600 million at 
completion. An internal Boeing study over the summer estimated 
that Boeing's cost overrun as a result of inadequate 
performance on the contract could reach $800 million, but the 
company believes that its aggressive destaffing plans could 
hold the increase down to $600 million. On October 16, 1997, 
NASA briefed the Committee staff that it estimated Boeing's 
overrun at completion would be $817 million. Both agree that 
approximately $400 million of this overrun will have already 
accrued and been paid for by the end of calendar 1997.
    It is important to remember in assessing this overrun that 
the cost growth in the program is not limited to Boeing's 
performance. In addition, NASA has incurred new costs as it 
sought to develop options to accommodate Russia's inability to 
meet its commitments. For example, NASA is funding an Interim 
Control Module which could perform some functions of the 
Russian Service Module. This will cost approximately $114 
million more than NASA planned when it established its program 
cost of $17.4 billion. Besides those additions that result from 
Russian problems, NASA has made design changes to the ISS while 
it is under development. These also result in programmatic cost 
growth. The $72 million extension of the contract between NASA 
and RSA in early 1996 also came out of the ISS budget. NASA 
estimates unofficially that it had incurred $1.4 billion in new 
costs that were not covered in the original estimate of $17.4 
billion to complete ISS.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associate Administrator, Human Space 
Flight, NASA, testified that despite the many variables that 
increase the likelihood of cost growth, the Space Station 
developing program has largely been managed within budget for 
the last four years. Mr. Trafton indicated that as NASA 
experiences the peak period of development activity, they are 
without sufficient reserves in Fiscal Year 1998 to address 
development challenges and potential contractor performance 
problems. Mr. Trafton testified that NASA has estimated an 
additional $430 million will be required above the President's 
request. He explained that the $430 million additional funding 
requirements includes conservative estimates of prime 
contractor cost growth, adjustments for sustaining engineering, 
spares, and required changes, additional funds for Russian-
driven changes, and adequate reserves to cover the 
unforeseeable problems likely to be incurred in Fiscal Year 
1998. Mr. Trafton detailed two options under consideration if 
the requisite FY98 funding is not received: (1) Defer work 
either in the baseline program or in the research program; or, 
(2) terminate the Russian contingency activity, the interim 
control module. Mr. Trafton testified that he finds these 
options place the program at risk to: one, deal with the 
technological development challenges; two, continue to mitigate 
the risks of Russian Government problems; and three, maintain 
an adequate level of research activity as early as possible. 
Mr. Trafton stated that he is convinced that maintaining the 
baseline technology and schedule for the Space Station in FY98 
is essential to control total costs. In conclusion, Mr. Trafton 
asked for continued support from the Committee for the 
International Space Station.
    Doug C. Stone, Vice President and Program Manager, 
International Space Station, The Boeing Company, testified that 
by the end of FY98, Boeing will be more than 80 percent 
complete with their portion of the program. He reported that 
technical issues encountered during the ongoing development 
phase of the program have created management challenges in both 
schedule and cost performance which have placed the program 
approximately five weeks behind schedule. While The Boeing 
Company has reported cost growth, Mr. Stone testified that the 
Company has committed to improve performance in six specific 
areas: (1) a reinforced Space Station management team and 
structure; (2) improved subcontractor performance; (3) a 
commitment to meet schedule milestones on time; (4) the 
creation of special incentives to acquire and retain key 
software engineers and managers; (5) a $30 million commitment 
of capital funds to build a software integration facility; and 
(6) an addition of more senior management involvement and 
visibility on the Space Station program. Mr. Stone concluded by 
stating that with continued support from the Administration and 
Congress, NASA and Boeing will deliver on the promise to start 
launching the International Space Station in 1998.
    Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, National Security and 
International Affairs Division, General Accounting Office, 
testified in regard to three main issues: cost growth under the 
prime contract; the impact on NASA of the Russian's performance 
problems; and, Congressional review of the program and setting 
realistic funding limitations. In response to the total cost 
growth at contract completion, Mr. Li reported that Boeing more 
than doubled its estimate from $278 million to $600 million and 
subsequently NASA increased its estimate to $817 million. Mr. 
Li stated that both parties recognize the seriousness of the 
cost growth issue and have taken actions to address the 
problem. NASA reduced Boeing's award fees because of poor 
performance and Boeing responded by implementing a corrective 
action plan. In Mr. Li's opinion, these responses will 
eventually slow the cost deterioration. In regard to Russia's 
performance problems, Mr. Li reported that Russia's inability 
to furnish the service module on time increased NASA's costs by 
over $300 million. He also testified that should the Russians 
not meet the revised partnership commitments, the program's 
costs could increase by billions of dollars. He stated that 
NASA is monitoring the situation and believes that the 
projected December 1998 launch date for the service module can 
still be met. Finally, Mr. Li testified that the Space Station 
program is limited to $2.1 billion annually and $17.4 billion 
through the completion of Station assembly. He reported that 
the reduced reserves and the recent and prospective cost 
increases have put additional focus on this administratively 
imposed funding limitation. Mr. Li testified that the General 
Accounting Office recommended in their September report that 
the use of this financial cap should be discontinued. Mr. Li 
also stated that if Congress decides that a legislative cap is 
warranted, it should consider establishing one after reviewing 
the entire program to determine its future scope and cost 
level.

 4.4(n)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics 
          and Space Administration, Parts I-IV (NASA Posture)

                            February 5, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-67

Background

    On February 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget 
Request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Parts I-IV.'' The hearing focused on the Administration's 
budget submittal for FY1999 for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA). The Administration requested 
$13.465 billion for NASA in FY1999. The FY1998 appropriated 
level was $13.648 billion and the FY 1999 appropriated level 
was $13.665 billion. The FY1999 budget request and runout are 
higher than previous budget requests. The FY1998 budget 
requested estimated a level of $13.410 billion for FY1999 and 
the FY1997 budget request estimated a level of $12.363 billion 
for FY1999.
    Following are the FY1999 budget requests for some of the 
major programs within NASA: Space Station--$2.27 billion; Space 
Shuttle--$3.059 billion; Space Science--$2.058 billion; Life 
and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--$242 million; Earth 
Science--$1.372 billion; Aeronautics & Space Transportation 
Technology--$1.305 billion; Mission Communications Services--
$380 million; Academic Programs--$100 million; Space 
Communications Services--$177 million; and Research and Program 
Management--$2.099 billion.
    Witness included: Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator.

Summary of hearing

    Daniel S. Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, testified that 
the hardware for the first two Space Station launches would be 
ready in June and July of 1998. Mr. Goldin also reviewed 
ongoing activities in planetary exploration, aeronautics, and 
earth science. He testified about the goals of the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle program and that NASA's intent is to support the 
development of next-generation systems with appropriate 
technologies and utilization of NASA facilities, not the 
operational phase after development. Mr. Goldin testified that 
the FY1999 budget has funding for Pathfinders, about every 18 
months for approximately $100 million. Funding for Trailblazers 
is not in the budget. He testified that NASA is currently at a 
level of 19,200 employees and by the year 2000, the agency has 
to get down to a level of about 17,800. Mr. Goldin testified 
that NASA has no plans for a human mission to Mars in 2011.
    He stated that eight Shuttle missions are currently planned 
for FY1999. Further, Joseph Rothenberg, the Associate 
Administrator of Human Space Flight, is to undertake a study to 
see if the agency can have rapid-response payloads available to 
do science or commercial missions if there is a schedule slip 
in assembly of the International Space Station. Mr. Rothenberg 
is also working on a Station commercialization plan that will 
be completed by August 1998. Mr. Goldin testified that NASA is 
willing to commit up to 30% initially, of the Station resources 
for commercialization and if it is possible to get to 50%, then 
that will be pursued.
    He stated that there will be almost no NASA funding going 
to Russia from FY1999 on. In discussing whether or not the 
Service Module would be launched on time in December 1998, a 
question was raised about the timeframe for a decision on 
launching the Interim Control Module as a temporary 
replacement. Mr. Goldin stated that the decision on the Interim 
Control Module would have to be made in March 1998. He 
testified on an inflatable structure know as a Transhab. The 
Transhab could potentially replace the current habitation 
module design. Mr. Goldin stated the agency is reviewing the 
Transhab and a decision will be made before the end of 1998, 
but Congress will be notified before NASA makes the decision. 
He stated there is a potential to save up to $100 million using 
the Transhab design rather than the current habitation module 
design.
    In questioning about apparent Russian violations of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Mr. Goldin stated 
that he looks for the foreign policy establishment to give NASA 
guidance on whether the Russians have violated the MTCR and the 
agency intends to proceed forward with the partnership in the 
Space Station until it receives such guidance.

 4.4(o)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics 
      and Space Administration, Parts I-IV (Aeronautics and Space 
                       Transportation Technology)

                           February 12, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-67

Background

    On February 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the second in a series of four hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Parts I-IV.'' Testimony 
before the Committee focused on: (1) the Aeronautics and Space 
Transportation Enterprise with respect to its strategic plan; 
(2) NASA's role in the Administration's Aviation Safety 
Initiative; (3) the agency's role in the Next Generation 
Internet program; (4) the status of NASA's High Speed Research 
program; (5) the status of and plans for NASA's advanced space 
transportation technology programs; (6) NASA's proposal to 
study its ``Future Space Launch Architecture'' and set aside 
funds in the outyears for procuring a next-generation, 
operational space launch system; and (7) the emergence of 
several commercial initiatives to develop reusable space 
transportation systems and their role in meeting NASA's future 
space transportation needs.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Richard S. Christiansen, Acting 
Associate Administrator, Aeronautics and Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology; Mr. Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate 
Administrator, Space Transportation Technology; and, Mr. Gary 
C. Hudson, Chief Executive Officer, Rotary Rocket Company.

Summary of hearing

    The Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology performs three distinct but related missions for 
NASA: aeronautics and aviation safety research and development; 
advanced space transportation technology development, 
demonstration, and planning; technology transfer; and Small 
Business Innovation Research programs. These three functions 
were grouped together in this strategic enterprise as part of a 
late-1996 reorganization because of the technical overlaps 
between advanced aeronautics and space transportation R&D and 
the commercialization orientation of both the aeronautics and 
the RLV program activities.
            Aeronautics
    NASA's Aeronautics program primarily consists of the 
Research and Technology Base and three focused programs of 
diverse technology initiatives. These include: High Speed 
Research, Advanced Subsonic Technology, and High Performance 
Computing and Communications (HPCC). In the FY1999 Budget 
briefings conducted with NASA, there are plans to create a 
fourth focused plan beginning in FY2000, Aviation Safety 
Technology. According to the FY1999 budget, NASA is now 
proposing that a Phase IIA be funded through FY2007 in order to 
build a prototype of the engine, thereby reducing technological 
risks to industry.
    On July 25, 1996, the President established the White House 
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and assigned it 
three specific mandates: to assess the future threat to 
security; to provide a framework for regulation of the aviation 
industry of the future; and to assess advances in technology 
and how they can best be utilized. The principle recommendation 
of the Commission was that the focus of government and industry 
should be to reduce the rate of accidents by a factor of five 
within the next decade, and that a national air traffic control 
system capable of facilitating this be operational by 2005. The 
agencies which will be involved in this initiative are 
principally the FAA, DOD, and NASA. NASA's role in this effort 
will be primarily in the area of human factors research in that 
the predominance of aviation accidents involve human error. 
NASA's proposed share of this initiative is $500 million over 
the period of FY1998-2002:
            Advanced space transportation technology
    NASA's Space Transportation Technology function includes 
one major program (Reusable Launch Vehicles consisting of X-33 
and X-34), two smaller projects (Bantamlifter/Low Cost Upper 
Stages and Advanced Space Transportation Technology), and a new 
Future Space Launch planning activity. In FY1999, NASA is 
beginning a series of future experimental RLVs called ``Future 
X.'' NASA intends to begin at least two small ($100 million 
cost, 18-24 months for development and flight demonstrations) 
``Pathfinder'' vehicle efforts in FY1999, and perhaps one large 
X-33-class ($500 million cost, 3 years for development and 
flight demonstrations) ``Trailblazer'' effort sometime in the 
next decade. In FY1999 and FY2000 NASA is allocating $20 
million each year for Future Space Launch studies.
            Commercial technology programs
    NASA's Commercial Technology Programs function involves 
three areas of activity: (1) Internally, NASA has pursued an 
``Agenda for Change'' since 1994 to carry out commercial 
technology transfer as a fundamental NASA mission; (2) 
Externally, NASA funds a National Technology Transfer Center 
(NTTC) and various other institutions which serve as ``agents'' 
in promoting the transfer of NASA technology to the commercial 
sector for both aerospace and non-aerospace application; and 
(3) The Small Business Innovative Research Program is designed 
to ensure that NASA research contracts are awarded not only to 
large firms, but also to the small business community, and also 
to facilitate the commercialization of the results of this 
research.
    Mr. Richard S. Christiansen Acting Associate Administrator 
for Aeronautics & Advanced Space Transportation Technology 
testified that NASA has stepped up its reprogramming of $500 
million of their budget runout for the Aviation Safety 
Initiative, and that the FAA is indeed the lead agency for this 
program. He also testified that, within the High Speed research 
program, the proper next step was to augment Phase II at an 
additional cost of a little over $800 million and bring the 
component pieces that they have been developing and put a full-
scale demonstrator engine together. He also confirmed the NASA 
Administrator's testimony that he does not expect to see an 
operational High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) until around the 
year 2020.
    Mr. Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator (Space 
Transportation Technology) offered testimony updating the 
Subcommittee on the progress of the X-33 program, specifically 
with respect to the environmental impact studies and vehicle 
technologies. Additionally, he produced a sample of new thermal 
protection technology for the inspection of the Subcommittee 
Members, among other examples of new technologies developed by 
the program. He testified that the NASA Administrator was 
adamant about the need for competition for any Future-X 
funding, and that third-party indemnification and cross-waiver 
authority were crucial to the X-33 flight test program.
    Mr. Gary C. Hudson is the Chief Executive Officer of Rotary 
Rocket Company. He testified that there are at least four 
privately owned corporations which are putting hundreds of 
millions of dollars at risk in a quest for private space 
transportation. Speaking for the other private companies, he 
expressed his belief that Boeing and Lockheed Martin should be 
required to spend their own money if they wanted to be a part 
of the 21st century in space. Further, he criticized the FAA's 
regulatory approach to their industry and threatened that 
relocation of the industry may be the only solution unless the 
process is reformed.

 4.4(p)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics 
    and Space Administration, Parts I-IV. (FY99 Budget Request: The 
                           Sciences at NASA)

                           February 25, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-67

Background

    On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the third in a series of four hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Part I-IV.'' The hearing 
focused on: (1) the current and outyear funding profiles for 
the science programs at NASA and how they have changed over the 
last three years; (2) the science program's accomplishments in 
FY1997 and thus far in FY1998; (3) the programs experiencing 
developmental problems and NASA's plans for addressing those 
problems; (4) the new initiatives for science programs in the 
FY1999 budget request; (5) the consolidation of space 
technology efforts within Code S; (6) the consequences of 
funding transfers from life and microgravity research to 
International Space Station construction; (7) the experiments 
planned for life and microgravity research during FY99 and 
aboard the International Space Station during its assembly; (8) 
NASA's plans for increasing flight opportunities for life and 
microgravity research given the competing interests of 
assembling, maintaining, and operating the International Space 
Station; (9) the transition of the International Space Station 
from a design being constructed on the ground to an active 
research platform in space during its assembly; (10) the 
integration of the Human Exploration and Development of Space 
(HEDS) strategic enterprise with NASA's other efforts to 
explore and understand the universe; (11) the current and 
historic funding levels for Research and Analysis within the 
Earth Science budget; (12) the development status for the Earth 
Observation System Data Information System (EOSDIS); and a 
specific discussion of how the commercial acquisition of data 
will be incorporated into the Earth Science program.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Associate 
Administrator for Space Science, NASA; Dr. Ghassem Asrar, 
Associate Administrator for Earth Science, NASA; Dr. Arnauld E. 
Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications, NASA; and, Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, 
Associate Administrator for Human Space Flight, NASA.

Summary of Hearing

    Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Associate Administrator for Space 
Science, began his testimony by thanking the Committee for its 
long-standing, unwavering support of the Space Science 
Enterprise. He described the Enterprise's accomplishments in 
1997, which featured the July landing of Pathfinder on the 
surface of Mars, and the subsequent exploration of the surface 
by the robotic rover Sojourner. Other missions experienced 
significant accomplishments, such as the Mars Global Surveyor, 
which arrived into Mars orbit in September; Galileo, which 
continues to return science data from Jupiter; and continued 
discoveries by the Hubble Space Telescope. Dr. Huntress then 
discussed missions planned for 1998, and the Space Science 
budget for FY1999 and beyond. Budget levels for this Enterprise 
have increased for both FY1999 and the outyears compared to 
last year's budget submission. Dr. Huntress expressed his 
appreciation to the Committee for its support which made these 
budget levels possible.
    Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth 
Science, described the Earth Science Enterprise as an 
organization focused around six major functions: (1) teams of 
scientists who will analyze earth science data; (2) a series of 
small and medium-sized satellites to acquire the data; (3) a 
comprehensive information storage and processing system; (4) a 
technology development program to enable advanced space-based 
observational capabilities; (5) applications research and a 
commercial partnership program; and (6) an education program to 
train the next generation of earth scientists. Dr. Asrar then 
presented specific science findings from the Earth Science 
Enterprise, and discussed planned activity for 1998. The long-
range plans, he indicated, would focus on smaller, flexible 
satellite platforms with an increased focus on international 
partnerships and commercial data purchases.
    Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for 
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, highlighted 
two major accomplishments of 1997: (1) the reflight of the 
Microgravity Science Laboratory only 5 months after the prior 
flight had been cut short; and (2) continued science conducted 
aboard Russia's Mir space station. He described numerous other 
science achievements in 1997, and discussed upcoming plans for 
1998. He testified that long-term research opportunities of 
particular interest would be conducted on Spacehab, the Space 
Shuttle, and the International Space Station.
    Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate Administrator for Human 
Space Flight, testified with an emphasis on the scientific 
aspects of the International Space Station (ISS). He indicated 
that ISS construction was moving forward, but that the early 
science research during the construction phase would be very 
constrained. He testified, however, that the first stages of 
research would be supported by ISS in the year 2000. Mr. 
Rothenberg then discussed the formulation of the ISS research 
strategy, and its incorporation of the interests of a broad 
constituency of the science community.

 4.4(q)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Parts I-IV. (FY99 Budget Request: Human Space 
                                Flight)

                             March 19, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-67

Background

    On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the last in a series of four hearings 
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Parts I-IV.'' Testimony 
before the Committee focused on (1) funding requirements for 
the International Space Station (ISS) in FY1998 and beyond; (2) 
management challenges in terms of Russia's continuing failures 
to honor its obligations to the ISS partnership; (3) lessons 
learned from Phase I of the program and how they are being 
applied to Phase II; and (4) the steps NASA is taking to ensure 
that life and microgravity science opportunities are maximized 
during Station assembly; (5) development status of the 
International Space Station (ISS); (6) technical challenges to 
the program for the remainder of FY1998 and FY1999; (7) 
prospects for additional changes to the design of ISS through 
the end of the program; and (8) the design implications of 
Russian failure to provide any elements of the ISS or 
logistical support after the Service Module becomes available. 
With regards to the Shuttle program, the focus of testimony 
was: (1) status and progress of Shuttle upgrade efforts; (2) 
overall progress in the Space Flight Operations Contract 
transition; (3) changes in the Shuttle workforce composition, 
including past and any anticipated workforce reductions; (4) 
the impact on the Shuttle launch schedule of any additional 
delays in or changes to the International Space Station (ISS) 
assembly sequence; and (5) the status of phase 4 upgrades to 
the Space Shuttle with particular attention to the liquid 
flyback booster.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Rothenberg, NASA Associate 
Administrator, Office of Space Flight; BGEN (select) Kevin 
Chilton, NASA Deputy Program Manager, International Space 
Station; and, Mr. Tommy Holloway, NASA Program Manager, Space 
Shuttle.

Summary of hearing

            The International Space Station
    When the Clinton Administration redesigned the 
International Space Station in 1993, it invited Russia to 
participate in the program, noting that Russia's contributions 
(the Service Module, the Science Power Platform, three research 
laboratories, the crew return vehicles, and logistics support) 
would save the United States $2 billion and enable NASA to 
launch the first element fifteen months earlier. The resulting 
design was supposed to cost $17.4 billion to develop and 
assemble in space between FY1994 and FY2002. Funding in any 
single year was not to exceed $2.1 billion. The International 
Space Station was then predicted to operate for 10 years 
(through 2012) at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $1.3 
billion per year. As recently as March 4, 1997, NASA 
Administrator Dan Goldin testified before the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics that, ``the program continues to perform 
within the annual funding cap of $2.1 billion and the $17.4 
billion completion estimate.''
    During 1997, a series of events have demonstrated that the 
program is no longer on budget or schedule. In April 1997, NASA 
announced that it could not continue with the self-imposed 
annual spending cap of $2.1 billion and that it would shift 
$200 million in FY1997 Space Shuttle funds to the development 
and construction of the International Space Station. In FY1998, 
NASA expressed a desire for Congress to add $100 million to the 
agency's International Space Station budget over and above the 
budget request for FY1998. NASA also announced that the Service 
Module would be delayed from an April 1998 launch to a December 
1998 launch. During the summer of 1997, NASA amended its 
position and indicated that the International Space Station 
required $430 million more in FY1998 than was contained in the 
President's budget request. Congress obliged the agency by 
providing ISS with $230 million in additional funds; $100 
million above the President's total request for NASA and $130 
million from other NASA programs. NASA continues to indicate 
that it requires $200 million more for ISS in FY1998, and the 
President's request for supplemental appropriations includes a 
request for Congress to authorize $173 million in transfers 
from other NASA programs into ISS construction during FY1998. 
(The additional $27 million would be reallocated from within 
the Human Space Flight account.)
            The Space Shuttle Program
    Of primary interest to the Subcommittee is the safety of 
the Shuttle program. NASA's overall personnel reductions, the 
relocation of Code M (NASA's Office of Human Space Flight) from 
NASA Headquarters to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, 
Texas, and the transition to the Shuttle Flight Operations 
Contract are all occurring at the same time. The Aerospace 
Safety and Advisory Panel (ASAP) has recognized this confluence 
of major changes as having the potential to affect the morale 
and efficiency of the Shuttle workforce, and that particular 
attention should be made by the agency to proceed with such 
changes cautiously and provide increased communication 
vertically and laterally to reduce uncertainty among the 
workforce.
    The progress of the Shuttle Flight Operations Contract 
(SFOC) transition--particularly with respect to personnel 
reductions within the Shuttle program--has been closely 
monitored by the Subcommittee since it went into effect on 
October 1, 1996. Of particular concern is the retention of 
technicians and engineers with critical skills and experience 
levels necessary to ensure the safe operation of all elements 
of the Shuttle system. The attainment of cost-savings goals 
through the contract consolidation is the measure of success of 
this transition, and will provide considerable data to Congress 
on the feasibility of moving towards privatization of the 
program in the future.
    NASA's plan for Safety and Performance Upgrades to the 
Shuttle program is also a subject of continuing interest to the 
Subcommittee. At the present time, NASA is planning to operate 
the Shuttle well through the next decade. Currently, the near-
term upgrade programs (Phase I and II) are being funded. The 
Phase III and IV upgrades were moved under the Space 
Transportation Technology program within the Aeronautics 
Enterprise to take advantage of the research and development 
efforts in reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technology. The most 
ambitious of the upgrade programs, the Liquid Flyback Booster, 
is under the Phase IV upgrade program. NASA has not, to date, 
defined a requirement for the Liquid Flyback Booster.
    The Subcommittee is also interested in is the Shuttle's 
annual flight rate. NASA's budget submissions generally reflect 
an annual launch rate of 7 to 8 launches. Due to several 
factors, the FY1998 launch rate will drop to only 5. 
Significant fluctuations in the number of launches may run 
counter to Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommendations for 
less turmoil for the Shuttle workforce.
    Mr. Rothenberg is the newly appointed Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Space Flight in NASA 
Headquarters. He testified that the Russian FGB module would be 
ready for a June 1998 launch, and that the U.S.-built Node-1 
module would be ready for a July 1998 launch. Additionally, he 
stated that the U.S. laboratory would be ready for a May 1999 
launch. With respect to the Shuttle program, Mr. Rothenberg 
testified that the program is flying safely more flights at 
less cost than ever before in the history of the program, and 
that the upgrade program has decreased risk while increasing 
payload and efficiency.
    BGEN (select) Kevin Chilton is NASA's International Space 
Station deputy program manager, and did not present testimony.
    Mr. Tommy Holloway is NASA's Space Shuttle program manager. 
He did not present testimony, but responded to several 
questions posed by members. He stated that the Shuttle program 
is a stronger, more resilient, and responsive program than it 
was five years ago, and that the program is increasing its 
capability and doing a much better job for a lot less 
resources. He set a floor of $100 million annually as a 
requirement for investment in upgrades. With respect to Shuttle 
program flight rate, he testified that it currently is capable 
of a 10 to 11 annual rate which may evolve to a higher number 
over time. Mr Holloway also testified that the program could 
begin flying commercial payloads in 2001 or 2002.

              4.4(r)--Asteroids: Perils and Opportunities

                              May 21, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-71

Background

    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing entitled, ``Asteroids: Perils and 
Opportunities.'' The hearing focused on: (1) the consequences 
of an asteroid impacting the Earth; (2) the Shoemaker Near-
Earth Objects Survey Working Group findings; (3) the adequacy 
of the current Near-Earth Object Survey effort; (4) the 
commercial opportunities of exploiting the minerals in 
asteroids; (5) the feasibility of launching a mission to one of 
these objects for commercial applications; (6) the upcoming 
Leonid micrometeoroid shower and the technical conference held 
in April 1998 on this subject; (7) the threat posed to 
satellites in Earth orbit due to this shower; (8) appropriate 
safety measures that can be taken to minimize satellite damage 
from this shower; (9) NASA's contribution to the interagency 
effort to survey and catalog near-Earth objects; (10) the 
current pace of this effort and the estimated time until 
completion; (11) the total funding spent on this effort, and a 
comparison to levels suggested by the Shoemaker Group report; 
(12) an overview of the interagency effort to survey and 
catalog near-Earth objects; (13) the current pace of this 
effort and the estimated time until completion; and (14) the 
total funding spent on this effort, and a comparison to levels 
suggested by the Shoemaker Group report.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Clark R. Chapman, Institute 
Scientist at the Space Studies Department of the Southwest 
Research Institute; Dr. John Lewis, Professor of Planetary 
Sciences at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary 
Laboratory; Dr. William H. Ailor, Director of the Center for 
Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies at The Aerospace 
Corporation; Dr. Carl Pilcher, Science Director of Solar System 
Exploration within NASA's Office of Space Science; and, Dr. 
Gregory Canavan, Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Clark R. Chapman, Institute Scientist at the Space 
Studies Department of the Southwest Research Institute, 
testified on the likelihood and the outcome of an asteroid 
impacting the Earth. He described the threat of such a 
collision as a highly unlikely, yet highly catastrophic event. 
Because the loss of life would be so great under such 
circumstances, Dr. Chapman testified that the odds of an 
individual person being killed as the result of an asteroid are 
greater than his/her odds of being killed in an airplane crash. 
Further testimony discussed the global aftermath of a collision 
with near-Earth objects of varying size. Dr. Chapman also 
discussed current efforts to find and catalog these objects, 
such activities as ``meager'' and ``ineffective.''
    Dr. Carl Pilcher, Science Director of Solar System 
Exploration within NASA's Office of Space Science, discussed 
efforts at NASA to find and catalog near-Earth asteroids. He 
described the three parts of this effort: (1) Spacewatch, a 
program at the University of Arizona; (2) Near-Earth Asteroid 
and Tracking (NEAT), a program at Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 
and (3) Lowell Observatory Near-Earth Object Survey (LONEOS) in 
Flagstaff, Arizona. Dr. Pilcher reiterated NASA's commitment to 
find and catalog 90% of near-Earth objects larger than 1 
kilometer in the next ten years. Dr. Gregory Canavan, Senior 
Scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified on 
possible responses should an Earth-impacting object be 
discovered. The fundamental reaction calls for the interception 
and deflection of an inbound object. Additional testimony added 
to Dr. Chapman's overview of the implications of a collision 
with such an object.
    Dr. John Lewis, Professor of Planetary Sciences at the 
University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary, described some of 
the possible benefits of intercepting such object and utilizing 
the natural resources found therein. He described the relative 
ease of intercepting these near-Earth objects compared to 
interplanetary missions. The resources to be found in the near-
Earth asteroid population, he testified, could support a human 
population of about one million times the population of Earth 
indefinitely. The availability of supplies to be found in this 
population of asteroids is unimaginably vast. For example, 
enough steel can be obtained there to build a building frame 
8,000 stories tall covering all the land area of Earth.
    Dr. William H. Ailor, Director of the Center for Orbital 
and Reentry Debris Studies at The Aerospace Corporation, 
described the upcoming Leonid micrometeoroid storm, its effect 
on satellites, and recommended steps to avoid satellite damage. 
During November 1998 and 1999, this cloud of debris which 
follows the Temple-Tuttle comet will intersect the Earth's 
orbit. As a result, meteors will enter the Earth's atmosphere 
at a rate of 200 to 5000 meteors per hour, considerably more 
than the 10 to 15 meteors per hour seen under normal 
circumstances. These particles--tiny grains of sand traveling 
at over 155,000 miles per hour-burn up in the atmosphere 
without even getting near the surface of the Earth. Because 
satellites orbit outside the atmosphere, however, they can 
experience damage from these particles. Dr. Ailor recommended 
specific actions to minimize satellite risk from this 
micrometeoroid storm.

           4.4(s)--Delays in NASA's Earth Science Enterprise

                           September 10, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-83

Background

    On September 10, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Delays in NASA's Earth 
Science Enterprise.'' Testimony before the Subcommittee focused 
on: (1) the status and schedule for major elements of the Earth 
Science Enterprise including, but not limited to, AM-1, Earth 
Observing System Data Information System (EOSDIS), and Landsat 
7 including explanations for the delays experienced to date; 
(2) a specific discussion of EOSDIS development including the 
planned availability date for full, simultaneous analysis 
capability of all captured data; (3) uncosted carryover 
levels--assessing the level of uncosted and unobligated 
carryover expected at the end of FY 1998 and comparing this 
level to previous commitments; (4) a detailed discussion 
explaining how NASA will incorporate data purchases into a 
routine way of doing business at NASA; (5) NOAA's role in the 
Earth Science Enterprise, specifically in EOSDIS; (6) NOAA's 
responsibilities in the archive storage and retrieval of this 
data; (7) significant schedule milestones that face NOAA in the 
performance of these roles; (8) any challenges currently facing 
NOAA in the long-term storage and retrieval of existing 
archived data; (9) an overview of the commercial remote sensing 
industry, including both an assessment of current capabilities 
and an outlook on these capabilities in the near future; (10) a 
description of the demand side of the equation--scientific 
investigations at NASA being supported by commercial data 
products, and additional science demands within government that 
would be met by commercial data products; (11) strengths and 
weaknesses of NASA's current procurement infrastructure as it 
relates to their ability to regularly purchase remote sensing 
products; (12) industry recommendations on future actions 
within any branch of government which would help better utilize 
this expanding capability; (13) a specific discussion of 
Raytheon's plans to overcome EOSDIS problems including the 
planned availability date for full, simultaneous analysis 
capability of all captured data; and (14) significant schedule 
milestones that face Raytheon in the execution of these plans.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate 
Administrator, Earth Science, NASA; Mr. Robert S. Winokur, 
Assistant Administrator, Satellite and Information Services, 
NOAA; Dr. Patrick M. O'Connell, Vice President and General 
Manager, Raytheon Enterprise Management Systems; and, Mr. 
Courtney Stadd, President, PixSell Data Brokers, Inc.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth 
Science, began his testimony with a description of recent 
scientific accomplishments of the Earth Science Enterprise. 
These include predicting the recent El Nino event, mapping the 
Antarctic surface, and cloud mapping of Hurricane Bonnie. Dr. 
Asrar continued his testimony with a description of the 
challenges and delays facing the deployment of the major 
components of the Earth Science program. These include delays 
in the Earth Observing System Data Information System 
(EOSDIS)--the computer software which obtains, analyzes, and 
stores science data; launch delays in the AM-1 spacecraft; and 
launch delays in the Landsat 7 spacecraft. Further testimony 
described the other major Earth Science satellites in various 
stages of development. Dr. Asrar also discussed predicted 
levels of uncosted carryover, and described recent progress in 
the implementation of science data purchases.
    Mr. Robert S. Winokur, Assistant Administrator for NOAA's 
Satellite and Information Services, testified on NOAA's 
contributions to the study of the Earth's environment. 
Contributions made to the Earth Science effort in the form of 
data storage responsibilities were detailed. One particular 
program described, the Environmental Data Rescue Program, is 
racing the clock to save old environmental data stored on paper 
and magnetic tape before it degrades beyond usability. Mr. 
Winokur further described additional cooperative efforts with 
NASA to study the environment.
    Dr. Patrick M. O'Connell, Vice President and General 
Manager of Raytheon Enterprise Management Systems, focused his 
testimony on EOSDIS, the aforementioned computer software. 
Raytheon has recently obtained development responsibilities for 
EOSDIS with its acquisition of several companies from Hughes 
Electronics. Raytheon is now struggling to restructure the 
program and deliver a usable version to NASA. Dr. O'Connell's 
testimony described the current EOSDIS configuration, Raytheon 
efforts to deliver a working version of the software, and 
particular challenges which make this task difficult.
    Mr. Courtney Stadd, President of PixSell Data Brokers, 
Inc., testified on matters related to the commercial purchase 
of remotely-sensed science data. Mr. Stadd discussed the health 
of the commercial remote sensing industry and its likelihood of 
increasing contributions to NASA scientists. Further testimony 
described a Rand study which has identified broad-based demand 
for remotely sensed data throughout the government beyond NASA. 
Finally, Mr. Stadd described procurement barriers at NASA which 
make it difficult for commercial data providers to consider 
bidding on opportunities to provide such commercially obtained 
science data.

              4.4(t)--U.S. Spacepower in the 21st Century

                           September 29, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-88

Background

    On September 29, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space & 
Aeronautics held a joint hearing with the Subcommittees on 
Military Research & Development and Military Procurement of the 
Committee on National Security, entitled, ``U.S. Spacepower in 
the 21st Century.'' Testimony before the Subcommittees 
addressed the interrelationship of national security, civilian/
scientific, and commercial space activities and technologies, 
and focused particularly on the opportunities and challenges 
created by rapid growth in the commercial space sector for U.S. 
national security in the post-Cold War era.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Hall, the Assistant Secretary 
for Space, U.S. Air Force and Director, National Reconnaissance 
Office; Mr. Daniel Mulville, Chief Engineer, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. Robert Butterworth, 
President of Aries Analytics; and, Mr. David Swain, Vice 
President and General Manager, Phantom Works, Boeing 
Corporation.
    In recent years space activities (and requisite 
technologies) for national security, civilian government, and 
commercial space purposes have become more and more 
interconnected. This is partially caused by the growth of the 
commercial space sector, which provides cost savings to and 
causes organizational upheaval in the government space sectors. 
But it is also a result of continuing budgetary pressures and a 
lack of clear mandates following the end of the Cold War.
    U.S. institutions and policies have been slow to adapt to 
both these root causes and the resulting overlap in space 
sectors, with negative impacts on national security, economic 
competitiveness, and scientific progress. In particular, 
governmental space sectors are being challenged to focus their 
investments on revolutionary new capabilities which address 
their needs, rather than simply building on (or replicating) 
existing private investments.

Summary of hearing

    There was considerable discussion of the need to increase 
coordination, both within the Executive and Legislative 
branches, among those entities responsible for civil, 
commercial, and military space activities. Some witnesses 
argued for recreation of the National Space Council, while 
others suggested that it either could not address important 
coordination challenges like budgets or was obviated by 
recently-established NASA-Air Force cooperation efforts.
    There was broad agreement on the importance of increasing 
federal investments in space technology, although there was 
concern that such investments should focus on unique federal 
requirements, instead of seeking to influence private space 
activities.
    Technology transfer, particularly the risks associated with 
U.S. companies ``needing'' to buy foreign launch services, was 
brought up by several Members and witnesses, although witnesses 
differed on how well current approaches are working, and one 
suggested that the best remedy is simply to increase R&D 
investments so that technology is perpetually ``obsoleted.''
    Mr. Keith Hall, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 
testified that increasing economic as well as military reliance 
on space assets makes them attractive as a target for military 
threats. At the same time, he pointed out that Air Force 
investments in space control are in competition with other 
modernization efforts, as well as increased pressure on 
readiness and tempo (frequency of military operations). He also 
commented that the Air Force needs to undergo a cultural change 
so that the airplane and space responsibilities are merged. 
Finally, he emphasized the need to better coordinate federal 
R&D investments, and called for greater coordination among 
different Congressional committees with funding and oversight 
responsibilities for federal space activities.
    Mr. Robert Butterworth, President of Aries Analytics, 
asserted that Federal Government dependence on commercial space 
goods and services may bias federal technology investments in 
ways which do not serve federal requirements and distort 
private markets.
    Mr. Daniel Mulville, NASA's Chief Engineer, argued that 
NASA needs to invest in technologies both to meet NASA's unique 
needs and to assist industry to provide better commercial space 
goods and services back to the government. He also testified 
that NASA and DOD have improved their cooperation in recent 
years, although there are still difficulties in the funding of 
cooperative programs and the pruning of overlapping facilities.
    Mr. David Swain, Vice President and General Manager of 
Boeing's Phantomworks, a cross-corporation R&D enterprise, 
noted that more nations are becoming involved in space, this 
not only challenges U.S. economic leadership, but proliferates 
space-based threats to U.S. national security. Commercial space 
activities are not only growing but increasingly important to 
the U.S. economy as a whole, and limiting these activities out 
of concern for national security may actually harm national 
security in the long run.

 4.4(u)--NASA at 40: What Kind of Space Program Does America Need for 
                           the 21st Century?

                            October 1, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-90

Background

    On October 1, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics 
held a hearing entitled, ``NASA at 40: What Kind of Space 
Program Does America Need for the 21st Century?.'' Testimony 
before the Subcommittee examined the future of America's space 
program and its civil space agency in the context of the 40th 
anniversary of its establishment. In particular, witnesses 
addressed four questions: (1) What are the United States' 
strategic goals in space for the next 40 years? (2) What are 
the lessons learned from the last 40 years that can help us 
achieve these goals? (3) Given how the world has changed since 
NASA's establishment, and will continue to change, what 
institutional changes should we make in our space program to 
help us achieve these goals? (4) What policies and budget 
priorities should Congress and the Administration put in place 
in the near term to help us achieve these goals?
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Dr. Howard McCurdy, Professor of Public Administration at 
American University; Dr. Eilene Galloway, Honorary Director, 
International Institute for Space Law; Mr. Rick Norman 
Tumlinson, President, Space Frontier Foundation; and Mr. 
Charles ``Pete'' Conrad, Chairman, Universal Space Lines. The 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created by 
Public Law 85-568 on October 1, 1958, out of the pre-existing 
civilian National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics and various 
other civilian and military rocketry and aerospace project 
offices. At the start, the U.S. space program was largely a 
response to the Soviet Union's aggressive space efforts, 
starting with the launch of Sputnik, the first artificial 
satellite, and later of Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space 
and the first to orbit the Earth.
    After Apollo XI successfully landed two Americans on the 
Moon on July 20, 1969, political support for space projects 
waned, and the end of the Cold War further undercut this 
support. In recent years several commissions and studies have 
looked at the goals and organization of America's civilian 
space program, generally embracing a ``return to R&D'' and an 
increased role for the private sector.

Summary of hearing

    All of the witnesses agreed that while NASA has been 
generally successful during its first 40 years, it needs to 
address different goals and priorities for the future, most 
notably a different relationship with the private sector 
regarding both civil and commercial space goals. Witnesses 
differed somewhat in how much NASA needs to change to address 
these topics, and in how much progress NASA has already made in 
this transition. Several witnesses stressed the importance of 
privatizing NASA's operational activities so that the space 
agency can focus on scientific research and technology 
development. Several witnesses also addressed a potential need 
to assist the private sector--through some form of investment 
incentives--in assuming some of the responsibilities currently 
held by NASA.
    Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, laid out an 
extensive vision of the achievements and benefits he believes 
the space agency can deliver for the American taxpayer over the 
next 40 years. In particular he focused on the central role 
that new technologies and approaches for space transportation 
will play in enabling many of these scientific and economic 
space goals. Goldin pointed out NASA is consolidating its 
Shuttle and unmanned operations contracts as a step towards 
privatization. He also stressed that industry needs government 
help to take on greater leadership in space operations, and 
specified four methods: technology development and 
demonstration, loan guarantees, purchase of services, and tax 
incentives.
    Howard McCurdy, Professor of Public Administration at 
American University, suggested that in the future multiple 
``space agencies'' will perform different functions: policy 
coordination, federal financing of space endeavors, and 
infrastructure development, as well as R&D (i.e. NASA). In the 
meantime, we will see a transition as NASA moves from being a 
``multi-mission agency'' to one more focused on R&D. He 
stressed that NASA will need to regain the in-house technical 
talent and management processes which made Project Apollo 
successful. He also called for ``lump sum'' appropriations for 
NASA projects as a way to encourage flexibility and 
accountability in project management.
    Dr. Eilene Galloway celebrated the success of the 
architects of NASA in attaining ``four decades of peace in 
outer space and freedom from space wars,'' an achievement she 
says is due to the practical benefits of space which make it 
too valuable to sacrifice in pursuit of aggression. She also 
noted the increasing role of the commercial space sector, and 
suggested that the NASA Act of 1958 (and other policies) may 
need to be updated to deal with new relationships between the 
government and the private sector. She cautioned that 
regulation plays an important role in creating a stable 
framework within which private industry can plan its 
investments and activities.
    Rick Tumlinson, President of the Space Frontier Foundation, 
suggested that a lack of vision since Apollo has forced NASA to 
pull back from pioneering the space frontier. Stressing the 
need for a clarification of responsibilities between the 
government and the private sector, he declared that ``NASA's 
job is to explore; the people's job is to settle.'' 
Specifically, Tumlinson called for early privatization of the 
Space Shuttle fleet, International Space Station, and many of 
NASA's field centers, increased investment in experimental 
technology demonstrations, policies to support entrepreneurial 
space firms, and a reallocation of resources towards more 
visionary projects such as exploration and development of the 
moon.
    Pete Conrad, Chairman of Universal Space Lines, argued that 
the growth of commercial space activities is central to 
America's future in space, and that government must be careful 
in ``helping'' space commercialization. He stressed the 
importance of NASA focusing on R&D and ``getting out of the 
operations end of businesses.'' Regarding investment 
incentives, he warned against the problematic nature of loan 
guarantees, and argued instead for tax mechanisms.

                    4.5--subcommittee on technology

                     4.5(a)--Secure Communications

                           February 11, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-1

Background

    On February 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
briefing entitled, ``Secure Communications'' to receive 
testimony regarding the need to protect the confidential nature 
of private communications and to ensure that stored proprietary 
data remains uncompromised.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Daniel Geer, Director of 
Engineering, Open Market, Inc.; Mr. Daniel Lynch, Chairman, 
CyberCash; Mr. Tsutomu Shimomura, Senior Fellow, San Diego 
Supercomputer Center; Mr. Geoff Mulligan, Senior Staff 
Engineer, Security Products Group, SunSoft; Mr. Daniel Farmer, 
Independent Security Consultant; Dr. Eugene Spafford, Associate 
Professor of Computer Sciences, Purdue University.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Daniel Geer, testifying as Director of Engineering, 
Open Market, Inc., testified that the biggest risk to computer 
systems is from within because the attacker knows what to look 
for, has motive, and opportunity. He stated that Congress needs 
to set standards regarding the degree to which every 
organization has responsibility for protecting information that 
is entrusted to them, and clarifying the liability rules. He 
stated that most corporations are aware of the security risks, 
but they do not want to make the information public.
    Mr. Daniel Lynch, testifying as Chairman, CyberCash, Inc., 
attested that the Internet can be used for both good and bad 
purposes. Like a global village, the Internet thrives on other 
people adding their ideas, values, and hopes. He stated that if 
we had strong cryptography everywhere, individuals would need 
to buy keys to unlock it. While it would not be the perfect 
solution, it would prevent children from viewing inappropriate 
data, since parents usually control a child's money.
    Mr. Tsutomu Shimomura, testifying as Senior Fellow, San 
Diego Supercomputer Center, stated that people are afraid of 
computer technology since they do not understand it. He 
testified that many ``mechanisms are insecure but we try to use 
them as if they were secure because we want them to be 
secure.'' One way to correct this problem is by increasing 
education and research in this area. He also stated that by 
increasing education we will increase ethical standards.
    Mr. Geoff Mulligan, testifying as Senior Staff Engineer, 
Security Products Group, Sunsoft, indicated that it is 
important to educate the parents of children so they can 
monitor what sites their children visit and stop them from 
viewing inappropriate sites. Also, he stated that individuals 
``can easily make much more money attacking computer systems 
because people just do not understand systems today.'' In his 
view, people tend to accept the new technologies without 
completely understanding the security implications.
    Mr. Daniel Farmer, testifying as an independent security 
consultant, testified that additional education is needed. He 
stated that ``a lot of the problems arise from the fact that we 
do not put security in the infrastructure, in the products, or 
in the curriculum. So people view it as something that is 
alien, difficult, and just not necessary for action.'' The real 
problems that we are facing, he said, are not technical, but 
social problems. The challenge is not defending and protecting 
a system, but providing resources and funding education.
    Dr. Eugene Spafford, testifying as Associate Professor of 
Computer Sciences, Purdue University, stated that there is a 
need to better integrate computer security material into the 
typical computer science curriculum. The problem with those 
individuals who are self-taught computer experts is that they 
are never taught how to responsibly use computers or the 
effects of hacking. In order to raise awareness of the problem 
we must increase education. Encouragement is needed in the 
private sector he said, since it is where products will be 
marketed and graduates will be employed.

  4.5(b)--Surface Transportation Research Needs for the Next Century, 
                               Parts 1-2

                           February 27, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-9

Background

    On February 27, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
the first of two hearings entitled, ``Surface Transportation 
Research Needs for the Next Century, Parts 1 and 2.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy 
Secretary, Department of Transportation; The Honorable David L. 
Winstead, Secretary, State of Maryland, Department of 
Transportation; Mr. Robert J. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director, 
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
    Authorizing legislation for federal surface transportation 
programs expires at the end of fiscal year 1997. The existing 
federal framework was created by the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). During the 102nd 
Congress, the House Committee on Science introduced and passed 
the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 
1991. Several provisions from the legislation were incorporated 
into ISTEA.
    ISTEA increased annual funding for surface transportation 
research and development and created new research initiatives 
including the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. 
The legislation also established a framework for cooperation 
among the federal government, industry, and universities on 
surface transportation research. Finally, the Act established 
that the federal role in surface transportation research and 
development should be to sponsor and coordinate research and 
development on new technologies that seek to provide safer, 
more affordable transportation systems for the future.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Mortimer Downey, testifying as Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, testified that science and 
technology are key solutions to many of the challenges in 
environment, congestion and safety that we face in the twenty-
first century. He stated that a one percent improvement in 
transportation efficiency could save the economy $100 billion 
over a decade and make our economy more competitive. The role 
at the federal level is critical because neither other sectors 
of government nor industry, which consists of many small 
providers, have the resources for intensive research.
    Mr. David L. Winstead, Secretary, State of Maryland, 
Department of Transportation, stated that states take the 
benefits of federal research, apply it to their needs, but also 
integrate local universities in that effort to make sure that 
resources and universities are being fully utilized. He 
testified that last year Maryland had the lowest level of 
fatalities on their highway system since 1968. Part of the 
reduction can be attributed to benefits of federal safety 
programs. He stressed that it is important for the federal 
government to provide the seed money for research since there 
is little incentive for industry or state and local governments 
to make that kind of investment in transportation research and 
development.
    Mr. Robert J. Skinner, Jr., testifying as Executive 
Director, Transportation Research Board, National Research 
Council, emphasized that the Transportation Research Board's 
mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation 
through research. Even though highway research programs are 
decentralized and the overall highway research program is 
difficult to understand, it does provide a solid foundation for 
highway innovation given the structure of the industry it 
serves. He stated that research programs need to be less 
conservative and more comprehensive.

 4.5(c)--Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far Should We Go?

                             March 5, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-3

Background

    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning: 
How Far Should We Go?'' to receive testimony to review the 
breakthrough technology which created the recent cloning of the 
first adult mammal, and to see how cloning technologies are 
being used presently, and how they will be used in the future 
for positive scientific advancement.
    Witnesses included Dr. Harold E. Varmus, Director, National 
Institutes of Health; Dr. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., Supervisory 
Research Physiologist, Agriculture Research Service, United 
States Department of Agriculture; Dr. M. Susan Smith, Director, 
Oregon Regional Primate Research Center; Dr. Thomas H. Murray, 
Chairman, Genetics Testing Subcommittee, National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission, and Professor and Director, Center for 
Biomedical Ethics, Case Western University, School of Medicine; 
Mr. James Geraghty, President and CEO, Genzyme Transgenics 
Corporation.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Harold E. Varmus, testifying as Director, National 
Institutes of Health, addressed the scientific foundations that 
allowed the cloning experiment to occur and the future 
applications of the breakthrough. He also spoke about the steps 
the Administration had taken in light of the recent discovery. 
He stated that it is not scientifically necessary to make human 
clones since we already have spontaneously occurring identical 
twins. He applauded the President's decision to refer the 
issues of human cloning to the National Bioethics Advisory 
Commission.
    Dr. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., testifying as Supervisory 
Research Physiologist, Agriculture Research Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, testified with regards to the 
technical and scientific aspects of cloning in farm animals, 
specifically at the United States Department of Agriculture. He 
stated that his department has been involved in biotechnology 
research with farm animals to improve animal health, production 
efficiency, food safety, human nutrition, etc. He stated that 
until researchers can successfully do genetic engineering in 
the lab, more research needs to be done. Once this ability is 
mastered, a very useful tool will be available to help improve 
animal productivity and yield significant benefits to 
customers.
    Dr. M. Susan Smith, testifying as Director, Oregon Primate 
Research Center, stated that genetically identical monkeys 
would provide a powerful resource for biomedical research since 
it would eliminate genetic variation from research studies. For 
now the Oregon Center will focus on the use of embryonic cells 
to produce genetically identical offspring (known as twinning) 
since there is currently no rationale for cloning adult 
monkeys. The Center is still working on producing genetically 
identical monkeys since it would revolutionize the use of non-
human primates in biomedical research. Not only would fewer 
animals be required in research studies, but these techniques 
could be used to preserve the gene pool of non-human primate 
species in danger of extinction.
    Dr. Thomas H. Murray, testifying as Chairman, Genetics 
Testing Subcommittee, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 
noted that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) 
had called upon leaders of the major religious traditions in 
the United States to present their views about the ethical 
issues raised by the prospect of cloning human beings, and they 
have time set aside for public discussion. He pointed out that 
a clone would be very different from the original. He would 
have different parents and friends, as well as a lifetime of 
different experiences to shape his character. Our public policy 
response to research on cloning of animals, he said, should not 
be swept along by our concern to prevent what we will judge to 
be the ethical dangers of human cloning.
    Mr. James Geraghty, President and CEO, Genzyme Transgenics 
Corporation, discussed the transgenic technology with regards 
to the potential impact the recent cloning would have on the 
development of therapeutic products. Transgenic technology 
involves the transfer of genetic material from one species to 
another. Currently the technology is used to develop 
therapeutic proteins in the milk of dairy animals. He stated 
that with very complex proteins, transgenic technology 
represents the only technically feasible way in which the 
product can be manufactured. He encouraged Members not to rush 
to judgment in such a complex area as the ethics of cloning or 
it may lead to bad policy.

  4.5(d)--Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and 
                       Development Authorization

                             March 13, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-6

Background

    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Federal Aviation Administration Research, 
Engineering and Development Authorization'' to review the 
President's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, 
Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) budget request for Fiscal 
Year 1998 and beyond. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget 
request for FAA R,E&D is $200 million, $8.4 million less than 
the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. According to the budget 
request, the funding is needed to conduct research, 
engineering, and development programs that improve the national 
air traffic control system by increasing its safety, security, 
capacity, and productivity to meet the unexpected air traffic 
demands of the future.
    Witnesses included: Dr. George L. Donohue, Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation 
Administration and Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chair-FAA R,E&D 
Advisory Committee.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. George L. Donohue, testifying as Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation 
Administration, testified that the FAA, as directed by the 1996 
Reauthorization Act, has made sure that the R&D Advisory 
Committee is more involved in assessing FAA priorities. For FY 
1999 programs, the FAA plans to increase the Advisory 
Committee's role by using six standing subcommittees, and 
regularly scheduled meetings of those subcommittees with FAA 
staff. He stated that the new acquisition management system, 
which took effect April 1, 1996, provides a simplified and more 
flexible way to meet the FAA's acquisition needs. The White 
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (also known as 
the Gore Commission) recently issued its final report which 
included several recommendations that will involve RE&D 
programs. He testified that the FAA is now working to develop 
pertinent cost and resource information, as well as schedules 
and priorities, to determine how to best achieve the needed 
results.
    Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, testifying as Chair, Federal Aviation 
Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 
Committee, stated that the National Airspace System (NAS) 
modernization must be sped-up. However, with the current 
architectural plan and the current level of funding it will be 
difficult to reach the year 2005 goal as established by the 
Gore Commission. He also emphasized that prototypes are crucial 
to rapid implementation. One of the critical components 
necessary for injecting new technology into a market is the 
ability to prototype and test those components. As an example, 
he cited the FLIGHT 2000 demonstration program in Alaska and 
Hawaii which effects just one percent of the airplanes in NAS, 
but provides much needed answers to implementation and 
operation questions.

    4.5(e)--Funding Needs for the Technology Administration and the 
   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I-II

                             March 19, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-12

Background

    On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
first of two hearings entitled, ``Funding Needs for the 
Technology Administration and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I and II,'' to assess 
the funding requirements for the Department of Commerce 
Technology Administration in Fiscal Year 1998 and beyond, as 
well as review the effectiveness of programs under the 
Technology Administration. Also, an assessment on the needed 
legislative changes to statutes authorizing programs under the 
Technology Administration was completed.
    Witness included: Dr. Mary L. Good, Undersecretary for 
Technology, Department of Commerce.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Mary L. Good, testifying as Undersecretary for 
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, testified that NTIS is 
a fee-funded agency, but that its authorizing legislative 
language needs to be changed so the agency may operate in a 
more flexible manner. She stated that the NIST laboratory 
budget has increased by about 40 percent in four year's time. 
She stated that NIST laboratories are the ``Crown Jewel'' of 
the Technology Administration. She noted that the U.S. 
government does not set standards since we have voluntary, 
private-sector, standards setting organizations. She said that 
any of the NIST buildings, since they were all built about the 
same time, she said, are in need of major repair and 
refurbishing. She also addressed the need for the Advanced 
Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 
the Malcom Baldrige Award program. Since the Office of 
Technology Assessment was closed, the Technology Administration 
is the only group doing domestic and international technology 
assessments. The Technology Administration, she stated, has 
been streamlined to be more efficient.

   4.5(f)--Year 2000 Risks: What Are the Consequences Of Information 
Technology Failure? (Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform 
                             and Oversight)

                             March 20, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-5

Background

    On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information 
and Technology entitled, ``Year 2000 Risks: What Are the 
Consequences Of Information Technology Failure?,'' to explore 
non-software problems associated with the Year 2000 computer 
problem. Testimony was received regarding potential Year 2000 
impacts and the legal actions that would occur after the start 
of the Year 2000.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Bruce Hall, Research Director, 
Gartner Group; Ms. Ann Coffou, Managing Director--Year 2000 
Relevance Service, Giga Information Group; Mr. Vito C. Peraino, 
Attorney, Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft; Mr. Harris Miller, 
President, Information Technology Association of America.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Bruce Hall, testifying as Research Director, Gartner 
Group, testified that approximately 80 percent of the computer 
code to be remedied for the Year 2000 problem is on large 
mainframe systems. There is no time to retire or replace a 
significant number of mainframe systems, so a massive repair 
effort will be consuming key information technology resources 
over the next three years. He stated that in 1995 more than 
three billion micro-controller chips were shipped and are used 
in telephone systems, bar cod readers, bank machines, civilian 
and military avionics. Many of these microchips may be subject 
to Year 2000 failure. Organizations cannot afford to ignore 
these systems whose failures may have a dire impact on society.
    Ms. Anne Coffou, testifying as Managing Director, Year 2000 
Relevance Service, Giga Information Group, stated that the 
current challenge is to deal with embedded microchips in very 
simple products like VCR's, fax machines, elevators as well as 
very complex products like devices that control traffic lights, 
power generation, and water and sewer systems. This chip 
failure will have results ranging from annoying to life 
threatening. The solution, she said, will be to test every 
device with an embedded microchip. Manufactures, she said, will 
be assumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
    Mr. Vito C. Peraino, testifying as Attorney, Hancock 
Rothert & Bunshoft, testified the Year 2000 problem is a 
litigation catastrophe waiting to happen, and most companies 
and lawyers are currently unaware of the potential problem. He 
stated that at the most basic level, the Year 2000 problem 
threatens the integrity of financial information because so 
much of that information is date-dependent. He outlined five 
points associated with the legal aspect of the Year 2000 bug 
and suggestions to help limit the potential litigation 
catastrophe. He also recommended that Congress mandate that all 
sizable companies disclose publicly their Year 2000 problem and 
their plan to fix it. This action will bring public pressure on 
companies to address the problem, and it will give Congress a 
tool to gain a better sense of how critical sectors of our 
economy are addressing the problem.
    Mr. Harris Miller, testifying as President, Information 
Technology Association of America, stated that the Office of 
Management and Budget's recent estimate of $2.3 billion for a 
federal-wide Year 2000 fix is a clear signal that our 
government has not made this a top priority issue. He insisted 
the figure is much higher than $2.3 billion. He also testified 
about ITAA's Year 2000 certification process called ITAA 2000. 
The program was designed to give the marketplace a mechanism to 
identify the companies which are addressing the Year 2000 
issues. Currently 11 organizations have received certification 
and 18 more are undergoing technical evaluation.

   4.5(g)--Funding Needs for the National Institute of Standards and 
                   Technology (NIST), Parts I and II

                             April 10, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-12

Background

    On April 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
last of two hearings entitled, ``Funding Needs for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Parts I and II,'' to 
receive testimony from outside witnesses on the funding 
requirements for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) and to review the Administration's fiscal 
year 1998 budget request and out-year budget projections 
through fiscal year 2002. The discussion focused on the 
effectiveness of NIST programs such as the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
program (MEP).
    Witnesses included: Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for 
Energy, Resource and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting 
Office; Mr. Claude Barfield, Director, Science and Technology 
Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. W.C. Dyer, 
Director, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Professor 
Michael Borrus, Co-Director of BRIE, University of California 
at Berkeley; Dr. Michael Gough, Director of Science and Risk 
Studies, CATO.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for Energy, Resources and 
Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, stated that GAO 
was releasing a report entitled Performance Measurement: 
Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-
91). This report highlights the difficulty in measuring the 
impact of technology programs like ATP and MEP. GAO's research 
shows that ATP has funded research projects that would have 
been funded by the private sector as well as those that would 
not. The report released on performance measurement shows that 
there is no single indicator or evaluation that adequately 
captures the results of R&D.
    Mr. Claude Barfield, Director, Science and Technology 
Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute, addressed the 
place of the ATP program in relation to overall U.S. technology 
policy, the role of government in constructing a technology 
policy for the United States and the wisdom of linking the ATP 
program with the traditional NIST laboratory role. He stated 
that while calling for the ATP budget to double between 1998 
and 2002 the Administration will allow the budget of the labs 
to decline substantially in real terms over that same period. 
Given the more important contribution of the labs to long-term 
productivity and competitiveness of U.S. industry, it seems to 
be a mistake to give higher priority to more politically 
popular grant programs.
    Mr. W.C. Dyer, Director, Michigan Manufacturing Technology 
Center, testified with regards to the Michigan Manufacturing 
Technology Center (MMTC) and the MEP program. He stated that 
without the services provided by MMTC, many small firms would 
find it difficult to modernize. If his center loses federal 
support they will have to charge higher fees for services and 
therefore many small businesses will not be able to afford 
their services. The MEP program emphasizes practical, cost-
effective solutions to the needs of smaller manufactures.
    Professor Michael Borrus, Co-Director, BRIE, University of 
California at Berkeley, stated that continued U.S. leadership 
in technological progress is essential for the long-term growth 
of the domestic economy, for rising standards of living and for 
continued competitive success of the U.S. industry. 
International developments make continued support especially 
urgent. Interventionist governments abroad and growing foreign 
public commitments to technology spending threaten to cut into 
the U.S.'s technology development lead and transplant long-term 
technical progress abroad.
    Dr. Michael Gough, Director, Science and Risk Studies, CATO 
Institute, advocated the abolishment of the ATP program. He 
testified that ATP could be eliminated with no damage done to 
the economy of the country, with tax savings, and with the 
potential for more private investment in R&D.

  4.5(h)--Surface Transportation Research Needs for the Next Century, 
                               Parts I-II

                             April 23, 1997

                        Hearing Volume No. 105-9

Background

    On April 23, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
last of two hearings entitled, ``Surface Transportation 
Research Needs for the Next Century, Parts I-II.'' This was the 
second in a series of hearings on surface transportation 
research. Following the first Subcommittee on Technology 
transportation hearing in February, Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Constance Morella and Full Committee Ranking Member George E. 
Brown, Jr. introduced H.R. 860, the Surface Transportation 
Research and Development Act of 1997. The legislation 
authorizes appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
to carry-out surface transportation R&D programs, including the 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program, for Fiscal 
Years 1998-2003. This hearing reviewed the private sector views 
on the effectiveness of the federal government's current role 
in surface transportation R&D. It also identified ways to 
encourage increased private sector surface transportation R&D. 
The hearing also determined the appropriate prioritization of 
funding for surface transportation R&D through fiscal year 
2003.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Noah Rifkin, Senior Program 
Manager, Transportation Group, Calspan SRL; Mr. Richard Braun, 
Treasurer, Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation 
Society of America; Mr. Hank Dittmar, Executive Director, 
Surface Transportation Policy Project; Dr. C. Michael Walton, 
P.E., Chair--Transportation Policy Board, American Society of 
Civil Engineers.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Noah Rifkin, testifying as Senior Program Manager, 
Transportation Group, Calspan SRL discussed his support for the 
current version of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in particular the R&D segments of the 
bill, and provided some thoughts on how the Administration's 
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act 
(NEXTEA) may be strengthened even further. Mr. Rifkin said he 
supports a larger percentage of investment of federal dollars 
for the nation's transportation enterprise. He summarized 
saying he supports ISTEA and suggests that Congress reassess 
its priorities, tune its focus, and reaffirm its national 
commitment to assure the success of NEXTEA.
    Mr. Richard Braun, testifying as Treasurer, Board of 
Directors, Intelligent Transportation Society of America stated 
that the ITS initiative is vital. He gave several examples 
where technology can meet the nation's growing traffic needs. 
Mr. Braun highlighted many technologies already in place in 
several major cities. He also suggested several ITS components 
for inclusion in NEXTEA.
    Mr. Hank Dittmar, testifying as Executive Director, Surface 
Transportation Policy Project expressed his support for surface 
transportation research and development. He also suggested that 
the R&D program be guided by an overall strategic agenda that 
reflects the goals contained in ISTEA and cited several 
elements for inclusion in the federal surface transportation 
research program. Mr. Dittmar recommended expanding current 
surface transportation R&D technology programs to include more 
policy research. He emphasized the important role of the 
Federal Government in research and technology development 
activities.
    Dr. C. Michael Walton, testifying as Chair, Transportation 
Policy Board, American Society of Civil Engineers, discussed 
his support for ISTEA and the benefits it offers, such as 
increased partnership opportunities among government, the 
private sector and universities. He expressed continued support 
of NEXTEA. He stressed the importance of developing another 
strategic plan for NEXTEA and offered several suggestions to be 
included in that plan, particularly continued research and 
development of ITS.

       4.5(i)--Technology in the Classroom: Panacea or Pandora's

                              May 6, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-13

Background

    On May 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technology in the Classroom: Panacea or 
Pandora's.'' The hearing explored the appropriate role of 
technology in K-12 education. The hearing addressed the role of 
state, local and Federal Government programs; the cost 
associated with the use of technology; barriers to replicate 
successful programs; and how the private sector can be 
harnessed to assist both urban and rural schools in bringing 
technology into the classroom.
    To date, the Federal Government has played a substantial 
role in providing technology in the classroom. A recent RAND 
survey estimated that, in 1994, $850 million in federal funding 
went to K-12 technologies, about 30% of the total national 
investment. Last year, Congress passed, and the President 
signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Among its 
provisions, the legislation requires telecommunications 
carriers, if requested, to provide elementary and secondary 
schools with telecommunications services at reduced rates.
    Witnesses included, Mr. Paul Reese, Computer and Technology 
Coordinator, Community School District Five, New York, NY; Mr. 
Joseph Hofmeister, Director, Technology Integration, Cincinnati 
Country Day School, Cincinnati, OH; Mr. Kalani Smith, 
Instructional Specialist, Office of Global Access Technology, 
Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MD; Ms. Kathleen 
Fulton, Associate Director, Center for Learning and Educational 
Technologies, College of Education, University of Maryland, 
College Park, MD; Mr. Tip Kilby, Executive Director, Computers 
for the Classrooms, Inc., Atlanta, GA.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Paul Reese testified on behalf of the Consortium for 
School Networking and Community School District Five in New 
York City. Mr. Reese asserted that technology has contributed 
immensely to the success of the students and teachers at Ralph 
Bunche School. This technology includes: access to both local 
area networks (LAN) and wide area networks (WAN) through an 
Internet server, e-mail accounts for students and teachers, 
newsgroups set up in collaboration with other schools, a web 
server and, an electronic portfolio whereby students can save 
word processing, graphic and other files. This access to 
information has challenged students and teachers to develop new 
projects and find new ways of acquiring, as well as 
constructing, knowledge. Mr. Reese believes that we must assure 
that all students have access to the Internet, and that 
teachers receive the necessary training in order to assure 
success.
    Ms. Kathleen Fulton testified on behalf of the Center for 
Learning and Educational Technology at the University of 
Maryland. She believes that new understandings of educational 
technologies can change how we think about education. Ms. 
Fulton views new technologies for students as a ``pencil for 
the mind,'' and encourages Congress to continue to support the 
creation and availability of educational technologies for the 
benefit of our nation's schoolchildren.
    Additionally, Ms Fulton testified that federal investments 
made in educational technology over the past decade have been 
substantial, but cautioned that these monies will continue to 
present budgetary challenges. She noted that while federal 
dollars provide approximately 6 percent of K-12 education 
expenditures, federal funding has supplied 25 percent of the 
share for technology. Ms. Fulton also testified that there is a 
steadily growing body of research that supports technology's 
positive impact on student learning. However, there is no 
guarantee that favorable results will be achieved by just 
having the technology in the classroom
    Mr. Joseph Hofmeister Testified on behalf of Cincinnati 
Country Day School (CCDS), a preK-12, private, independent, 
college preparatory school in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. Hofmeister 
believes that CCDS's experience with computers in schools over 
the last 25 years has given them a distinct and unique 
perspective on the use of educational technology. Additionally, 
Mr. Hofmeister asserted that computers can be a catalyst for 
developing a new paradigm for learning in schools. When 
students become more active and constructive in dealing with 
information, rather than being passive recipients, many things 
are learned and understood better, developing independent, 
problem solving learners who achieve more personal satisfaction 
in the process. He believes that students must be encouraged, 
and maybe required, to use technology to enhance, expand and 
serve their learning experiences.
    Mr. Tip Kilby, testified on behalf of Computers for the 
Classrooms, Inc. (CCI). CCI is dedicated to enhancing education 
through better use of technology. They achieve this by 
providing teachers with a computer for their own personal use, 
outfitting the computer with relevant, useful software, and 
training the teachers through a series of classes. Mr. Kilby 
believes that in order to reach our goal of fully integrated 
educational technologies we need to focus more on training 
teachers in this area. A part of this educating teachers is 
giving teachers access to their own computers at all times 
where they can spend time learning how to properly use them.
    Mr. Kilby also stated that two ways to expedite our goal is 
to tap into the abundant technological resources of companies 
and individuals, and tap into their vast human resources. 
Utilizing volunteers who know how to use technology, and use it 
everyday as part of their work.
    Mr. Kalani Smith testified on behalf of the Montgomery 
County Education Association's Office of Global Access 
Technology. Mr. Smith stated that technology available to 
teachers is increasing at a rapid rate. He cautioned that this 
technology is not an end in itself, but a tool which a teacher 
can use to enhance their methods of instruction. The 
difficulty, as he sees it, is in training the teachers to 
utilize these available technologies. And to help them see 
technology as a powerful tool to deliver even better 
instruction of their curriculum. Additionally, Mr. Smith 
asserted that teacher training in the instructional use of 
technology is, and needs to be, a priority so that our children 
can take advantage of the wealth of knowledge this period in 
earth's history has to provide.

   4.5(j)--Review of the President's Commission's Recommendations on 
                                Cloning

                             June 12, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-19

Background

    On June 12, 1997 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing to review and discuss the report, ``Review of the 
President's Commission's Recommendations on Cloning,'' 
submitted to the President on June 9, 1997, by the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). The President had 
requested the NBAC perform a ninety day study to examine the 
scientific, ethical and legal aspects of the cloning issue. The 
hearing, entitled ``Review of the Recommendations on Cloning by 
the President's Commission,'' provided the first Congressional 
forum for discussion on the findings of the Commission. The 
hearing also considered the NBAC recommendations on the legal 
and ethical issues associated with the use of cloning 
technology.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National 
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Harold T. Shapiro, Ph.D., 
Chairman, National Bioethics Advisory Commission; Thomas 
Murray, Ph.D., Chairman, Genetics Subcommittee, National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission; David R. Cox, M.D., Ph.D., 
Professor of Genetics and Pediatrics, Department of Genetics, 
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Harold Varmus testifying as Chairman of the National 
Institutes of Health, briefly summarized the legislative 
activity (the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on 
Technology legislative hearing on March 5, 1997 and the Senate 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Public 
Health and Safety hearing on March 12, 1997) that had 
transpired to that date.
    Dr. Harold T. Shapiro testifying as Chairman of the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, broadly summarized some 
of the major conclusions of the NBAC. He began by presenting 
some of the scientific uncertainties and impediments that exist 
that currently obstruct the successful cloning of a human 
being, and thus, the successful scripting of public policy 
analysis in this area. He provided that the Commission's report 
cited deficient technology, at present, for the safe cloning of 
a human, and that the current state would expose the fetus and 
developing child to unacceptable risks. This deficiency was 
coupled with far-reaching concern over societal concerns about 
the ethics of allowing human cloning.
    Dr. Shapiro concluded by suggesting that a specific period 
of time be set aside, during which no attempts at human somatic 
cell nuclear transfer would be attempted, and that the debate 
be revisited after scientific, moral, and ethical data can be 
further collected and better evaluated.
    Dr. Thomas M. Murray testifying as Chairman of the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission's Genetic Testing Subcommittee, 
Dr. Murray testified to the religious and ethical issues 
analyzed by the Commission. After outlining the process taken 
by the NBAC, he presented the major findings in regard to 
ethical and religious debate. Many raised the issue of the 
responsible dominion over nature by humankind. From a family/
religious perspective, also acceptable procreation was analyzed 
in an effort to better understand the differences between 
begetting and making. The Commission looked at human cloning 
from a number of perspectives. He stated that the potential 
cloning of humans could disrupt the relationship among 
generations. From a religious perspective, the Commission 
focused on concerns over hubris, domination and oppression of 
made people, and concern over objectification. The Commission 
also stated that extreme caution must be exhibited whenever 
humans are used as the subject of scientific experimentation. 
But most of all, at this time, there is sufficient cause to 
warrant legislation to bar cloning based on the fact that a 
developing child would be subject to undue harm as a result of 
the current ``unscientifically plausible technology.''
    Dr. David R. Cox testifying as a Member of the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission, spoke of the remarkable nature 
of the scientific discovery and the opportunity for great 
advancements in basic science. Dr. Cox also was careful to 
mention the scope of the NBAC study. He explained that the 
cloning technique in question, somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
cannot be done without the transfer of genetic information to 
an egg. When division of the egg takes place, by definition, an 
embryo is produced. He insisted that it was not in the scope of 
the study to revisit the embryonic debate, nor assess the 
current annual ban on federal funding of human embryo research. 
He concluded with a justification as to why the scientists on 
the Commission would recommend legislation aimed at controlling 
science, in light of the fact that above all, ``scientists 
value scientific freedom.''

    4.5(k)--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997: To Amend The 
   National Institute Of Standards and Technology Act to Enhance The 
   Ability Of The National Institute of Standards And Technology To 
           Improve Computer Security, And For Other Purposes

                             June 19, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-20

Background

    On June 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997: 
To Amend The National Institute Of Standards and Technology Act 
to Enhance The Ability Of The National Institute of Standards 
And Technology To Improve Computer Security, And For Other 
Purposes.'' The hearing focused on the provisions of the 
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997. The bill amends the 
Computer Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-235). P.L. 100-235 gave 
NIST the lead responsibility for computer security for federal 
civilian agencies. The Act required NIST to develop standards 
and guidelines needed to ensure cost-effective security and 
privacy of sensitive information in federal computer systems. 
The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997, updates the 
decades-old act while giving NIST the tools it requires to 
ensure that appropriate attention and effort is concentrated on 
securing our federal information technology infrastructure.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting 
Under Secretary for Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce; Dr. Whitfield Diffie, Distinguished 
Engineer, Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA; Mr. Stephen T. 
Walker, President and CEO, Trusted Information Systems, Inc., 
Glenwood, MD; Mr. D. James Bidzos, President and CEO, RSA Data 
Security, Redwood City, CA; Marc Rotenberg, Esq., Director, 
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Gary Bachula described an electronic world of 
the future, whereby one keystroke, performed by a consumer, 
would initiate an elaborate, electronically controlled process, 
resulting in the delivery of a custom good to the end user. 
This would require a ``reliable, secure and trustworthy 
environment. * * * We need to have access to public information 
but also assurance that the wrong people will not have access 
to classified or private information.'' In addressing the 
sections of the bill, Mr. Bachula, speaking on behalf of the 
Administration, strongly supported portions of the bill that 
augment NIST's role in assisting the establishment of non-
federal public key management infrastructures, as well as 
providing guidance and assistance to federal agencies. Support 
of Section 5 was also given. The intent of Section 6 and 
Section 8 was supported, yet Mr. Bachula suggested that the 
language needed to be improved. Mr. Bachula indicated that the 
Administration opposed Section 7, which gives NIST a role in 
the assessment of the strength of foreign encryption 
technologies thereby providing guidance to DoC in granting 
export licenses for domestic encryption products.
    Dr. Whitfield Diffie testified on the historical 
development of the government's role in computer security. In 
tracing the development of the interaction between National 
Security Agency (NSA) and NIST, Mr. Diffie spoke very highly of 
the intent of the Computer Security Act of 1987; however, he 
noted that the provision which called for NIST to consult with 
NSA, later modified by an inter-agency Memorandum of 
Understanding, resulted in a separation of authority (NIST) and 
funding (NSA). Mr. Diffie highlighted the problems caused by 
the NIST/NSA interaction, and contended that NIST autonomy 
would eliminate this predicament. Citing its timeliness, Mr. 
Diffie strongly supported H.R. 1903, which he stated would 
bring back the spirit of the Computer Security Act of 1987.
    Mr. Stephen T. Walker also testified in support of H.R. 
1903. He strongly supported the provisions that strengthened 
and augmented the role of the Computer System Security and 
Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB), which was created by the 1987 
Act. He pointed out the public good that was done by CSSPAB 
allowing public debate on the widely criticized Clipper 
initiative and defended H.R. 1903's enhancement of the board's 
interaction with NIST. Mr. Walker, though, was opposed to the 
portions of the bill that direct NIST to conduct evaluations of 
encryption technology, both domestically (Section 4, paragraph 
6) and internationally (Section 7). He questioned the ability 
of NIST to conduct such evaluations, not because of 
inadequacies of NIST, rather, the fact that ``no one in 
government or industry has been able to perform effectively at 
this point'' such an evaluation.
    Mr. D. James Bidzos refuted Mr. Walker's contention 
regarding evaluation of encryption technologies. He stated that 
the provisions of section 7 were both doable and needed. Also, 
Mr. Bidzos praised the bill's provisions that increased the 
private sector's role in establishing computer security for 
civilian government agencies. While implementation of the 1987 
Act missed the opportunity for NIST to work closely with 
industry, ``we have an opportunity now to correct it. And, I 
think that's what [H.R.] 1903 does.'' Concluding, Mr. Bidzos 
found no shortcomings with the bill, and strongly supported its 
contents and timing.
    Mr. Marc Rotenberg concluded oral testimony with an overall 
appraisal of H.R. 1903. Citing the merits of the 1987 Act, Mr. 
Rotenberg supported the bill as powerful and timely legislation 
that furthers the intent of its predecessor, while eliminating 
the inefficacy induced by NIST's Memorandum of Understanding 
with NSA for consultation on computer security matters under 
the Act.

 4.5(l)--The Role of Research & Development In Improving Civilian Air 
                           Traffic Management

                             June 24, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-22

Background

    On June 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Role of Research & Development In 
Improving Civilian Air Traffic Management.'' The hearing was 
held to review the current state of air traffic control (ATC) 
modernization, identify what improvements to the system are 
necessary; and determine the proper role R&D should play in ATC 
modernization.
    Currently, our nation's air traffic system is aging. 
Failures of critical technological components that support 
aviation safety are on the increase. Projections call for a 5% 
increase in air traffic volume for the next ten to fifteen 
years. Without significant modifications, the system will not 
be able to cope with the future demand while maintaining the 
current level of aviation safety.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Steven B. Zaidman, Director, Office 
of System Architecture and Investment Analysis, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; Dr. Henry McDonald, 
Director, Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Moffett Field, CA; Ms. Margaret Jenny, RTCA 
Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee, Director of 
Operations Research, U.S. Airways, Arlington, VA; Ms. Nancy 
Price, Chair, Air Traffic Services Subcommittee, Research, 
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Steven B. Zaidman testifying on behalf of the Office of 
System Architecture and Investment Analysis, spoke of the 
Federal Aviation Administration's activities in introducing new 
technologies into the air traffic management system. He 
additionally highlighted concerns and difficulties in the 
present system of air traffic management. Mr. Zaidman asserted 
that the greatest limitation of the air traffic management 
technology being used today is its inability to support the 
continued growth of air travel in our country. Mr. Zaidman 
commended two allies that have helped the agency better focus 
R,E&D investments. First, the Congress, for their 
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. 
Second, Mr. Zaidman applauded the R,E&D Advisory Committee. 
Their collaboration has been instrumental in finalizing the 
Agencies budget.
    Ms. Nancy Price, testifying on behalf of the National 
Airspace System (NAS) Air Traffic Management (ATM) Panel of the 
FAA R,E&D Advisory Committee, spoke to the charter that the NAS 
ATM Panel set for themselves in order to review the FAA R&D 
program. The panel made 20 recommendations on various subjects 
critical to the future of FAA R&D. These recommendations 
included: Management recommendations, Advanced ATM 
recommendations, Software recommendations, Weather 
recommendations and, leveraging recommendations. As stated by 
Mr. Zaidman, the FAA sees the Advisory Committee as a 
collaborative partner and incorporates many of their 
recommendations into existing FAA priorities.
    Ms. Margaret Jenny, testifying as Co-Chair of the FAA's 
R,E&D Advisory Committee RTCA Free Flight Select Committee, 
spoke to the need of the entire air management system to 
modernize in order to meet growing consumer demand. The RTCA 
Free Flight Select Committee has determined that ``free 
flight'' is a bold innovation which could significantly improve 
air traffic management to the benefit of all involved. In the 
RTCA Free Flight plan, safety decisions would be made by the 
FAA, but economic decisions (routes, direct, indirect, etc.) 
would be made by the users (airlines). Additionally, Ms. Jenny 
highlighted the importance of the RTCA's evolution to the free 
flight roadmap. She also urged the Science Committee to resolve 
the FAA research agenda, ``The aviation community looks to . . 
. your Committee to insure not only that appropriate research 
is conducted, but also that promising products of previous 
research will be expedited to the field . . .''
    Dr. Henry McDonald, testifying as Director of the Ames 
Research Center, NASA, briefly spoke to the new strategic 
framework for the NASA Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology Enterprise. This endeavor has three national goals 
which describe the vision and goals for future federal 
investments in aeronautics and aviation. Additionally, Dr. 
McDonald explained the cooperative efforts underway with the 
FAA and expressed his determination for NASA to continue to 
work closely with the FAA.

 4.5(m)--Will Federal Government Computers Be Ready For the Year 2000? 
    (Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
    Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
                               Oversight)

                             July 10, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-35

Background

    On July 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight) entitled, ``Will Federal Government Computers Be 
Ready For The Year 2000?'' The hearing was held to review the 
status of current Federal Government efforts to correct the 
Year 2000 problem; to discuss the viability of Federal 
Government agency timetables and milestones in addressing the 
Year 2000 problem for mission-critical programs; and to assess 
whether there are sufficient management processes and 
structures in place to monitor Federal Government Year 2000 
efforts.
    Recognizing the need to take immediate federal action on 
this issue, the 104th Congress required all federal agencies to 
develop by February 1997, a federal strategy and a cost-
estimate to correct the Year 2000 problem. This requirement was 
inserted into the Treasury Postal Fiscal Year 1997, 
Appropriations Act. The language required the Federal 
Government, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
to create: (1) a detailed plan; (2) a cost-estimate; and (3) a 
time table to implement the plan.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Sally Katzen, 
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC; Mr. Joel 
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC; Mr. 
Alvin Pesachowitz, Vice Chair, Chief Information Officers 
Council, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 
Ms. Katherine Adams, Chair, Interagency Year 2000 Subcommittee 
of the Chief Information Officers Council, Assistant Deputy 
Commissioner for Systems, Social Security Administration, 
Baltimore, MD; Mr. Joe Thompson, Chief Information Officer, 
U.S. General Services Administration, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Sally Katzen, testifying as Administrator, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, reported on the status of the Federal 
Government's progress in assuring federal computer systems are 
ready for the Year 2000. In May, OMB informed agencies that 
they would be required to report quarterly on their Year 2000 
progress. Ms. Katzen characterized the first reports (received 
by OMB on May 15, 1997) as showing that agencies have made a 
good start in addressing the year 2000 problem. She also 
indicated that the government-wide cost estimate had increased 
from $2.3 billion to $2.8 billion. Ms. Katzen concluded by 
stating that while OMB is concerned with the amount of work 
that remains to be done, they are confident the Year 2000 
computer problem will be a non-event with regard to the Federal 
Government computer systems.
    Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, testifying as Director, Information 
Resources Management, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, General Accounting Office, described the Federal 
Government's strategy for addressing the Year 2000 problem, and 
agencies' reported status in resolving the issue. In addition, 
Mr. Willemssen provided observations on federal efforts to date 
based on work GAO has completed at certain agencies and on 
their review of OMB's implementation of the federal strategy, 
including year 2000 reports submitted by 24 federal agencies. 
Mr. Willemssen insisted that the pace of current date change 
work needs to be accelerated if widespread system problems are 
to be avoided. In conclusion, he feels that preparing for the 
Year 2000 is much more of a management challenge than a 
technical one.
    Mr. Alvin Pesachowitz, testifying as Vice-Chairman, Federal 
Chief Information Officers Council, discussed the role of the 
Federal CIO Council in dealing with the Year 2000 problem. He 
asserted that the CIO council believes there is no higher 
priority for them than the proper operation of the information 
systems the Federal Government relies on to serve the American 
public. To that end, the CIO Council has worked closely with 
OMB and the private sector in formulating Year 2000 policies. 
Mr. Pesachowitz believes that the collaborative efforts by OMB 
and the CIO Council has had a positive impact on the pace of 
the Federal Government's response to the Year 2000 problem.
    Ms. Kathleen Adams, testifying as Chairperson, Chief 
Information Officers Council Subcommittee on Year 2000, 
described what the Subcommittee has done and is doing to help 
federal agencies address the Year 2000 problem. The primary 
functions of the Year 2000 Subcommittee are; to raise awareness 
of the problem; assess facets of the issue that cut across 
government; seek mutual solutions; and share the best 
practices. To facilitate these functions the Subcommittee has 
sponsored two conferences to increase awareness, developed a 
Best Practices guide to provide a framework for each agency and 
department and, worked with OMB to develop the quarterly status 
report each agency must submit to OMB. Ms. Adams also spoke of 
the future activities of the Subcommittee. Specifically, they 
are developing a database of commercial off the shelf software 
and how it will function when handling dates beyond 1999; 
focusing on data exchanges where multiple agencies are involved 
to minimize the impact on state and local governments.
    Mr. Joe M. Thompson, testifying as Chief Information 
Officer, General Accounting Office, spoke to GSA's progress and 
government-wide leadership in resolving the Year 2000 computer 
dilemma. GSA's primary approach, in resolving the issue within 
their agency, has been to upgrade all their systems to Year 
2000 compliance in order to improve the overall function of 
their system's. Outside GSA, Mr. Thompson testified that GSA 
has notified manufacturers, service and equipment providers 
that all products sold to the government must be year 2000 
compliant and developed an Office of Government-wide policy 
directory that has become a one-stop shopping source for 
information on Year 2000 issues. Mr. Thompson cautioned that 
many state and local government's are not moving rapidly or 
aggressively enough to assure they will be ready on time. 
However, the continued attention that Congress is showing the 
matter will assist in both raising awareness and stimulating 
solutions.

 4.5(n)--Meeting The Needs Of People With Disabilities Through Federal 
                          Technology Transfer

                             July 15, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-26

Background

    On July 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Meeting The Needs Of People With 
Disabilities Through Federal Technology Transfer.'' This 
hearing was held to discuss the effectiveness of our federal 
technology transfer laws and methods in which they may be 
improved, focusing on assistive technologies for our nation's 
disabled citizens. Assistive technologies are being used to 
increase, maintain, and improve the functional capabilities of 
citizens with disabilities. For the 49 million people in the 
United States who have disabilities, our nation's federal 
laboratories have yielded a tremendous number of quality of 
life enhancements.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Katherine Seelman, Director, 
National Institute of Rehabilitation and Research, U.S. 
Department of Education, Washington, DC; Mr. C. Dan Brand, 
Chairman, Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology 
Transfer, Jefferson, AR; Dr. Bruce Webbon, Chief, Commercial 
Technology, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Steve 
Jacobs, Executive Assistant to the President, NCR Corporation, 
Dayton, OH; David H. Hershberger, Vice President of Product 
Development, Prentke Romich Company, Wooster, MA; Mr. Joe 
Lahoud, President, LC Technologies, Fairfax, VA.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Katherine Seelman, testifying as Director, National 
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education. NIDRR is the lead federal agency in 
research, development and deployment of assistive technologies. 
Dr. Seelman stated that currently, an estimated 15.6 million 
people in the U.S. either use some type of specialized 
assistive technology or have reported they would benefit if 
they did use an assistive technology. She also asserted that 
there are numerous prospects for potential collaboration 
between NIDRR and the federal laboratories in the area of 
assistive technologies. A working model for future successful 
collaboration should include; continuing to work on information 
exchange; providing additional resources to seek out potential 
technology for transfer; conducting pilot projects or 
reciprocal exchange between NIDRR and the federal laboratories; 
and involving individuals with disabilities in technology 
transfer research. Dr. Seelman concluded that through continued 
leadership of the Congress new ways will be found to transfer 
technology into the area of assistive technology.
    Mr. C. Dan Brand, Testifying as Chair, Federal Laboratory 
Consortium, spoke to the important role played by the Federal 
Laboratory Consortium (FLC) in the transfer of technology from 
federal laboratories to the marketplace. Mr. Brand stated that 
the FLC is committed to enhancing the partnership opportunities 
between the federal laboratories and the assistive technology 
community. He cited four things the FLC can begin implementing 
to assist NIDRR in their mission; promote awareness and 
benefits of assistive technology; identify the technical needs 
of the NIDRR laboratories and match them with a federal 
laboratory; exploit and adapt the mechanisms provided through 
key legislation; and convey to the laboratory leadership the 
importance of considering assistive technology design and 
development. Mr. Brand further stated that the FLC has a clear 
mandate to work with the assistive technology community and 
they welcome the opportunities and challenges ahead.
    Dr. Bruce Webbon, Testifying as Chief, Commercial 
Technology Office, NASA-Ames Research Center, indicated that 
large private companies are often reluctant to develop needed 
assistive technology devices due to the small return on 
investment. Additionally, smaller companies do not have the 
resources to do so. Dr. Webbon feels that the federal 
laboratories are uniquely able to bridge this gap since they 
are not in the business of selling commercial products, and 
they have, in collaboration with agencies, the needed technical 
expertise. Dr. Webbon spoke of NASA's long history of applying 
aerospace research, developed to accomplish its tasks in space, 
to help solve problems on earth. He gave specific examples of 
Ames research being successfully applied to the assistive 
technology community.
    Mr. Steven I. Jacobs, Testifying as a Senior Technology 
Consultant, NCR Corporation, stated ``Developing products that 
are accessible, usable and useful by people with disabilities 
brings more benefits to mainstream business than may be obvious 
to the casual observer.'' He gave numerous examples of 
technology being developed to facilitate various job 
performances and their rather easy application to the assistive 
technology community. Mr. Jacobs further asserted that 
strengthening the ability to meet the needs of people with 
disabilities through federal technology transfer will bring 
with it many benefits. Additionally, he believes that 
supporting programs which proactively encourage collaboration 
between rehabilitation engineering centers and federal 
laboratories increase the quality and speed of products 
currently under development.
    Mr. David Hershberger, Testifying as Vice President, 
Product Development, Prentke Romich Company, stated that his 
company was founded in 1966 for the sole purpose of providing 
technology for people with disabilities. This has remained the 
company's one and only activity. Prentke Romich's primary 
products are speech generation devices. The computer revolution 
has benefited the production of these. This revolution has also 
had a profound impact on people with disabilities in two 
important ways. Firstly, many of the new products developed are 
much easier to use, or at least modify, for use by people with 
disabilities. Secondly, the accompanying advancement in 
components required to make computers also can be used for 
assistive technologies. For example, components used to make 
faster computers are also used to make more sophisticated 
wheelchair controls.
    Mr. Joseph A. Lahoud, testifying as President, LC 
Technologies, Inc., spoke as a representative of an emerging 
assistive technology industry in the United States. Mr Lahoud 
asserted that LC Technologies, Inc. is a working model of a 
successful collaborative arrangement between a small company 
and the federal laboratory system. LC Technologies Eyegaze 
technology is a computer/communication system for people with 
physical disabilities who cannot use traditional technologies. 
This technology has the ability to improve and enhance not only 
present communication for those with disabilities, but also 
many future applications. Mr. Lahoud asserted that his company 
has benefited from opportunities presented by the Small 
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business 
Technology Transfer (STTR) grants as well as collaborative 
agreements with Federal Government laboratories. However, he 
further stated that these funds represent only a small 
percentage of the funds needed to address the R&D needs of the 
community of people with disabilities.

  4.5(o)--The Prohibition of Federal Funding of Human Cloning Research

                             July 22, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-32

Background

    On July 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Prohibition of Federal Funding of Human 
Cloning Research.'' The hearing discussed the parameters 
governing federal funding for human cloning research and, 
reviewed H.R. 922, ``The Human Cloning Research Prohibition 
Act,'' introduced by Congressman Vern Ehlers of Michigan, which 
prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to conduct or 
support research on the cloning of humans.
    Advances in cloning technology offer great potential in 
such areas as medical research and agriculture. Experiments 
involving cloned animals could greatly enhance the basic 
understanding of aging and may provide a window into the 
development of diseases, such as cancer. However, these 
advances also raise serious ethical questions, particularly 
with respect to the possible use of the technology to clone 
human embryos. This has opened up a world-wide debate on the 
legal and ethical issues associated with cloning technology.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Hessel Bouma III, Professor of 
Biology, Calvin College Biology Department, Grand Rapids, MI; 
Professor Kevin Wildes, Associate Director, Kennedy Institute 
of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Arthur F. 
Haney, MD, President-elect, American Society for Reproductive 
Medicine, Director, Department of Endocrinology & Infertility, 
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Dr. Alison Tauton-
Rigby, President & CEO, Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Worcester, 
MA; Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Vice Chairman, National Association 
for Biomedical Research , Director, Center for Food and 
Nutrition Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hessel Bouma III, testifying as Professor of Biology, 
Calvin College Biology Department, stated that ethical decision 
about human cloning should not be left solely to the medical 
community. In order to safeguard the public welfare, we need to 
institute government restrictions on human cloning. H.R. 922 is 
one effective means of restricting human cloning. Although 
warranted, this federal funding ban is insufficient as it 
provides restrictions only to federal research. If we agree 
that human cloning should not be done, then government 
restrictions are warranted on the private sector as well as the 
public.
    Professor Kevin Wildes, testifying as Associate Director, 
Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, spoke as a 
philosopher with a specialty in bioethics and health policy. He 
felt that federal legislation to prohibit human cloning should 
be enacted and that any legislation must seek to be as clear 
and precise as possible in its language and definitions.
    Arthur F. Haney, MD, testifying as President-elect, 
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Director, 
Department of Endocrinology & Infertility, Duke University 
Medical Center. ASRM opposes any attempt at cloning an existing 
human being. Although they are generally reluctant to support 
any legislative efforts to curtail scientific inquiry, at this 
time cloning merits such a prohibition. ASRM feels that the 
best way to proceed is for legislation that would prohibit this 
practice more generally, not just for federally funded 
researchers. ASRM supports legislation which prohibits cloning 
existing human beings using somatic cell nuclear transfer. They 
request that any legislation include: (1) a sunset provision; 
(2) a preemption clause to ensure that individual state 
legislatures do not overrule federal law; and (3) the Committee 
lift the existing prohibitions on the use of federal funds for 
blastocyte or preembryo research (i.e., the current federal ban 
on embryo research).
    Dr. Lester Crawford, testifying as Vice Chairman, National 
Association for Biomedical Research, stated that NABR, is 
dedicated exclusively to advocating sound public policy 
regarding the humane and necessary use of animals in biomedical 
research, education and testing. NABR represents over 360 
member institutions including the nation's largest university, 
the majority of US medical and veterinary schools, academic and 
professional societies, voluntary health organizations as well 
as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. NABR agrees with 
and support the conclusions and recommendations made by the 
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, but does not support 
the NBAC proposed legislation or H.R. 922. NABR recommendations 
are: (1) science will not pursue research results which society 
is morally and ethically unwilling to accept; (2) safeguards 
are in place to protect humans and animals in experimentation; 
and (3) existing laws and regulations are being followed, and 
can be periodically reviewed to keep pace with new 
technologies.
    Dr. Alison Taunton-Rigby, testifying as President and CEO, 
Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, and on behalf of the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization, representing 730 biotechnology companies 
and others engaged in biotechnology research on medicines and 
diagnostics, agriculture, pollution control, and industrial 
applications. BIO agrees with the conclusions of the National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission, but BIO believes that 
legislation on the subject of cloning human beings is not 
needed. In lieu of legislation, BIO recommends that the current 
moratorium on human cloning be continued indefinitely. If 
legislation must be enacted, BIO recommends: (1) it should 
focus only on research funded by the Federal Government, (2) it 
should include a sunset provision, (3) a preemption provision, 
(4) a findings section, (5) a section defining protected 
research, (6) a prohibition on private rights of action, and 
(7) an effective date.

   4.5(p)--Reauthorization of the Small Business Technology Transfer 
                             Program (STTR)

                           September 4, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-39

Background

    On September 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program (STTR).'' The Small Business 
Innovation Development Act (P.L. 97-219) created the Small 
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program in 1982. In 1992 
the program was reauthorized by P.L. 102-564 (15 U.S. 638). The 
reauthorization created a three year pilot program called the 
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program.
    STTR is intended to facilitate the commercialization of 
university, non-profit, and federal laboratory research and 
development by small businesses. STTR provides funding for 
research proposals which are developed and executed 
cooperatively between small firms and scientists/professors in 
research organizations. Currently, the Department of Energy 
(DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services 
(HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
and National Science Foundation (NSF) all contribute to the 
program. The STTR set-aside was last reauthorized as part of 
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. That 
authorization expired on September 30, 1997.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Hill, Assistant 
Administrator for Technology, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Washington, DC; Ms. Susan Kladiva, Acting 
Associate Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, U.S. 
General Accounting Office, Dr. Wendy Baldwin, Deputy Director 
for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, 
Bethesda, MD; Mr. Scott Wallsten, Economist, Department of 
Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Ms. Ann Eskesen, 
President, Innovation Development Institute, Swampscott, MA.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Daniel Hill, testifying as Assistant Administrator for 
Technology, U.S. Small Business Administration, indicated the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) strong support for 
extending the STTR program through the year 2000 at its current 
level. He also stated that, while small businesses produce 
twice as many innovations per employee as large firms, they 
receive a very low percentage of federal research and 
development funds. He indicated that the STTR, established as a 
pilot program during the 1992 reauthorization of the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), has begun to 
bridge this gap. According to SBA, the program, in only its 
third year of existence, has received high praise from both the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), as well as the Department of 
Defense (DOD) for its success in bringing technology to the 
market quickly. Mr. Hill testified that both STTR and SBIR 
programs are vital to the nation's research agenda and small 
business community.
    Ms. Susan Kladiva, testifying as Acting Associate Director, 
Energy, Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO), spoke of the agency-by-agency review conducted by 
GAO of the first year implementation of STTR. She stated that 
while agency officials offered differing views on the effect 
of, and the need for, the STTR program, all officials felt the 
program was not competing for quality proposals with the SBIR 
program or reducing the quality of the participating agencies' 
R&D programs. Additionally, some agency officials noted 
potentially beneficial effects, such as greater collaboration 
between small business and research institutions in the SBIR 
program. Ms. Kladiva also discussed GAO's work on small 
businesses which receive multiple awards. From fiscal year 1990 
through fiscal year 1996, approximately 6,500 companies have 
received STTR and/or SBIR awards from the five agencies that 
participate in both programs.
    Dr. Wendy Baldwin, testifying as Deputy Director for 
Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, stated that 
the National Institute of Health (NIH) is the only principal 
operating component within the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) that participates in the STTR program. She 
further acknowledged that HHS is very pleased with their 
involvement in the program. Dr. Baldwin fully expects HHS 
results, with regard to STTR, to mirror those of its SBIR 
program. A recent report from GAO and SBA indicates that HHS 
has experienced the highest success rate among all federal 
agencies in commercializing the results of research conducted 
under SBIR. A further benefit of the two programs at NIH has 
been in contributing to the development of products and methods 
useful in other research efforts. These products and processes 
have succeeded in increasing the productivity of other 
researchers and decreasing the cost of other areas of research.
    Mr. Scott Wallsten, testifying as a Ph.D. candidate at 
Stanford University. Mr. Wallsten asserts that he has been 
studying the SBIR program for several years and feels that his 
conclusion that SBIR cannot meet its legislative goal of 
increasing innovation and commercialization is equally 
applicable to STTR, as it is not only similar to the SBIR in 
many ways, but also because many firms participate in both 
programs. Mr. Wallsten believes that STTR funds will go to 
research that is likely to lead to a commercialized product. 
However, this same research would proceed even in the absence 
of federal funds. A government grant is much cheaper than a 
loan, so it stands to reason that any rational firm will look 
to this source of funding first.
    Ms. Ann Eskesen, testifying as President, Innovation 
Development Institute, asserted that, as one of the original 
people who helped draft and implement the SBIR program in 1982, 
she possesses the necessary ``corporate memory'' of the path, 
intentions and future direction of the SBIR. Ms. Eskesen 
testified that since its inception, 40,000, projects have been 
selected for SBIR awards. These projects have included nearly 
9,000 small businesses representing every state in the union. 
She noted the diversity of emphasis and breadth of talent which 
currently makes up the SBIR program. She stated that SBIR and 
STTR represents an extraordinary pool of validated competence 
and talent and, within the SBIR, every conceivable area of 
scientific and technological investigation is represented. In 
conclusion, Ms. Eskesen suggested perhaps including in the 
reauthorization a provision for program managers at each agency 
to designate a percentage of their awards each year toward 
long-term higher risk projects.

   4.5(q)--Promoting Technology Transfer by Facilitating Licenses to 
                       Federally-Owned Inventions

                           September 25, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-27

Background

    On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a hearing entitled, ``Promoting Technology Transfer by 
Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions.'' The 
hearing was held to discuss the effectiveness of our federal 
technology transfer laws and methods in which they may be 
improved, and to review H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer 
Commercialization Act of 1997, which seeks to promote 
technology transfer by facilitating licenses to federally-owned 
inventions.
    Each day research and development programs at 700 United 
States federal Laboratories produce new knowledge, processes, 
and products. Often, technologies and techniques generated in 
these federal laboratories have commercial applications if 
further developed by the industrial community.
    As a result, federal laboratories work closely with United 
States industries, universities, and state and local 
governments, helping them to apply these new capabilities to 
their own particular needs. Through this technology transfer 
process, the laboratories share the benefits of national 
investments in scientific progress with all segments of 
society. In this way, the results of the federal R&D enterprise 
are used to meet other national needs including the economic 
growth that flows from new commercialization in the private 
sector.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Joe Allen, Vice President, Market 
and Technology Assessment, National Technology Transfer Center, 
Wheeling, WV; Mr. C. Dan Brand, Chair, Federal Laboratory 
Consortium, Jefferson, AR; Mr. Dan Passeri, Vice President, 
Business Development and Intellectual Property, Gene Logic, 
Inc., Columbia, MD; Mr. John G. Mannix, Associate General 
Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA 
Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Joe Allen, testifying as Vice President, Market and 
Technology Assessment, National Technology Transfer Center, 
stated that linking federal laboratories and universities with 
American Industry holds great promise for our future economic 
prosperity. Mr. Allen asserted that the passage of the Bayh-
Dole Act in 1980, initially considered a bold and radical idea, 
is now a model that our economic competitors are emulating. 
This legislation holds the same promise. However, Mr. Allen 
believes that in order to license government-owned inventions, 
the Congress must ease the current complex system which a 
company must go through. For example, a company must publish in 
the Federal Register their intention to pursue a federally-
owned license. Companies, however, are reluctant to do this as 
it effectively gives away their marketing strategy. In 
conclusion, Mr. Allen recommended taking a well thought out 
incremental approach, such as H.R. 2544, that simplifies 
current procedures while retaining important safeguards.
    Mr. Daniel R. Passeri, testifying as Vice President, Gene 
Logic, Inc., spoke of the importance for the Federal Government 
to streamline the procedures and remove the uncertainty 
associated with the licensing determination process. In doing 
so, the Federal Government will foster an attractive 
environment for corporate investment and partnering efforts. 
Mr. Passeri believes that under the current system there is a 
tension between the needs of industry to rapidly respond to 
market demands and opportunities, and the procedural 
requirements of federal agencies in regards to the exclusive 
licensing of high risk, early stage technology. He stated that 
these procedural barriers create increased transaction costs, 
delays in obtaining the license, as well as the uncertainty of 
actually being granted the license. The barriers, however, do 
not exist in university technology transfer. In conclusion, Mr. 
Passeri welcomed H.R. 2544's proposed improvements to the 
current law and indicated that in their current form they will 
address the frustrations of industry.
    Mr. C. Dan Brand, testifying as Chair, Federal Laboratory 
Consortium, spoke of the Federal Laboratory Consortium's (FLC) 
importance as the nationwide network of federal laboratories 
who provide a forum to develop strategies and opportunities for 
linking government technology to the marketplace. Mr. Brand 
stated that in advance of this hearing, the FLC solicited and 
received comments from a number of their member departments and 
agencies on removing legal obstacles to effectively license 
federally-owned inventions. He cautioned that these are not an 
``official'' department or agency position, but rather an 
initial assessment. Mr. Brand stated the FLC's belief, as well 
as those comments received from departments and agencies, is 
that the amendments to the Bayh-Dole Act will serve to speed 
transfer and commercialization of technologies to industry, 
while maintaining a fair and open competitive environment. Mr. 
Brand further cautioned that while the initial input from 
member laboratories was largely positive, the Subcommittee 
should also consider the views of the FLC Legal Issues 
Committee and the National Institutes of Health.
    Mr. John G. Mannix, testifying as Associate General 
Counsel, Intellectual Property, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, began by stating that neither NASA nor the 
Administration had an opportunity to completely review the 
proposed legislation so neither has had an opportunity to 
formulate a detailed position. However, Mr. Mannix asserted 
that having learned many lessons over the years in this regard, 
he would hope NASA's position would be considered before any 
changes in the law were made. Mr. Mannix highlighted the two 
major improvements to the licensing process that he has seen 
during his career. First, he cited the increased personal 
involvement of technical experts, and individuals with 
marketing, negotiation, and business experience in the 
licensing process. Second, he emphasized the importance of the 
statutory authority given to NASA negotiators to require 
written commercialization plans and yearly status reports 
describing progress toward commercialization. Additionally, Mr. 
Mannix emphasized the importance of providing some form of 
notice of the availability of federally owned licenses. Without 
such a notice, Mr. Mannix maintained, we will always be subject 
to claims of favoritism.

              4.5(r)--Technology to Reduce Aircraft Noise

                            October 21, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-38

Background

    On October 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technology to Reduce Aircraft Noise,'' to 
review Federal research and technology development activities 
in the area of aviation noise reduction.
    Aircraft noise continues to be a persistent concern to 
communities located around commercial airports. According to 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), about 3.5 million 
citizens reside in areas where aircraft noise exceeds the level 
at which noise is defined to constitute a sustained 
interference with routine daily activities. As large as this 
number may appear, it represents a major reduction from the 
estimated 7 million citizens similarly impacted in 1974.
    Witnesses included: Mr. James Erickson, Director, Office of 
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Washington, DC; Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, Associate 
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Washington, DC; Dr. Wesley L. Harris, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 
Committee, Washington, DC; Mr. Don MacGlashan, Member, Board of 
Directors, Citizens for the Abatement of Airport Noise, Chevy 
Chase, MD; Mr. Robert Robeson, Vice President, Civil Aviation, 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington, 
DC.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. James Erickson, testifying as Director, Office of 
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, spoke 
to the cooperative effort between the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) on noise research and specifically, the 
Subsonic Noise Reduction Technology program. Mr. Erickson 
stated that in recent years FAA has made significant progress 
in reducing noise impacted areas through the elimination of 
Stage 2 aircraft. This progress has come amidst significant 
increases in passenger travel. Mr. Erickson also applauded the 
efforts of NASA and FAA in their current research effort, the 
Advanced Subsonic Technology program (AST). Their mission is to 
develop high-payoff technologies to enable safe, highly 
productive global air travel. Under this program FAA & NASA 
have met all mid-term objectives for each of the 5 program 
areas under this program and Mr. Erickson anticipates that they 
will ultimately meet all performance objectives. In conclusion, 
he stated that the cooperative research between NASA and FAA is 
a model for other agencies. And as a result, they will achieve 
significant reduction in aircraft noise.
    Mr. Robert E. Whitehead, testifying as Associate 
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
spoke also of the cooperative research between NASA and FAA. He 
also discussed the role of NASA in civilian aviation research, 
and aviation noise reduction research. FAA and NASA have a long 
history of cooperative research to reduce aircraft noise. 
Having worked together through the 60's and 70's on programs 
like the Quiet Nacelle Program, the JT8D Refan program and the 
Quiet Engine program. Collectively, these programs have made 
significant contributions to reducing aircraft noise. The 
current Advanced Subsonic Technology program (AST) is yet 
another important effort on their parts. The 5 sub-elements of 
the AST program are a coordination among government, industry 
and academia to further resolve the ``quality of life'' issue 
of aircraft noise. Additionally, Mr. Whitehead reiterated Mr. 
Erickson's statement. That to date all major milestones of the 
AST program have been achieved and there is every reason to 
believe that this progress will continue. Mr. Whitehead 
concluded by stating that a major pillar of NASA's future 
vision is to reduce perceived future aircraft noise levels by a 
factor of four within twenty years.
    Dr. Wesley Harris, testifying as Professor of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
welcomed this opportunity to evaluate the progress of FAA and 
NASA programs to reduce aircraft noise. Dr. Harris commended 
NASA and FAA for their successful efforts thus far in this 
area. Specifically, he cited them for their acoustic nacelle 
design technology, their modified fan technology, their 
integrated jet engine design and their reduced noise and fuel 
efficient ducted and unducted propulsors. He also recognized 
NASA and FAA for the steady progress of the AST program. Dr. 
Harris also highlighted areas in which these two agencies need 
to improve. He stated that FAA and NASA should: greatly 
increase their R&D budget allocations related to aviation noise 
reduction; FAA should be the primary interface with end users, 
and NASA should develop and validate negative environmental 
impact reduction technology, and; cooperatively develop an 
aviation driven environmental impact technology roadmap beyond 
the year 2001.
    Mr. Donald W. MacGlashan, Member, Citizens for the 
Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., commended the Subcommittee 
for holding this hearing. Mr. MacGlashan used Washington, DC as 
an example in highlighting the widespread problem of aircraft 
noise, but also stated that DC is not unique. This problem 
occurs in nearly every major airport around the country. Mr. 
MacGlashan stated that the current metric for determining 
aircraft noise (65 dB) is averaged over the course of a 24 hour 
period and therefore, does not take into account the single 
noise event which is what can be detrimental to the health and 
welfare of many living near airports. He also indicated that 
another source of aviation noise which is detrimental is 
helicopter noise. Currently, there are no noise standards for 
helicopters. Mr. MacGlashan's organization, he stated, has no 
faith that the FAA can resolve the problem as their primary 
mission is to promote the aviation industry. Mr. MacGlashan 
conclude by stating that aircraft noise is a much more serious 
and complex problem with far more health consequences than 
previously recognized. He pointed out that the health of people 
should always come first.
    Mr. Robert E. Robeson, testifying as Vice President, Civil 
Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association, stated that AIA 
fully supports the combined efforts of NASA and the FAA in 
addressing this important issue. Mr. Robeson cautioned that the 
application of technologies is a long term process and the 
Congress should not jump to conclusions to establish premature 
or inappropriate regulations. The ultimate answers in 
minimizing environmental impacts of aviation will come from the 
governments' and the manufacturers' investments in advancing 
technologies. Mr. Robeson also emphasized the importance of an 
international standard for reducing aircraft noise and AIA 
supports the development of an international consensus on 
aircraft noise through the U.N. International Civil Aviation 
Organization. Mr. Robeson concluded by emphasizing a three-
legged approach to aircraft noise reduction: technical goals, 
land use planning and operational procedures. The combination 
of these three will help augment the long term goals in 
aircraft noise reduction.

 4.5(s)--Do You Know Who You Are Doing Business With? Signatures in a 
                              Digital Age

                            October 28, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-25

Background

    On October 28, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Do You Know Who You Are Doing Business 
With? Signatures in a Digital Age.'' The hearing explored the 
impact of domestic and international regulations on the 
development of standards for digital signatures on electronic 
commerce; allowed Members of the Committee as well as the 
public to learn about the varying concerns of those who create, 
those who verify, and those who use digital signatures; and 
allowed for a discussion of the different standards being set 
in the United States and abroad.
    Efforts are underway both in the United States and 
internationally to bring interested parties to the table to 
discuss voluntary standards. A committee of the American Bar 
Association designed a comprehensive model law to deal with all 
the new legal issues arising from digital signatures. 
Simultaneously, the state of Utah enacted a variant of the ABA 
draft. Within the last three years, more than forty state 
legislatures have contemplated digital signature laws. Germany, 
Malaysia, and Italy already have their own laws, and many other 
countries are considering new regulations. Such conflicts make 
it difficult for Certification Authorities (CA's) to operate 
efficiently, which in turn will slow the development of 
electronic commerce.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Andrew J. Pincus, General 
Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC; Stewart 
Baker, Esq., Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC; Mr. D. 
James Bidzos, President and CEO, RSA Data Security, Redwood 
City, CA; Mr. Kenneth Lieberman, Senior Vice President, 
Corporate Risk Management, Visa U.S.A., Foster City, CA; Mr. 
Charles S. Walton, Jr., Chief Operations Officer, CertCo, New 
York, NY.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Andrew J. Pincus, testifying as General Counsel, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, suggested it is too early for the 
Federal Government to support a particular legislative 
approach. He encourages exploring the various approaches that 
others have taken so the government keeps from rushing into the 
issue resulting in poor and ineffective legislation. Mr. Pincus 
praised the possibilities of Internet/electronic commerce, but 
cautioned that uncertainty regarding authentication could 
hinder the expansion of this medium. Additionally, Mr. Pincus 
praised the Administration's ``Framework for Global Electronic 
Commerce,'' which sets forth general principles to guide the 
Federal Government's relationship with electronic commerce. In 
conclusion, Mr. Pincus offered observations based on his 
initial information gathering efforts. First, it is unlikely 
that the market will settle on one universal authentication 
mechanism. Second, technologies and means for authentication 
are developing rapidly. To legislate unnecessarily would 
provide a disincentive to the continued growth of electronic 
commerce. Third, cross-border and multi-jurisdictional 
interoperability is crucial. The government must find a way to 
foster interoperability.
    Mr. Stewart A. Baker, testifying as Partner, Steptoe & 
Johnson, expressed his belief that this issue will not just go 
away on its own. The Federal Government needs to show 
leadership in this area by engaging the conflicting rules and 
realizing that a top down policy may not be widely accepted. 
Mr. Baker indicated two ways digital signatures are being 
implemented today. First, low-grade certificates, which are 
liability free or offer a limited warranty are already in 
circulation. Second, some companies or groups of companies, 
have begun creating closed system certificates. These 
certificates are effectively a contract for their users. 
Additionally, he emphasized digital signatures need three 
things from the law: a keyholder who is identified and controls 
the key; a certifying authority, who vouches for public keys: 
and a relying party who decides upon certificate trust. He 
recommended the continued discussion of the issue to bring 
about solutions.
    Mr. D. James Bidzos, testifying as President, RSA Data 
Security, expressed the misfortune that the subject of digital 
signature's became overshadowed by the on-going encryption 
debate. He stated that digital signatures have the potential 
for achieving very significant savings in government and 
corporate operations, as well as enabling the use of Internet 
as a trusted means of delivering goods and services. Mr. Bidzos 
cited six barriers to the effective use of digital signatures: 
Separate digital signatures policy debate from key recover 
debate; define the legal status of digital signatures; address 
the discriminatory federal standards environment; address 
incremental digital signature legislation at State level; 
address liability; the need for accreditation of certificate 
authorities. In conclusion, Mr. Bidzos emphasized his desire to 
work with the Committee in addressing the digital signatures 
issue.
    Mr. Ken Lieberman, testifying as Senior Vice President for 
Corporate Risk Management, Visa USA, recommended that 
governments be on guard against premature or excessive 
regulations in the digital signature arena. Mr. Bidzos 
recommended the Committee play a significant role in this area 
by developing legislation that: allows and protects the use of 
digital signatures in situations where all the parties to the 
transaction are governed by their own agreements--so called 
private or closed systems; create a ``safe harbor'' for these 
private systems so that digital signature laws do not add undue 
burdens on these systems: and reduce the risk of inconsistent 
international treatment by promoting agreements with our major 
trading partners. Mr. Lieberman used the Secure Electronic 
Transaction (SET) protocol developed jointly by Visa and 
Mastercard as an example of a successful private system. SET 
has been endorsed by the financial industry and the payment 
card industry as the standard for payment transactions on the 
Internet. Mr. Lieberman concluded by emphasizing the importance 
of allowing existing regulatory structures to be leveraged to 
address the adoption of new technology by banking institutions 
in their private arrangements.
    Mr. Charles S. Walton, Jr., testifying as Chief Operations 
Officer, CertCo, spoke of the many challenges that are to be 
faced in the transition to a virtual way of conducting 
business. Additionally, Mr. Walton made five recommendations 
for sound digital signature policy. First, let the market lead. 
Many entities have a vested interest in creating security 
infrastructure solutions. Supporting the private sectors 
development is an ideal way to ensure successful and secure 
development of this infrastructure. Second, look to existing 
trust institutions. The collective experience of these 
institutions should not be ignored. Legislative solutions 
should draw upon this experience and knowledge. Third, promote 
contractual based models by emphasizing the traditionally 
defined principles of contract formation. Fourth, support 
government pilot applications and standards. There is a clear 
need for the Federal Government to finance and enable, and not 
inhibit, pilot applications. Finally, provide forums for 
continued discussion.

          4.5(t)--The Global Dimensions of the Millennium Bug

                            November 4, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-34

Background

    On November 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Global Dimensions of the Millennium 
Bug.'' The hearing was held to examine the global economic 
impact of the Year 2000 computer problem; the international 
implications of the problem on United States industry; and the 
steps that are being undertaken to correct the Year 2000 
problem in other nations.
    The Technology Subcommittee has been actively engaged in 
reviewing the Year 2000 computer problem. Through a series of 
oversight hearings and legislative initiatives, the Technology 
Subcommittee has raised awareness of the Year 2000 problem and 
pushed both the public and private sectors in the United States 
to act expeditiously to correct the problem in a timely manner.
    There is concern, however, that in an increasingly global 
marketplace with a growing reliance on electronic commerce, the 
Federal Government and U.S. industry must play a stronger role 
in ensuring that their foreign counterparts are effectively 
addressing the Year 2000 computer problem. Unless the problem 
is corrected globally, international commerce could be 
dramatically affected. Ultimately, it may be of little 
consequence that Federal Government and U.S. industry are able 
to become fully Year 2000 computer compliant if inter-
operability problems exist with their non-Year 2000 compliant 
global partners.
    Witnesses included: His Excellency Ahmad Kamal, Chairman, 
United Nations Working Group on Informatics, New York, NY; Mr. 
Harris Miller, President, Information Technology Association of 
America, Arlington, VA; Mr. Richard M. Kearney, Principal, KPMG 
Peat Marwick, LLP, Partner-in-Charge, Global Year 2000 
Practice, Boston, MA; Mr. James L. Cassell, Group Vice 
President, Director of Research, Gartner Group, Inc., Tampa, 
FL; Mr. Tony Keyes, President, The Y2K Investor, Sandy Spring, 
MD.

Summary of hearing

    His Excellency Ahmad Kamal, testifying as Chairman, United 
Nations Working Group on Informatics, spoke to the role of the 
United Nations in addressing the international aspects of the 
Year 2000 problem. The United Nations has initiated a serious 
effort to remedy this problem in a satisfactory and cost 
effective manner. Ambassador Kamal, however, emphasized that 
the success of these efforts depends on the will of the Member 
States to focus on the ways and means to avert this crisis. 
Additionally, the United Nations has issued the following five 
point plan to address this problem: (1) Governments and 
international organizations should announce their commitment to 
solving the Year 2000 problem, thereby calling attention to its 
importance; (2) each government should allocate financial and 
human resources to fix the most essential Year 2000 problems 
for their own governments; (3) each government should adjust 
government practices to ensure procurement of Year 2000 
compliant systems; (4) each government should take appropriate 
action to make the non-governmental sector aware of the need to 
re-assess priorities to address the Year 2000 problem; and (5) 
each government should identify systems of national importance 
and ensure there are plans for them to be fixed on time. 
Ambassador Kamal concluded by expressing his willingness to 
work with others involved in remedying the Year 2000 problem.
    Mr. Harris N. Miller, testifying as President, Information 
Technology Association of America, emphasized the importance of 
the U.S. Government playing a much larger international 
leadership role in resolving this problem. He stated that the 
U.S., as the world leader in information technology, appears 
blind to the global implications of this unprecedented 
situation. Mr. Miller professed concern that many leading 
international organizations are just starting their Year 2000 
programs. The largest barrier to resolving the global aspect is 
that the Year 2000 problem is not viewed as a ``presidential'' 
size problem. As evidenced by the G-7 (now G-8) summit in which 
Ministers chose not to address the issue and have no plans to 
do so in the future. Mr. Miller urged the Committee and others 
in Congress to consider an international Year 2000 program. 
This program would become a top priority for compliance by 
major multinational organizations, beginning with the G-7 
summit. He also suggested Congress undertake a study to explore 
the trade and trans-border implications of the present 
situation.
    Mr. Richard M. Kearney, testifying as Partner in Charge, 
Global Year 2000 Consulting Practice, KPMG Peat Marwick, 
emphasized that the Year 2000 problem is the most pressing 
business issue of the day. This problem is an unprecedented 
challenge not only because it reaches around the globe, but 
more so because it affects everyone simultaneously. However, 
many companies and governments outside the U.S. are still 
unaware of the implications and immense problems that could 
arise if this issue is not addressed. Mr. Kearney further 
suggested ideas for action that could be taken by the 
Subcommittee on Technology to assist with resolving the 
international situation. First, sponsor a summit meeting of 
business leaders focusing on mitigating the risks surrounding 
cross border movement of information and money. Second, Mr. 
Kearney suggested opening a dialogue with other nations' 
Ministers of Finance and/or Treasuries to discuss Year 2000 
issues. Third, encourage business regulators to communicate 
with their counterparts around the world to focus on Year 2000 
compliance as a priority. Last, encourage Year 2000 discussions 
at diplomatic and economic forums throughout the world. Mr. 
Kearney concluded by emphasizing the importance of getting many 
more people involved in dealing with the issue.
    Mr. James L. Cassell, testifying as Group Vice President 
and Director of Research, Gartner Group, focused his testimony 
on three areas of the Year 2000 crisis as it relates to 
international commerce and security. First, the state of 
readiness around the world. Gartner Group conducted three 
surveys of more than 1,100 companies worldwide. The results of 
these surveys, Mr. Cassell stated, were very disconcerting. 
According to the surveys, a significant number of companies 
believe themselves to be well into their Year 2000 efforts. 
However, independent research by the Gartner Group indicates 
that this is not so. Mr. Cassell also emphasized the critical 
nature of many embedded non-IT systems. He stated that the Year 
2000 crisis is likely to have a far greater impact on the 
global environment than first imagined due to the fact that 
many non-IT assets such as navigation equipment, cars and 
elevators have not been investigated as part of the Year 2000 
project. In some cases failure may have far reaching business 
consequences. Finally, Mr. Cassell spoke of the risk to the 
Year 2000 projects worldwide from an inability to train and 
retain staff. Gartner Group research indicates that nearly 85% 
of the worlds enterprises will begin executing this IT project 
at the same time. This simultaneous work will drain an already 
insufficient pool of human resources. Additionally, enterprises 
with lower paid Year 2000 staff will see an exodus to higher 
paying companies. In conclusion, Mr. Cassell likened the Year 
2000 crisis to a war. And noted that we have only two years to 
get to a point where we can sustain our security and 
international commerce.
    Mr. Tony Keyes, President, Y2K Investor, Author, ``The Year 
2000 Computer Crisis, An Investors Survival Guide,'' stated 
that with less than 26 months until the beginning of the next 
millennium it is in the U.S.'s own best interest to demonstrate 
aggressive leadership on the Year 2000 problem. Mr. Keyes used 
as an example the recent break in the Hong Kong market, and the 
resulting worldwide stock drop, as an indicator of how tightly 
woven the fabric of our international commerce has become. The 
Year 2000 crisis, he implored, must be solved globally. He 
respectfully suggested the President of the United States 
appoint a U.S. Year 2000 czar, as well as forming an 
international panel which could: reach an agreement on 
interfacing standards, interoperability and schedule; work to 
ensure our global telecommunications network continues to 
operate without failure; ensure that our international maritime 
fleet continues to operate at full capacity; cooperate on 
converting international banking and finance networks; 
cooperate on utilization of human resources; and cooperate on 
implementation of Year 2000 firewalls.

       4.5(u)--The Role of Computer Security in Protecting U.S. 
                            Infrastructures

                            November 6, 1997

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-33

Background

    On November 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Global Dimensions of the Millennium 
Bug.'' The hearing explored the appropriate role of government 
and of the private sector in securing the backbone of this 
country's information and telecommunications infrastructures.
    The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection (PCCIP) was created on July 5, 1996 by Executive 
Order 13010. The stated reason for the order was the need to 
assure the uninterrupted operation of critical infrastructure. 
The President in that Order stated ``Certain national 
infrastructures are so vital that their incapacity or 
destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or 
economic security of the United States.''
    The purpose of the panel was to identify and coordinate 
existing expertise, inside and out of the Federal Government to 
look at the infrastructures of telecommunications, electrical 
power systems, gas and oil storage and transportation, banking 
and finance, transportation, water supply systems, emergency 
services (including medical, police, fire and rescue), and 
government operations. The Executive Order stated that threats 
to these critical infrastructures fall into two categories: 
physical threats or computer-based attacks on the information 
or communications components that control critical 
infrastructures (``cyber threats'').
    Since most of the critical infrastructures are privately 
owned, the Executive Order emphasized the need for close 
cooperation between the government and the private sector. The 
Commission was chaired by Robert Marsh (appointed by the 
President) and had representatives from both the government and 
the private sector.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Robert T. Marsh, Chairman, 
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, 
Washington, DC; Russell B. Stevenson, Jr., Esq., Mr. Stephen R. 
Katz, Chief Information Security Officer, Citibank, New York, 
NY; Mr. Glenn Davidson, Executive Vice President, Computer & 
Communication Industry Association, Washington, DC; Dr. Peter 
G. Neumann, Principal Scientist, Computer Science Laboratory, 
SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Robert T. Marsh, testifying as Chairman, President's 
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP), 
discussed the work, outline, principal findings and 
recommendations contained in their report to the President, 
``Critical Foundations.'' Mr. Marsh stated that the Commission 
was charged with developing a national policy and 
implementation strategy for protecting critical U.S. 
infrastructures from physical and cyber threats. The latter 
being of critical importance as Mr. Marsh stated, ``While we 
have long understood the physical threat, the fast pace of 
technology poses us with a continually evolving cyber threat.'' 
The Commissions guiding principles recognized that most of the 
infrastructures operate within an existing framework of 
government policy and regulation, but they are also privately 
owned competitive enterprises. Key findings of the Commission, 
Mr. Marsh testified, included: the importance of information 
sharing, shared responsibility among owners, operators and the 
government, a focal point for infrastructures protection, a 
need to adapt to a changing culture, the important role to be 
played by the Federal Government, and the necessity for the 
legal system to better deal with technology law. Mr. Marsh 
concluded by emphasizing the fundamental conclusion of the 
Commission, ``Waiting for a disaster is a dangerous strategy. 
Now is the time to act to protect our future.''
    Mr. Stephen R. Katz, testifying as Chief Information 
Security Officer, Citibank, welcomed this opportunity to share 
Citibank's views on the appropriate role of the government and 
the private sector in securing the country's information and 
telecommunications infrastructure. Mr. Katz's remarks focused 
on four principles: the framework of information security; the 
state of information security in the banking sector; 
vulnerabilities, risks and risk assessment, and; 
recommendations on the government and private sector's role. 
Mr. Katz further stated that in the coming years a virtual 
explosion of Internet based commerce will occur. To accommodate 
this mass migration security and confidentiality of information 
transmitted between banks and their customers must be 
facilitated. Furthermore, a lack of security will significantly 
impede this process. Mr. Katz concluded by emphasizing that 
another effort needs to be aimed at business and government to 
help them understand their information security risks and 
responsibilities in addressing those risks.
    Mr. Glenn K. Davidson, testifying as Executive Vice 
President, Computer and Communications Industry Association, 
testified that while CCIA agrees that there is a need to guard 
against any attacks capable of disabling the nation's first 
rate infrastructure, it needs to be addressed at a slower more 
reasoned pace. Mr. Davidson expressed concern with the 
Commission's report being classified. He stated that the 
Commission must come forward with its threat assessment so it 
may be discussed, debated and understood by the public. Mr. 
Davidson also expressed concern with the cost burden and who 
will bear the cost of updating our nation's infrastructures. He 
believes, based on statements by the Commission, that these 
costs will ultimately fall to business. This would place an 
excessive financial burden that would blunt the competitive 
edge of American industry. Mr. Davidson concluded by 
emphasizing that it is possible to protect the complex 
infrastructures in the U.S. without imposing debilitating 
strictures on American corporations.
    Dr. Peter G. Neumann, testifying as Principal Scientist, 
Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, commended the 
Commission for their recognition that all of the critical 
infrastructures are closely interdependent and they all depend 
on an underlying computer communication information 
infrastructure. Dr. Neumann emphasized that his job, as well as 
that of others scientists' in the R&D community, is to: find 
ways to avoid many of the risks our current infrastructures 
posses; minimize the consequences of the exploitation or 
accidental triggering of those that cannot be avoided; and to 
provide well founded assurances that systems and networks are 
likely to be able to satisfy their critical requirements. He 
also commended the Commission for their massive undertaking in 
putting together this report. However, Dr. Neumann also states 
that the Commission has identified only the tip of a very large 
iceberg, and there is much more work to be done. He was also 
concerned that the Commission had largely ducked the issue of 
cryptography. The Commission recommended, he feels, the 
adoption of key recovery techniques without having analyzed the 
risks and other implications. Dr. Neumann concluded by stating 
that there is an enormous need for open discussions of these 
issues and commended the Subcommittee for continuing the 
dialogue.
    Mr. Russell B. Stevenson, testifying as General Counsel, 
CyberCash, Inc., suggested that in considering to take on the 
recommendations of the Commission, Congress should limit the 
role of government to: research and education aimed at enabling 
private actors to protect their interests more effectively; and 
identifying and addressing those weaknesses in the electronic 
infrastructure as a whole that cannot be effectively dealt with 
by the efforts of the private sector. He also spoke of the need 
for Congress to move slowly in adopting regulatory measures and 
stay keenly aware of the law of unintended consequences in 
formulating policy. He suggests allowing market forces to move 
first with the government limiting its actions to areas where 
it can clearly produce a better outcome than the private 
sector. Mr. Stevenson concluded by suggesting Congress should 
pay particular attention to the importance of encryption to 
security and not expose the electronic infrastructure to 
attacks by terrorists and criminals.

4.5(v)--FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on the Air Traffic Control System 
(Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Government Management, Information 
     and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight)

                            February 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-49

Background

    On February 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight entitled, ``FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on the Air 
Traffic Control System.''
    The hearing examined several issues related to the risks 
of, and consequences for, organizations that do not effectively 
address the century date problem. Technology forms an amazingly 
intricate web not only within large organizations like the 
Federal Government, but between organizations and individuals 
around the globe. A tremendous number of our social, 
governmental, and commercial relationships depend on this web. 
The failure of any of these systems, therefore, will not be 
isolated. The risks and consequences are of immediate and 
overwhelming concern to everyone, including the Federal 
Government.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Jane Garvey, 
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; The Honorable 
Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Transportation; Mr. Stanley Graham, Senior Management 
Consultant, Tech-Beamers, Inc.; Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, 
Civil Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting 
Office

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, Federal 
Aviation Administration testified to the status of the FAA 
efforts in addressing the mission-critical systems in the 
National Airspace System (NAS), and the agencies overall Y2K 
effort. Administrator Garvey stated that the FAA had set up a 
``war room'' staffed with technical experts from across the 
country to tackle its Y2K problem, and that as of January 31, 
1998, 125 of its 209 mission-critical systems in the NAS had 
been certified as Y2K compliant She went on to discuss the Y2K 
effort for the rest of the FAA, where the assessments for 216 
of the 221 mission-critical systems had been completed. To head 
up the agency wide effort, Director Garvey stated that she had 
appointed Ray Long as the FAA Y2K program manager. In 
conclusion, she made it clear that all FAA executives 
understood their obligation to the flying public, and that she 
had the utmost confidence in the agency's ability to overcome 
this problem.
    The Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Transportation testified that the FAA got a very 
late start on fixing Y2K computer problems and is behind 
schedule on assessing which of its systems have Y2K problems. 
Mr. Mead identified actions the FAA must take to effectively 
solve its Y2K problem. They include the need to (1) take prompt 
action to make necessary fixes, (2) expeditiously appoint a 
person with strong technical and leadership abilities to manage 
the Y2K effort, (3) make a prompt decision on the Host computer 
fixes, (4) develop a suitable contingency plan for the Host 
computer, (5) have an independent review of plans to fix and 
certify the existing Host computer, (6) develop a master 
schedule for fixing and testing all mission-critical systems, 
(7) promptly identify and secure resources needed to get the 
job done, and (8) report monthly to the Secretary and Congress 
on the progress made toward fixing the Y2K problems. In 
conclusion, Mr. Mead stated that funding requirements must be 
determined by FAA, and urged that FAA move up the 
implementation date to have all systems Y2K compliant, tested, 
and operational no later than June 1999.
    Mr. Stanley Graham, Senior Management Consultant Tech-
Beamers, Inc. testified that the FAA would not be able to meet 
its Y2K deadlines. Mr. Graham agreed with the GAO that the 
problem at the FAA is a project management one with technical 
complications. Furthermore, he stated that the FAA does not 
have an objective methodology for planning and tracking its Y2K 
project schedules. Using Beta Curves to evaluate the schedule 
performance of large software projects, Mr. Graham estimated 
that the FAA would miss their schedule by anywhere from 7 
months to 9 \1/2\ years. Furthermore, in order to reduce the 
risk to the integrity of the FAA flight control system Mr. 
Graham suggested the establishment of a pilot project on a 
cluster of ``Year 2000 Time Machines.'' He believes that this 
proposal could be an inexpensive and practical short term fix 
for the FAA Y2K problem, because it would allow them to 
maintain their vital services.
    Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information 
Systems Accounting and Information Management Division 
testified that FAA's progress in making its systems ready for 
the year 2000 has been too slow, and that its current pace, it 
will not make it in time. Mr. Willemssen also stated that the 
FAA does not know the extent of its Y2K problem because it has 
not yet completed its assessments. These delays leave the FAA 
little time for critical renovation, validation, and 
implementation activities. Mr. Willemssen recommends that 
urgent action is imperative to improve the management 
effectiveness of FAA's Y2K program. He suggests that the FAA 
Administrator should: (1) finalize an agency wide plan which 
provides the Y2K program manager the authority to enforce Year 
2000 policies; (2) assess how its major business lines and 
aviation industry would be affected if the Y2K problem were not 
corrected in time, and use these results to help rank the 
agency's Y2K activities; (3) complete inventories of all 
information systems by January 30, 1998; (4) finish assessments 
of all systems to determine each one's criticality by January 
30, 1998; (5) determine priorities for system conversion and 
replacement; (6) establish plans for addressing identified date 
dependencies; (7) develop validation and test plans for all 
converted or replaced systems; (8) craft Y2K contingency plans; 
and (9) finally make a reliable cost estimate.

 4.5(w)--Review of the Fiscal Year 1999 Administration Request for the 
 Technology Administration and the National Institute of Standards and 
                               Technology

                           February 26, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-45

Background

    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
an oversight hearing entitled, ``Review of the Fiscal Year 1999 
Administration Request for the Technology Administration and 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,'' to review 
the Administration's funding request for fiscal year 1999 for 
the Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting 
Undersecretary for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; The 
Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology; The Honorable Johnnie E. Frazier, 
Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; The 
Honorable Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy, Resources 
and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting Undersecretary for 
Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce testified that all of the policies, programs, and 
other activities of the Technology Administration are united 
under a single theme: technology is the engine of economic 
growth. Of the drivers of growth, technology is the single most 
important determinant. He recognized the pivotal role that 
federal investments in science and technology have played in 
securing global leadership in key industries, such as in 
agriculture, computing, communications, aerospace, 
pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology and, in turn, the economic 
growth and high wage jobs that these investments have produced 
for the United States. Additionally, Acting Undersecretary 
Bachula highlighted the Research Fund for America, the 
centerpiece of the Administrations research and development 
budget, which supports civilian research investments such as: 
biomedical research, space science, energy research, climate 
change research and technology, and university-based research.
    The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology testified that he sees five 
challenges for NIST in the coming millennium: Ensuring world 
leadership by NIST's Measurement and Standards Laboratories; 
ensuring that measurement capabilities and standards are in 
place to support full U.S. participation in global markets; 
building greater consensus on the value of the Advanced 
Technology Programs (ATP); expanding access to Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership (MEP) services for more small and medium-
sized companies and continuing federal support for MEP centers 
after their sixth year; and promoting performance excellence in 
healthcare and education, particularly among non-profit 
organizations, through the Baldrige National Quality Program. 
He further testified that the Administrations' fiscal year 1999 
budget request for NIST of $715 million reflects its approach 
to those challenges. Each of these areas is linked closely with 
the Commerce Department's and NIST's strategic and performance 
plans, and NIST has worked hard on meaningful evaluation 
metrics to chart progress in meeting these challenges.
    The Honorable Johnnie Frazier, Acting Inspector General, 
U.S. Department of Commerce testified that his appearance at 
the hearing was to discuss some of the Office of Inspector 
Generals recent audit and inspection work at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS), two of the agencies that 
constitute the Department of Commerce's Technology 
Administration. With regard to NIST, Acting Inspector General 
Frazier highlighted some areas of concern. He recommended that 
NIST work with the Department of Commerce, OMB, and the 
Congress to find a funding strategy that would allow for 
unified construction of the Advanced Metrology Laboratory, a 
primary source of concern within NIST's Capital Facilities 
Improvement Program (CIFP). In addition, he emphasized to NIST 
and the Department the importance of having the most accurate, 
defensible, and fiscally responsible CIFP possible. He 
indicated that NIST generally agreed with these conclusions and 
that they should reevaluate their facilities needs and revise 
their plan. Regarding NTIS, Acting Inspector General Frazier 
expressed concerns that the agency was undertaking activities 
based on a very broad interpretation of its mission and 
authority. He expressed his concern about NTIS's lack of a 
clearly defined mission and its ability to generate sufficient 
revenues to remain financially self-supporting. For these 
reasons, he recommended that the Department put any legislation 
on hold until an appropriate mission for the agency has been 
clearly defined.
    The Honorable Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy 
Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office 
discussed the ATP, which is administered by the NIST within the 
Department of Commerce. ATP is a competitive, cost-sharing 
program designed for the Federal Government to work in 
partnership with industry to foster the development and broad 
dissemination of challenging, high-risk technologies that offer 
the potential for significant, broad-based economic benefits 
for the nation. She indicated that ATP funding reached it's 
highest level in 1995, but has since declined due to a more 
stringent application requirement process. The current 
Administration request of $269 million reflects this effort. 
Associate Director Kladiva further indicated that program 
review, or peer review, would allow the program to operate in a 
much more efficient manner.

   4.5(x)--Review of H.R. 3007, The Advancement of Women in Science, 
  Engineering, and Technology Development Act (Joint Hearing with the 
                    Subcommittee on Basic Research)

                             March 10, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-53

Background

    On March 10, 1998, The Subcommittees on the Technology and 
Basic Research held a joint hearing on ``A Review of H.R. 3007, 
The Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and 
Technology Development Act.''
    Witnesses included: Ms. Belkis Leong-Hong, President-elect, 
Women in Technology (WIT); Ms. Catherine Didion, Executive 
Director, Association for Women in Science; Monica Moman-
Saunders, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, representing the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; and Professor Ann M. 
Quade, Department of Computer Science, Mankato State 
University.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Belkis Leong-Hong, testifying as President-elect, Women 
in Technology, Fairfax, Virginia, emphasized the need to 
provide young women the support necessary to pursue an 
education and career in science, engineering, and technology 
development. As an example of the lack of encouragement for 
young women to excel in these areas, she stated that nearly 
one-third of all girls in our high schools report that they 
were advised away from taking advanced mathematics courses. To 
overcome the lack of support for young women in all areas of 
science, the need exists for a systematic mentoring process. 
Women in Technology (WIT) has addressed this problem by 
establishing a formal mentoring program in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area.
    Ms. Catherine Didion, testifying as Executive Director, 
Association for Women in Science, stated that there needs to be 
a major change in the way society portrays women in science, 
engineering, and technology development. In particular, she 
stated that many young women have a difficult time reconciling 
the perceived incongruity between being a women and being a 
scientist. She stated that in a recent study by the National 
Science Teachers Association, 99 percent of the boys and nearly 
90 percent of the girls who were asked to draw a picture of a 
scientists drew a white male scientist. To reinforce this 
point, she recalled the account of one female scientist who was 
advised not to wear fingernail polish or makeup if she hoped to 
be taken seriously. After informally polling the 76 AWIS 
chapters and asking what was the most compelling issue facing 
women in science, Ms. Didion said she received numerous answers 
but that almost all of them contained two important 
recommendations. First, that there is a need to promote an 
effective mentoring system with adequate reward structures for 
women in science. In addition, flexibility in the workforce is 
a key contributor to whether women succeed in careers in 
science. She said many women fear it is unrealistic to both 
pursue a career in science and also maintain a solid family 
structure.
    Professor Ann Quade, testifying as Associate Professor, 
Department of Computer Science, Mankato State University, 
expressed her concern about the decline in the number of women 
pursuing degrees in computer sciences. She cited data 
indicating a 50% decrease in the number of women pursuing a 
computer science degree between the years 1986 and 1994. 
Professor Quade referenced other previously male dominated 
fields where women have made progress such as medicine, law, 
and business, and said that the same skills necessary to 
succeed in these areas are essentially the same skills 
necessary to succeed in computer sciences. She stated that in 
her experience as an educator, many young women did not have an 
adequate understanding of what was involved in the computer 
science field. She indicated that those involved in the 
profession had not done a very good job of explaining what they 
do for a living and potential job opportunities for computer 
science graduates. She supported the idea of a strong mentoring 
system to achieve this goal.
    Ms. Monica Moman-Saunders, testifying on behalf of the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, cited a number of 
statistics which indicate that women are making progress in the 
areas of science, engineering, and technology development. 
However, she also indicated that not enough was being done to 
recruit, retain, and advance women in these areas. Ms. Moman-
Saunders emphasized the need for the Commission established by 
H.R. 3007 to draw upon the resources of other groups and 
coordinate its efforts with those that are ongoing in order to 
keep duplicative research from occurring. ASME, for example, 
recently completed a similar study aimed at determining whether 
real or perceived barriers exist that inhibit the participation 
of women and minorities in their societies. This information 
should be shared and incorporated within the Commission's 
study. Ms. Moman-Saunders, echoed the statements of the other 
witnesses that mentoring programs are critically important in 
not only recruitment of women in science, engineering, and 
technology, but also their retention of women. In conclusion, 
Ms. Moman-Saunders stated that women constitute nearly half of 
the Nation's labor force; thus, it is crucial to the Nation's 
economy that the under-representation of women in science, 
engineering and technology be rectified.

  4.5(y)--Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Fiscal Year 
1999 Research and Development Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000 
                                Program

                             March 12, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-47

Background

    On March 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Review of the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Research and Development 
Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000 Program.''
    The Science Committee authorizes appropriations and 
provides program guidance for activities under FAA's Research, 
Engineering and Development account. The Science Committee's 
FY1999 authorization for the account was signed into law on 
February 11, 1998 as P.L. 105-155. The legislation authorizes 
$229.6 million for the FAA to conduct RE&D projects and 
activities in FY1999. However, the legislation does not include 
authorization of the Flight 2000 demonstration program as 
requested in the FY1999 budget request.
    The $90 million in FY99 for the Flight 2000 demonstration 
program is intended for the FAA to accelerate the 
implementation of Free Flight concepts and harmonize the global 
air transportation system, providing increased safety for the 
flying public and efficiency benefits for system users.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation 
Administration; Dr. John Fearnsides, Director, Center for 
Advanced Aviation System Development and Facilitator, National 
Airspace Modernization Task Force; Mr. Jack Ryan, Vice 
President, Air Traffic Management, Air Transportation 
Association of America; Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chairman, FAA 
RE&D Advisory Committee; and Mr. Mike McNally, President, 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate Administrator for 
Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) testified that the FAA has a solid research program 
covering a variety of critical areas--from explosive/weapons 
detection, to weather, aircraft structures, noise mitigation 
and satellite navigation. Their fiscal year 1999 RE&D budget 
request of $290 million allows them to build on the previous 
successes of the Agency in these areas, and continue the 
critical research to support the national airspace system for 
the next century. Mr. DeGaetano testified at length about the 
FAA's Flight 2000 program which accounts for nearly the entire 
increase in their funding request. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that 
the modernization of the National Airspace System (NAS) will be 
demonstrated through the Flight 2000 program which is based on 
the premise that, with new technologies and innovative 
procedures, FAA can remove many of the restrictions of today's 
air traffic control system, and make the system more flexible 
for users. Flight 2000 will provide a limited, real-world, 
operational evaluation of the procedures, technologies, and 
human factors involved in Free Flight. Mr. DeGaetano indicated 
that the potential benefits of Free Flight, which include fuel 
and time savings and a more efficient use of airspace, are a 
necessary step in streamlining the efficiency of air travel 
through the next millennium.
    Dr. John Fearnsides, testifying as Facilitator, National 
Airspace Modernization Task Force, spoke to the challenge 
presented to the FAA by the White House Commission on Aviation 
Safety and Security that they accelerate their modernization 
program to achieve full operational capability by the year 
2005. To address this challenge Administrator Garvey met with a 
group of senior representatives from the FAA and the aviation 
community to discuss the FAA's plans for modernization of the 
NAS. Members of this Task Force included representatives from 
all sectors of the aviation community and was tasked with 
reviewing the current FAA draft modernization architecture 
plan. Dr. Fearnsides indicated that a very important concern of 
many in the aviation community, including the Science 
Committee, is the problem of moving research and development 
from the laboratory into the field. Part of what has stymied 
modernization efforts thus far has been attempting to do too 
much at one time. The revised approach in the modernization 
framework will help address many of the difficulties the FAA 
has encountered in the past.
    Mr. Jack Ryan, Vice President, Air Traffic Management, Air 
Transportation Association of America, testified that the Air 
Transportation Association of America (ATAA) is excited about 
Administrator Garvey's initiative to pursue a NAS modernization 
program that will provide the airspace users with proven 
technologies and systems capable of meeting immediate 
operational requirements without compromising safety. Further, 
ATAA strongly believes that several of the systems contained in 
the NAS modernization plan will enhance overall system safety 
and efficiencies. The reason these systems have matured to the 
point to where they are capable of enhancing overall system 
safety and efficiencies is because the Science Committee has 
wisely supported previous FAA R&D budgets. Mr. Ryan further 
spoke of the ATAA's member airline primary concern with the GPS 
and the ability of that system to provide safety critical sole-
means services. ATAA feels that exclusive reliance on GPS and 
its augmentations, combined with other complex 
interdependencies raises the potential for single--point 
failure and cascading effects and should be addressed as part 
of the modernization plan.
    Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chairman, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 
Committee testified that during the last several years, the 
RE&D Advisory Committee has been reviewing the FAA RE&D program 
through the work of six standing subcommittees. Mr. Eschenbach 
testified exclusively, due to time constraints, to the issue of 
the FAA's Flight 2000 program. He indicated that the FAA RE&D 
Advisory Committee strongly endorses the basic concept and 
structure of Flight 2000. However, they believe that more 
emphasis should be given to testing these technologies in the 
high-density airspace environment in which air traffic control 
performance is most critical and most in need of improvement. 
Mr. Eschenbach also noted that the FAA RE&D recommendation is 
consistent with subsequent recommendations regarding Flight 
2000 made by the FAA Administrator's Task Force on NAS 
Modernization. Lastly, Mr. Eschenbach stated the 6 
recommendations made by the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee to the 
FAA. Those recommendations are: Give greater priority to the 
critical issues of increasing capacity, reducing delay, and 
improving safety, with emphasis on total system integration; 
develop a Flight 2000 Baseline Plan that clearly identifies 
goals and objectives that are structured to support the 2005 
Operational Concept and Free Flight Action Plan, in the context 
of the NAS Architecture; include mechanisms in the Program Plan 
to quantify the anticipated benefits of Flight 2000 
technologies; increase the priority for deploying ground 
systems which transmit weather information to the cockpit; 
encourage the development of affordable avionics for the 
display in the cockpit of traffic, weather, and hazardous 
terrain; and ensure that funding needed for Flight 2000 is not 
at the expense of the current FAA RE&D efforts.
    Mr. Mike McNally, President, National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association testified that the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association (NATCA) does support, in concept, the 
effort to modernize the NAS for the next millennium. However, 
NATCA believes it should be taken one step at a time and that 
all proposals for new technology, additional controllers, 
appropriate training and procedural changes must be fully 
debated by all parties before being adopted. Mr. McNally 
cautioned that each phase will require a transition period and 
hasty changes are not acceptable. Done carefully, Flight 2000--
a transition to a mature air traffic system with greater 
flexibility--will become a reality. Mr. McNally concluded by 
saying that NATCA is, as has been for many years, concerned 
about the impact if new technology air traffic controller 
staffing. He believes that without careful integration of new 
technologies, two systems would have to be operated, calling 
for shadow mode operations and redundancy.

    4.5(z)--Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions: A 
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544, Technology Transfer Commercialization 
                                  Act

                             March 17, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-42

Background

    On March 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on ``Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned 
Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544, Technology 
Transfer Commercialization Act.'' The hearing was held to 
review H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act 
of 1997, which seeks to promote technology transfer by 
facilitating licenses to Federally-owned inventions.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD; Mr. Randolph J. Guschl, Director of Technology 
Acquisitions, Central Research and Development, DuPont Chemical 
Company, Wilmington, DE; Ms. Elizabeth Kraftician, Chief 
Executive Officer, Touchstone Research Laboratory, Tridelphia, 
WV.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as Director, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology told of the development 
of a newly reconstituted Interagency Committee on Technology 
Transfer and the consensus support of this Committee for H.R. 
2544. Specifically, Mr. Kammer emphasized paying closer 
attention to the output side of R&D spending. While a greater 
pecuniary commitment to R&D spending is laudable, the end 
result is equally important. Those end results making their way 
to the marketplace are equally important, as they can have 
important societal benefits. He also spoke of the Interagency 
Committee's concern about specific aspects of the legislation. 
For example, licensing as part of a pre-existing CRADA, and 
eliminating current requirements for licensees to submit 
development or marketing plans. Mr. Kammer emphasized the 
importance of utilizing those plans as an objective basis for 
deciding whether the proposer is likely to quickly bring the 
innovation to market. ``Bundling'' innovations is also not 
addressed in the legislation and Mr. Kammer spoke of the 
improved ability to streamline and allow licensees to derive 
maximum commercial benefit from inventions by ``bundling'' 
similar innovations together. In conclusion, he indicated that 
industry and the government are still leaning how to better 
work together in commercializing the American people's 
investment in R&D.
    Mr. Randolph J. Guschl, testifying as Director, Technology 
Acquisitions, Central Research and Development, DuPont, 
Wilmington, DE, expressed support for the legislation and 
highlighted the fact that H.R. 2544 puts the discoveries of 
government-owned, government-operated (GO-GO) laboratories on 
terms equal to those of government-owned, contractor operated 
(GO-CO) laboratories. However, Mr. Guschl indicated he had a 
couple ideas regarding the legislation. First, revise the 
wording regarding U.S. manufacture. Better language would 
require earliest possible deployment of technologies in the 
U.S., but not require it to be substantially manufactured in 
the U.S. This would allow the U.S. businesses to compete 
globally, thereby strengthening the U.S. portions of the 
companies. Second, keep the exclusivity recognition portion of 
the law. This provision has been used in GO-CO labs and should 
also be used in GO-GO labs. Third, keep the shift from 90 + 60 
day notification process to a 30 day notification process. 
Fourth, retain requiring submission of a business and marketing 
plans. This allows agency to determine the commitment of 
prospective licensee. Lastly, consider empowering the 
technology transfer directors to make quick and final decisions 
for their labs, but also allow there to be a quick appeals 
process. In conclusion, Mr. Guschl suggested support for the 
legislation and commended its improvement of the technology 
transfer process.
    Ms. Elizabeth Kraftician, Chief Executive Officer, 
Touchstone Research Laboratory, offered her strong support for 
H.R. 2544. Ms. Kraftician believes this legislation will have a 
significant impact in moving federal technologies to the 
marketplace. Additionally, Ms. Kraftician expressed support for 
this legislation as a way to benefit small businesses in this 
technology transfer process. Small businesses have 
traditionally been locked out of the technology transfer arena 
by the slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic and oftentimes anti-small 
business process by which the Federal Government has 
traditionally transferred technology to the marketplace. Ms. 
Kraftician applauded H.R. 2544's leveling of the notification 
playing field by allowing advertisement in an appropriate place 
which gives the Federal laboratory greater flexibility, so that 
small business need not rely exclusively on the Federal 
Register. In conclusion, Ms. Kraftician emphasized that in 
order for this legislation to work, public institutions must be 
held accountable for how they wield the authorities they are 
given and they must be willing to make decisions and take 
risks.

   4.5(aa)--Year 2000 (Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform 
                             and Oversight)

                             March 18, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-55

Background

    On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight entitled, `` Year 2000,'' to discuss Government Wide 
Year 2000 issues as well as the status of the Department of 
Treasury's progress with regard to financial services.
    The hearing was the first Congressional appearance by Mr. 
John Koskinen, who began his official duties on March 9, 1998 
as the Chairman of the Presidentially-created Year 2000 
Conversion Council. This was the first opportunity for Mr. 
Koskinen to reveal the plans and strategy of the Year 2000 
Conversion Council. The recently completed GAO government-wide 
study of Year 2000 issues and its accompanying recommendations 
for government-wide solutions were also discussed at the 
hearing.
    In addition to Mr. Koskinen's appearance, the hearing 
examined the Department of Treasury. In all, Treasury has 327 
mission-critical systems. As of February 15, 1998, only 22% of 
these mission-critical systems were finished. At its current 
rate of progress, Treasury will finish only 38% more of its 
mission-critical systems before the deadline. That will leave 
130 mission-critical systems at risk of failure on January 1, 
2000. This is unacceptable for any federal department and 
especially for Treasury, which plays such a critical role in 
federal finance. Within Treasury, the hearing included a 
detailed examination of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 
the Financial Management Service (FMS).
    Witnesses included: Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman President's 
Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, Mr. Gene Dodaro, Assistant 
Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office, Michael P. 
Harden Ph.D., President, Century Technology Service, Inc., Ms. 
Constance E. Craig, Assistant Commissioner, Information 
Resources, Financial Management Services, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury, Mr. Jim Flyzik, Acting Chief Information Officer, 
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Mr. Arthur A. Gross, Associate 
Commissioner for Modernization and Chief Information Officer, 
Internal Revenue Service, Dennis Schindel, Deputy Assistant 
Inspector General for Audit, Department of the Treasury.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman of the President's Council on 
the Year 2000 Conversion, testified as to the nature of the 
President's Year 2000 Council. Mr. Koskinen sees the Council on 
the Year 2000 conversion as a catalyst that will ensure that 
individuals in the public and private sectors are aware of the 
problem and doing all they can to fix it. Additionally, he sees 
the Council as a facilitator and coordinator that will promote 
the fruitful exchange of ideas and ensure that resources are 
being used effectively.
    Gene L. Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, U.S. General 
Accounting Office testified that while some progress has been 
made in addressing the Federal Government's Year 2000 
readiness, serious vulnerabilities remain. Many agencies are 
behind schedule, and at the current pace it is clear that not 
all mission critical systems will be fixed in time. Much more 
action is needed to ensure that federal agencies satisfactorily 
mitigate Y2K risks to avoid debilitating consequences. Vital 
economic sectors of the nation are also vulnerable. These 
include state and local governments; telecommunications; 
banking and finance; health, safety, and emergency services; 
transportation; utilities; and manufacturing and small 
business. Mr. Dodaro stated that many organizational and 
managerial models exist that the Conversion Council could use 
to build effective partnerships to solve the nation's Y2K 
problem. Furthermore, due to the urgency of the situation one 
viable alternative would be to consider using the sector-based 
approach recommended by the President's Commission on Critical 
Infrastructure Protection. Mr. Dodaro concluded by stating that 
continued Congressional oversight through hearings in both the 
House and the Senate could help ensure that the Y2K problem is 
given the appropriate amount of attention.
    Michael P. Harden, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive 
Officer of Century Technology Services, INC., testified to the 
possible inability of the Federal Government to provide, 
acquire, or maintain sufficient programming resources to tackle 
the Y2K Problem in the short time remaining before January 1, 
2000. Dr. Harden stated that since there simply aren't enough 
programmers available to fix every system affected by Y2K, the 
law of supply and demand takes over. Programmers are now able 
to consistently demand salaries in the six figure range. As we 
get closer to the millennium demand for their services will 
increase even more. The result will be that by not applying 
sufficient resources today far more will be required later to 
accomplish the fix in time.
    Constance Craig, Assistant Commissioner for Information 
Resources of the Financial Management Service, U.S. Department 
of the Treasury, testified in order to discuss the Financial 
Management Service's (FMS) progress in meeting the challenges 
posed by the Y2K computer problem. Ms. Craig stated that the 
highest priority of the FMS is to adapt its mission critical 
computer systems to the century date change. Additionally she 
stated that this is imperative, because FMS is one of the two 
or three Federal agencies that absolutely must meet the Y2K 
deadline. Ms. Craig then concluded by summarizing what FMS had 
done to avert catastrophe. (1) FMS has carefully identified and 
assessed its mission critical systems. (2) The agency is well 
underway making the necessary changes to its software code. (3) 
Implementation of Y2K compliant payment and collection systems 
are scheduled for completion by the end of 1998. (4) Renovation 
of other systems will be complete by 1998, except for a portion 
of the Government On-line Accounting Link System (GOALS). (5) 
And finally, by the summer of 1998, validation testing will be 
well underway internally and also with FMS's customers.
    James Flyzik, Acting Chief Information Officer, U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, testified that the Y2K computer 
problem is his highest priority. Mr. Flyzik stated that 97.1% 
of Treasury's mission critical IT systems had been assessed, 
and 51.4% of the mission critical systems have been renovated. 
Additionally, he stated that the Department has made 
significantly more progress than had been indicated by the 
figures present at the hearing. As for mission critical 
systems, Mr. Flyzik stated that Treasury is on schedule to meet 
the implementation milestone date of December 1998 with the 
exception of the IRS phase 5 system applications and Financial 
Management Services Government On Line Accounting Link System 
(GOALS).
    Arthur A. Gross, Associate Commissioner for Modernization 
and Chief Information Officer, Internal Revenue Service, 
testified that the IRS's ability to carry out its mission could 
be jeopardized if the Century Date program is not completed 
timely. Mr. Gross discussed the uniqueness of the IRS situation 
in that the agency's Y2K problem is compounded by the 
legislatively mandated systems changes that require extensive 
reprogramming each filing season. Due to this incredible 
challenge, he stated that the IRS's potential for success is 
largely dependent on its ability to corporately manage, monitor 
and accurately evaluate adherence with the program's schedule, 
budget, and deliverables plans. Mr. Gross mentioned that the 
IRS has identified 126 mission critical applications systems. 
Of these, 73 have been renovated, 60 have been tested and 
implemented, and all are on schedule to be converted by January 
1999.
    Dennis Schindel, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, 
Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, 
testified in order to describe the Office of Inspector 
General's oversight of Treasury's Y2K conversion effort. Mr. 
Schindel stated that the OIG has found that the Department is 
meeting OMB's quarterly reporting requirements and that the 
quarterly reports show the Department as a whole is meeting 
OMB's milestones. However, Mr. Schindel warned that these 
accomplishments must be qualified in two respects. First, the 
results are based primarily on the quarterly status reports 
provided to OMB, and have not been independently verified. 
Second, the milestone dates met thus far do not cover the real 
meat of the Y2K conversion process.

 4.5(bb)--Educating Our Children With Technology Skills To Compete In 
     the Next Millennium (Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Early 
  Childhood, Youth Government Management, Information and Technology, 
               Committee on Education and The Workforce)

                             March 24, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-50

Background

    On March 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on 
Education and The Workforce entitled, ``Educating our Children 
with Technology Skills to Compete in the Next Millennium.''
    The Department of Commerce has reported that industries 
using advanced technologies are more productive and profitable, 
pay higher wages, and increase employment more rapidly than 
firms that do not. In that review, the Commerce Department 
noted that employment at plants using eight or more advanced 
technologies grew 14.4 percent more than plants using no 
advanced technologies, and production workers' wages were more 
than 14 percent higher. Nevertheless, despite the attractive 
nature of high-technology jobs, it appears our nation is facing 
a technology workforce shortage.
    This hearing examined the effectiveness of our current 
educational system in strengthening and developing the 
workforce necessary to maintain our nation's global 
competitiveness in the new millennium.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Graham B. Spanier, President, The 
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; Ms. Dyan 
Brasington, President, High Technology Council of Maryland, 
Rockville, MD; Dr. John Reinert, President, United States 
Activities Board, Institute of Electronics and Electrical 
Engineering, Washington, DC; Dr. Stuart A. Rosenfield, 
President, Regional Technology Strategies, Chapel Hill, NC; Dr. 
Robert Sweeney, Executive Director, Applied Information 
Management Institute, Omaha, NE.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Graham B. Spanier, President, The Pennsylvania 
University, University Park, PA, testified that from 
education's perspective, technology education is one of the 
highest priorities for universities and colleges nationwide and 
integral to their educational mission. He further stated that 
technology education in universities will proceed best in a 
technology-rich environment that capitalizes on the latest 
applications and tools in all areas of teaching and learning as 
well as simultaneously providing widespread access to the vast 
information resources available today. This environment is 
essential to support special initiatives to meet information 
technology workforce needs as well as to promote the technology 
skills of all students. Dr. Spanier feels strongly that if we 
expand infrastructure, advance networking capabilities, and 
pursue policy initiatives that enable the integration of 
information technologies into every aspect of work, we also are 
making contributions that are vital to reaping the many 
economic and educational benefits of these powerful tools 
throughout our society. Penn State, for example, is pursuing 
the creation of a new School of Information Science and 
Technology. This will allow students to merge their current 
disciplines with this new program, fostering a growth potential 
in knowledge and its distribution.
    Ms. Dyan Brasington, President, High Technology Council of 
Maryland, testified that the High Technology Council (HTC) of 
Maryland is an industry consortium of approximately 600 
companies, federal labs and educational institutions involved 
in high technology throughout the state of Maryland. HTC is the 
principal advocate for technology issues in Maryland, and 
workforce development has become the number one issue for HTC 
Council members. The HTC recognizes the need to link not just 
with higher education, but also with the spectrum of 
educational institutions from K-12 education through lifelong 
learning. The HTC has had great results from two programs they 
have run in recent years to link their idea of life-long 
learning with workforce technological development. These 
programs are high school and community college students 
internship programs at information technology companies; and a 
teacher training program linking teachers with industry 
employees facilitating a transfer of knowledge to those who 
teach. She also discussed a problem that could be easily 
remedied by the Committee. Many information technology 
companies in the DC metropolitan area are contractors to the 
Federal Government. These Federal Government contracts 
stipulate certain criteria each contractor must meet, however, 
if a company were to take on an intern in their company the 
company would not be able to meet contracting criteria such as 
educational level. This prohibits the contractor from taking on 
an intern.
    Dr. John Reinert, President, United States Activities 
Board, Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineering 
testified on behalf of IEEE and its more than 300,000 members 
worldwide. IEEE believes that improved education, training and 
lifelong learning--from grade school to graduate school and 
beyond--is absolutely imperative if the United States is to 
maintain its economic and technological competitiveness in the 
21st Century. To do this, Dr. Reinert stated, means investments 
in people--developing an educated and technologically literate 
workforce and encouraging workers to continually acquire 
additional knowledge and skills. People are at least as 
important as capital investments in today's increasingly 
competitive, information-based, global economy. Continuing 
advances in electronic and computer-based technologies 
necessitate rapid changes in the production and delivery of 
goods and services as well as the organization of work and the 
workforce. And in order for the United States to stay 
competitive, it is imperative we acknowledge this fundamental 
shift. Dr. Reinert commended the Committee for beginning to 
address this problem by passing H.R. 3007, the Commission on 
the Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology 
Advancement Act.
    Dr. Stuart A. Rosenfeld, President, Regional Technology 
Strategies testified on behalf of the Consortium for 
Manufacturing Competitiveness (CMC) and the Trans-Atlantic 
Technology and Training Alliance (TATTA), groups of innovative 
technical colleges in the South and Europe. Dr. Rosenfeld spoke 
of a new computer-based approach that explicitly spurs economic 
development and which creates a learning community among 
students in rural areas and small companies. This application 
is called Asynchronous Learning Networks or (ALNs) and is 
becoming widely accepted. An ALN is not solely a means of 
delivering content, but an alternative for classroom and 
student-instructor interaction. It allows a class to learn from 
each other and carry out team projects using the Internet, but 
without being connected, or ``logged on,'' at the same time. 
Dr. Rosenfeld believes ALNs will remove place and time from the 
learning equation. Asynchronous Learning Networks were 
developed to deliver technical education and upgrade the skills 
of part-time students and employees of small and mid-sized 
companies who for various reasons are unable to attend 
regularly scheduled classes. Dr. Rosenfeld believes that while 
many claims of technologies changing the ways we educate have 
been made but never substantiated, this interactive form of 
computer-based learning may be the tool that finally works.
    Dr. Robert Sweeney, Executive Director, Applied Information 
Management Institute testified on behalf of AIM, a membership 
organization supporting and promoting Omaha and Nebraska 
business growth related to Information Technology. AIM was 
created in 1992 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Dr. 
Sweeney noted that, as a society we are moving into an 
interesting and challenging new era from an industrial economy 
to an information economy. The rules are changing for business, 
education, law, social institutions, etc. The primary worker of 
the information economy will be a knowledge worker--one that 
takes information and adds value through analysis, 
interpretation, summarization, coordinating, manipulating, 
screening, selecting, etc. New skill sets are required, 
different attributes will be rewarded. Old models are being 
replaced and this necessitates new ways to educate our 
workforce. AIM is attempting to participate in this transition 
by working with area businesses to provide student internships, 
mentoring, field trips, IT academies and teacher professional 
development. Additionally, Dr. Sweeney feels that business and 
educational institutions need to work more closely to address 
the apparent disparity between what the schools are teaching 
and what the businesses need. AIM seeks to facilitate this 
collaboration by bringing business leaders and educators 
together to discuss curriculum and internships.

   4.5(cc)--International Standards, Parts I and II. (International 
              Standards: Technical Barriers to Free Trade)

                             April 28, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-58

Background

    On April 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held one 
of two oversight hearings entitled, ``International Standards, 
Parts I and II.''
    The hearing was held to explore the impact of the 
international standard setting process on the ability of U.S. 
companies to engage in free and fair trade with leading U.S. 
trading partners in Europe and around the world. Additionally, 
the hearing gave witnesses from industries who have recently 
participated, or are currently participating, in the 
international standard setting process the opportunity to voice 
their concerns about the current International Standards 
Organization (ISO) process.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, 
MD; Mr. Samuel Tyson, Independent Consultant, Silver Spring, 
MD; Mr. Michael L. Turnbow, Former Chairman, American Society 
of Nondestructive Testing, Soddydaisy, TN; Mr. Charles Ford, 
Vice President, Quality, Babcock and Wilcox Power Generation 
Group; and Mr. Stacy Brovitz, Chief Executive Officer, Dormnot 
Manufacturing, Export, PA.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology commended the Subcommittee on 
Technology for bringing attention to this issue through this 
hearing. Director Kammer believes that standards and the 
methods used to assess conformity to standards are absolutely 
critical for U.S. industry and our economy at large. He further 
expressed his eagerness for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) to help increase the visibility and level 
of U.S. activity in the area of standards setting to ensure 
U.S. industry success in the international marketplace in the 
years ahead. To that end, he determined the following steps 
need to be taken: NIST, other agencies, and the private sector 
must work together to remove unnecessary national, regional and 
international differences in testing and certification 
requirements which pose obstacles to U.S. industry, cooperate 
in the development of a sound U.S. policy for using standards 
to support global trade, agree on goals, work with our trading 
partners in advance of meetings to further our mutual technical 
interests; and commit to participate on a regular basis in the 
activities of technical committees. Additionally, Director 
Kammer emphasized that we need to ensure that the process 
serves U.S. industry's needs. To do this, we must commit to 
work effectively and efficiently--to match the standards 
development process to the cycle time of products, and to use 
it strategically to support our very real industrial and 
technical needs. In short, he feels that the entire standards 
community must work together more closely to develop and 
implement unified U.S. positions on technical and standards 
policy issues at the domestic and international levels.
    Mr. Samuel E. Tyson, Independent Consultant testified to 
his experiences with the ISO standardization process in 
connection with steel and nickel alloy industrial products such 
as plate, sheet, bar and wire. In other technologies such as 
information, safety, environment, and especially quality 
systems, ISO standards have been used by all nations including 
USA with great success by companies, but the same cannot be 
said for steel product standards. The disparity between the 
U.S. and the international standards setting process has put 
the U.S. steel industry at a serious disadvantage in attempting 
to compete in international markets. Mr. Tyson concluded by 
recognizing that there is no simple path to international 
standardization. All the obstacles must be recognized and 
overcome and it is important that U.S. participation and focus 
be maintained in ISO to assure continued support of our 
domestic practices.
    Mr. Michael L. Turnbow, former Chairman, American Society 
of Nondestructive Testing indicated that he recognizes the 
growing impact of standards on global commerce and the 
potential for standards to either facilitate or impede 
international trade. He has also come to realize that unless 
standards development activities are conducted in a manner that 
results in a mutual benefit to all concerned, trade will 
suffer. National, regional and international standards are the 
most potent method for imposing real trade policy. As the 
product of consensus organizations, they reflect the needs and 
interests of the people and institutions that participated in 
their drafting, and by virtue of the fact that they may become 
convention in a country, region or around the world, they will 
exert more influence over trade than will a great many 
negotiated agreements and treaties. Additionally, Mr. Turnbow 
feels strongly that in order for international standards to 
facilitate international trade, several conditions must be 
satisfied: First, the scope and content of the standard must 
adequately address a defined need. Second, it must be based on 
sound science and use technology that has been tested and 
gained acceptance by industry. Third, the procedures used in 
the development of standards must foster consensus among all 
stakeholders. Mr. Turnbow suggested that the Congress direct 
the Departments of State and Commerce to begin to monitor and 
report on cases of U.S. industry exclusion, and working with 
European governments, to voice US government objections to 
efforts by their national standards organizations to usurp 
international standards development activities by working 
through CEN to invoke provisions of the Vienna Agreement.
    Mr. Charles Ford, Vice President--Quality, Babcock & Wilcox 
Power Generation Group testified that industry, the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Federal 
Government can work together to extend the use and application 
of American Codes (standards) such as the ASME standards and 
the continued acceptance of these standards by changing the 
fact that development and maintenance of U.S. standards are 
absorbed by the private sector; which is not the case in 
foreign Code development. In many other countries, these 
standards are a government function. Mr. Ford revealed that his 
company is trying to level the playing field in their area of 
trade by opening strategic joint ventures around the world to 
service markets and provide some immunity to the barriers they 
would face if trying to supply the world from the United 
States. The barriers that Ford sees are local content 
requirements on foreign contracts as well as enforcement of 
non-technical Code requirements, certification and 
accreditation. Mr. Ford cautioned that if European Union 
countries vote en bloc, they could dominate world standards 
which would cause domestic U.S. manufacturers to re-engineer 
and re-tool their processes in order to compete 
internationally. Thereby placing U.S. manufacturers at a 
significant financial disadvantage.
    Mr. Stacy Brovitz, Chief Executive Officer, Dormont 
Manufacturing Company, testified about his experiences on the 
international market. He stated that Dormont is a small company 
with limited resources who makes a safe, high quality product 
that has 20 years of proven field experience. He stated that 
acquiring access to each national market through individual 
approvals which would include the design of individual 
connectors for each market, would be cost prohibitive. The Gas 
Appliance Directive appeared to be the proper way for them to 
enter the European market so they spent the money to have their 
products tested by a European testing agency despite full 
approvals from U.S. standards organizations. He stated: ``We 
spent the money to acquire ISO 9000 certification from three 
separate entities, a requirement not made of local 
manufacturers. We hired a representative--a European with gas 
industry experience--to help us understand the European 
marketplace who spent two years in a fruitless effort to allow 
our product access to the market. We attempted to do everything 
correctly, according to the rules they laid out . . .'' and yet 
we still cannot sell our gas connectors in the European market. 
Brovitz suggested that Congress help companies like his gain 
approvals to sell their products in Europe by actively lobbying 
the European Union (EU) to accept gas connectors under the 
scope of the gas Appliance Directive. Additionally, Mr. Brovitz 
offered to assist the Congress in working to remove unfair 
design restrictions from the gas connector standards of the 
various EU member states and see that their products are 
granted mutual recognition in all member states.

      4.5(dd)--Aviation Manufacturing and The Fastener Quality Act

                              May 7, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-57

Background

    On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Aviation Manufacturing and the Fastener 
Quality Act.'' The hearing was held to review the FQA and 
determine if Congress should recognize the FAA as the quality 
authority for proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Don Fuqua, President, 
Aerospace Industries Association, Washington, DC; The Honorable 
Ray Kammer, Director, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD; Mr. Thomas 
McSweeney, Director, Aircraft Certification, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Washington, DC; Mr. Ed Bolen, President, 
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Don Fuqua, testifying as President of the 
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), commented on the fact 
that under NIST's FQA rule, airplane parts, including 
fasteners, currently regulated by the FAA still fall under the 
FQA. This places an onerous and perhaps dangerous burden on 
aircraft manufacturers but does not add any value to aviation 
safety. Most importantly, the testing requirements for FQA are 
redundant as FAA already has in place its own stringent 
requirements for testing of aircraft parts. These requirements 
equal or exceed that of the FQA. Additionally, Mr. Fuqua 
asserted that there are insufficient accredited laboratories to 
serve the needs of the aerospace industry in conforming to the 
FQA. Mr. Fuqua stated that AIA believes that dual regulation of 
the aerospace manufacturing process, which includes fasteners, 
is unnecessary.
    The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as Director of NIST, 
explained that the intention of the FQA is to improve fastener 
quality and reduce the danger of fastener failure. 
Additionally, the Act serves to protect public safety by 
requiring fasteners to conform to uniform specifications and be 
tested by accredited laboratories. Mr. Kammer further 
emphasized that NIST worked closely with affected industries to 
develop the necessary testing procedures, while attempting to 
reduce the cost of compliance. He testified that the original 
law would have had a $1 billion impact on industry, but NIST 
has streamlined the procedures so that the impact will be 
minimal. Mr. Kammer stated that with regard to aircraft 
manufacturing, NIST agrees that civil aviation manufacturers 
should not be bound by FQA, since the FAA currently assures 
quality and suitability for proprietary aircraft fasteners. Mr. 
Kammer, under questioning by the Subcommittee Membership, 
suggested that passage of the FQA may have occurred because of 
emotional, but inaccurate, reports about fastener failures. He 
additionally suggested that the FQA may no longer be needed.
    Mr. Thomas E. McSweeney, testifying as Director of the 
Aircraft Certification Service of the FAA, spoke to the process 
by which the FAA assures the quality of all aviation parts, 
including fasteners: First, the FAA, after approval of a design 
for an aircraft part, requires the manufacturer to establish 
and maintain a production and quality control system that 
ensures the production of conforming duplicates. Second, the 
FAA monitors manufacturers continuing production of aircraft 
parts through regular surveillance and periodic (every 18-24 
months) formal audits. Mr. McSweeney emphasized that this 
process assures fastener safety at a level necessary for their 
use in state-of-the-art airplanes and engines. The FQA, on the 
other hand, is intended to apply to a much wider variety of 
fasteners. He stated that while different, the FAA system 
clearly meets or exceeds the safety standards generated by the 
FQA and that subjecting the aviation industry to the FQA would 
place significant time and financial costs on the industry 
without any added safety benefits.
    Mr. Edward Bolen, testifying as President of the General 
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), stated that the 
General Aviation (GA) manufacturing industry is seriously 
threatened by NIST's implementing regulations for the FQA. 
Complying with FQA would force production lines to stop and 
safety to be compromised. Mr. Bolen emphasized that subjecting 
the aviation manufacturers to the requirements of the FQA is 
unnecessary because the fasteners are already subject to the 
stringent quality program of the FAA. FAA's oversight has 
clearly worked and should be continued. Mr. Bolen also stated 
that requiring GA compliance with FQA may actually undermine 
safety as the FQA and FAA approaches differ greatly and cannot 
necessarily be reconciled. A further concern with compliance, 
according to Mr. Bolen, is that neither FQA nor the 
implementing regulations define the key terms ``nut'', 
``bolt'', ``stud'' or ``screw.'' This forces companies to 
develop their own definitions causing widely disparate 
definitions and little conformity. In conclusion, Mr. Bolen 
articulated GAMA's position that proprietary fasteners of 
aviation manufacturers should continue to be regulated solely 
by the FAA.

                4.5(ee)--Y2K Effect on Energy Utilities

                              May 14, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-80

Background

    On May 14, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held an 
oversight hearing entitled, ``The Y2K Effect on Energy 
Utilities.''
    The Year 2000 problem has the potential to severely disrupt 
our nation's ability to deliver energy to the American public, 
which is a vital industry necessary to maintaining our personal 
and economic quality of life. In the February 4, 1998 Executive 
Order issued by the President, the newly created Year 2000 
Conversion Council identified the electric power generation 
system, as a critical national and local priority.
    Witnesses included: Hugh Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive 
Director for Regulatory Programs, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; Ms. Kathleen M. Hirning, Chief Information Officer, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; John L. Laakso, Executive 
Director, Texas Public Utilities Commission; Kenneth P. Cohn, 
Manager, Computer Services, Potomac Electric Power Company; 
Richard Cowles, Director, Year 2000 Industry Solutions, TAVA/
R.W. Beck, L.L.C.

Summary of hearing

    Hugh Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for 
Regulatory Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, testified 
that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responding 
to the Year 2000 computer problem for operating nuclear power 
plants. Mr. Thompson stated that the NRC is currently upgrading 
its Emergency Response Data System (ERDS), which is responsible 
for performing the communication and data transmission 
functions to NRC incident response personnel during declared 
emergencies. Mr. Thompson also indicated that the upgrade is on 
schedule to be completed, tested and implemented by March 4, 
1999. Mr. Thompson moved on to discuss the NRC's requirement 
that all operating nuclear power plants submit a written 
response stating how they plan to address the Y2K problem. In 
addition to the written responses, the NRC plans to conduct 
inspections, on a sampling basis, to assess licensee 
preparedness for the Year 2000. Mr. Thompson concluded by 
noting that to date the NRC had not received notification from 
licensees or vendors that a Year 2000 problem exists with 
safety-related initiation and actuation systems. Furthermore, 
Mr. Thompson believes that the NRC has established a framework 
that appropriately assures them that the Year 2000 problem will 
not have an adverse impact on the ability of a nuclear power 
plant to safely operate or shut down.
    Ms. Kathleen M. Hirning, Chief Information Officer, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, testified that the consequences 
of not fully understanding the seriousness of the Y2K problem 
as it relates to utilities is the problem. She stated that 
cooperative communication is necessary in order to quantify the 
nature of this problem, and furthermore, to ascertain the 
completion of development and testing of solutions, and promote 
operational contingency plans in a timely manner to avoid any 
loss in power. Ms. Hirning discussed the interconnectedness of 
the multiple power grids within the United States, and 
mentioned that problems resulting from Y2K in just a few of 
these could have a ripple effect throughout the network. For 
Ms. Hirning, this situation highlights the necessity of having 
a Y2K compliant energy system. Ms. Hirning sees the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's role is to encourage regulated 
companies to take responsible action to ensure that their 
energy systems are compliant. Ms. Hirning concluded by stating 
that through sharing of Y2K information within the industry, 
its companies, suppliers, consultants, and state and local 
experts, we will be able to help alleviate this potential 
threat to the reliability of our energy systems.
    John L. Laakso, Executive Director, Texas Public Utilities 
Commission (PUC), testified that generally Texas' utilities 
seem well aware of the Y2K problem. He mentioned that the 
larger utilities have active programs in place to deal with 
potential Y2K problems, and many smaller utilities could be 
assisted by access to more information. Mr. Laakso, indicated 
that the PUC intends to continue to have a staff group monitor 
on Y2K issues, and will establish a site on the PUC homepage 
for exchanging information on Y2K solutions and issues. Mr. 
Laakso stated that the Commissions staff will continue to work 
with industry groups to reach the smaller utilities and raise 
awareness of Y2K issues. Mr. Laakso concluded by stating that 
the PUC would continue to provide information on Y2K issues 
affecting service to electric and telephone service consumers 
through the PUC web page and other valuable media.
    Kenneth P. Cohn, Manager, Computer Services, Potomac 
Electric Power Company, testified that PEPCO began its formal 
Year 2000 effort in 1995. By 1996, Mr. Cohn stated that PEPCO 
had completed pilot projects on several of its systems, and 
began estimating its ability to accurately determine the scope 
and cost of system conversions. PEPCO's general approach to Y2K 
issues has been to: (1) identify all operations and systems 
affected; (2) inventory all affected systems and determine the 
appropriate response for each system; (3) implement these 
responses in an organized and cost-effective way; (4) test 
responses with sufficient lead time before January 1, 2000, so 
as to allow time for adjustments and fixes; and, (5) develop 
contingency plans for possible problems at the operational 
level. Moving on, Mr. Cohn estimated that conversion plans and 
cost estimates for embedded systems would be completed within 
the ensuing weeks. Finally, Mr. Cohn summarized by stating that 
the costs of PEPCO's Y2K problem was approximately $10 million, 
and that he anticipated changes in these estimates as he went 
along.
    Rick Cowles, Director of Year 2000 Industry Solutions, 
TAVA/R.W. Beck, L.L.C., testified regarding Year 2000 computer 
issues and their affect on the electric utility business. Mr. 
Cowles stated the importance of establishing a boundary around 
the scope of the problem. He indicated that all three sectors 
of the electric utility industry must work together to counter 
the Y2K problem. Additionally, Mr. Cowles emphasized his 
belief, based on surveys taken from all levels of the industry, 
that for the most part, the electric utility business is not 
fully aware of the magnitude of the Y2K issue, and hopes that 
there is enough time to meet the challenges of the problem.

    4.5(ff)--International Standards, Parts I and II (International 
              Standards: Technical Barriers to Free Trade)

                              June 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-58

Background

    On June 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held the 
last of two oversight hearings entitled, ``International 
Standards, Parts I and II.''
    This hearing addressed electronic and digital standards 
which are set through the International Telecommunications 
Union (ITU) and the International Electrotechnical Commission 
(IEC).
    The hearing further explored how the international 
standards system has been working with respect to U.S. users 
and manufacturers of electronics and reviewed in detail the 
specific case of the ongoing debate surrounding efforts to 
create a single global wireless telecommunications standard 
commonly referred to as the Third Generation Wireless Standard 
(3G). 3G has become one of the more interesting and important 
international standards currently being developed.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Oliver Smoot, Executive Vice 
President, Information Technology Industry Council, Washington, 
DC; Mr. John Major, Executive Vice President, QUALCOMM, San 
Diego, CA; Mr. Jesse Russell, Chairman, Wireless Communication 
Division, Telecommunications Industry Association, Washington, 
DC; Mr. Bo Piekarski, Vice President, Business Development and 
Strategic Marketing, Ericsson, Inc., Richardson, TX.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Oliver Smoot, Executive Vice President, Information 
Technology Industry Council emphasized ITI is a national trade 
association whose members consist of leading producers of 
information technology products and services. Mr. Smoot stated 
that ITIC participation in the international standardization 
process is decentralized, private sector led, and for the most 
part highly successful. He indicated that succeeding at 
international standardization requires: Having a strategy 
giving the effort priority, providing the resources, sticking 
with it for the long term, and working at both the management 
and technical levels. He feels that U.S. participants, 
utilizing the advantages of our diversified, cooperative and 
competitive, market focused standards system can and have 
succeeded. Additionally, ITI believes that with regard to the 
third generation wireless standards backward compatibility and 
interoperability with today's wireless networks is more 
important for next generation systems than achieving a single 
global standard. If the international standardization process 
would embrace multiple standards, it would ensure that today's 
IT equipment can be used on tomorrow's networks, and would 
protect the investment in time, resources and money that have 
already been expended in the development of second generation 
systems, as well as, ensuring that no technology is stranded as 
new technologies evolve now and in the future. Most 
importantly, however, it ensures that the evolution of the 
technology is guided by the market, not by government mandate.
    Mr. John Major, Executive Vice President, QUALCOMM 
testified on behalf of QUALCOMM, a San Diego based developer, 
manufacturer, marketer and operator of advanced communications 
systems and products based on proprietary digital wireless 
technologies. One of these technologies, Code Division Multiple 
Access or CDMA, is now marketed around the world under the 
trade name cdmaOne. CdmaOne, stated Mr. Major, is an American 
invention, and the fastest growing digital wireless standard in 
the world. Less than three years after its first commercial 
deployment in Hong Kong, cdmaOne has become the dominant 
digital technology in the United States, Korea and Mexico, and 
has been deployed throughout Asia, Latin America, Africa, 
Russia and Eastern Europe, with commercial launches in Japan 
and Australia later this year. QUALCOMM, along with other CDMA 
equipment manufacturers, has worked with the CDMA Development 
Group, a trade industry organization representing 91 CDMA 
operators and manufacturers, on a third-generation version of 
cdmaOne that will be known as Wideband cdmaOne. Wideband 
cdmaOne has been submitted to various standards bodies around 
the world for consideration and eventual standardization. 
Wideband cdmaOne will allow consumers to send and receive more 
than 2 Mbps of data and access the Internet, while continuing 
to enjoy the best voice quality of any digital wireless 
technology. Mr. Major indicated that QUALCOMM believes in four 
unifying principles regarding the process of setting a third-
generation standard: they believe that the world's standards 
bodies, under the auspices of the ITU, need to ensure backwards 
compatibility with existing systems, and allow for world-wide 
roaming; that the third-generation standards process should 
recognize and respect the intellectual property rights of 
patent holders; that markets, rather than governments, should 
guide the timing and deployment of third-generation services; 
and finally that standards and technology decisions should be 
made based on what is best for wireless customers and 
operators, not what is best for wireless manufacturers or 
governments. Mr. Major emphasized that QUALCOMM believe in full 
and fair competition among technologies and is adamantly 
opposed to protectionism or an industrial policy that places 
manufacturers ahead of consumers. Finally, Mr. Major indicated 
that QUALCOMM is not alone in espousing these principles.
    Mr. Jesse E. Russell, Chairman, Wireless Communication 
Division, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 
testified on Behalf of TIA. TIA is a full-service national 
trade organization with membership of 900 large and small 
companies that provide communications and information 
technology products, materials, systems, distribution services 
and professional services in the United States and around the 
world. The association's member companies manufacture or supply 
virtually all of the products used in global communications 
networks. TIA is accredited by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) to develop American National Standards in its 
areas of expertise. Mr. Russell indicated that TIA supports the 
International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) efforts toward 
harmonization and will continue to work toward achieving the 
global standardization of 3G wireless systems. From TIA's 
perspective, the goals of the 3G process are network-to-network 
interoperability, feature/service transparency, maximum 
harmonization within key technologies, global roaming among all 
networks, and as much backward compatibility with existing 
networks as possible. TIA has been working hand-in-hand to help 
develop what should be the final U.S. position through a 
consensus with all involved parties. In conclusion, Mr. Russell 
indicated that only IME will tell whether a single 3G standard 
will evolve or whether there may be several standards under the 
ITU's ``family of systems'' concept, but this process should 
and must evolve from the private sector.
    Mr. Bo Piekarski, Vice President, Business Development and 
Strategic Marketing, Ericsson, Inc., addressed the role of 
industry standards, in particular the North American and 
international wireless standards process, as well as ongoing 
industry-led efforts to create further harmonization of various 
global wireless telecommunication standards. Ericsson's views 
on standards echo the words of Ronald Grawert, Chairman of the 
TIA Board. ``Standards are vital to many industries, where 
equipment and systems must interconnect and interoperate, but 
in the telecommunications equipment area, we cannot exist 
without standards.'' The philosophy and practice of Ericsson 
has always been to respect market forces, in particular the 
mobile operators within a respective country and/or region, in 
determining which technologies will operate in their respective 
markets. Mr. Piekarski emphasized that Ericsson supports only 
those standardization processes that are: industry led; allow 
for licensing on reasonable terms of any company's proprietary 
intellectual property rights; open to all qualified 
participants: operators and manufacturers; fair in terms of not 
favoring one company, region, or technology; and customer 
driven in terms of serving customer needs for ease of 
deployment, including global compatibility with other 
technologies, cost efficiency, and high-quality, feature-rich 
services. Mr. Piekarski also cautioned that the ITU should not 
be in the business of selecting and imposing a single 
technology for worldwide deployment. Rather, the ITU should 
continue to function as the ``international good housekeeping 
seal of technical approval.'' The rigorous scrutiny inherent in 
the ITU process provides member nations, private operators, 
government regulators, and manufacturer's confidence that they 
can rely on an agreed upon technology to meet or exceed ITU 
minimum performance capabilities.

  4.5(gg)--Community Colleges in the 21st Century: Tackling Technology

                             July 21, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-82

Background

    On July 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Community Colleges in the 21st Century: 
Tackling Technology.'' The hearing examined how community 
colleges can overcome the technological barriers associated 
with maintaining a high-tech teaching environment.
    There are currently approximately 1,300 community colleges 
nationwide serving more than 5.5 million credit-earning 
students. By nature of their mission, community colleges work 
closely with area businesses and industries and customize their 
academic and occupational programs to reflect local economic 
and workforce development needs. As U.S. businesses seek to 
remain competitive in the information age, many are turning to 
community colleges to ensure their workers have the skills 
necessary to keep up with the rapid pace of technological 
advancement.
    This hearing was held to examine the use of technology in 
the teaching and learning process to prepare students for the 
rapidly changing workforce; to examine how community colleges 
address the challenge of investing in technology which might be 
rendered obsolete in a short period of time; and to determine 
the benefits associated with promoting partnerships between 
community colleges and businesses to ensure that students have 
the most up-to-date technology needed to effectively train them 
to succeed in the real world.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Steven Lee Johnson, Provost, 
Clearwater Campus, St. Petersburg Junior College District, Dr. 
Mark D. Milliron, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 
League for Innovation in the Community College, Dr. Allen 
Arnold, President, Mott Community College, Dr. Robert E. 
Parilla, President, Montgomery College, Dr. Diana Oblinger, 
Manager, Academic Programs and Strategy, IBM Global Education 
Industry.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Steven Lee Johnson, Provost, Clearwater Campus St. 
Petersburg Junior College District, testified to the nature of 
the changes occurring on the community college campus, 
especially in regard to technology. Specifically, he stated 
that in this new climate professors and faculty must now not 
only be content experts, but also must be able to respond to 
and connect with students who have a variety of learning needs. 
According to Dr. Johnson, technology will help faculty respond 
to the changing needs of their students and ultimately will 
become a very viable alternative to the basic lecture model of 
college instruction. In conclusion, Dr. Johnson reiterated his 
support for the technology assisted educational experience, and 
justified his claim by stating that in the future 80% of the 
jobs available will require fairly high levels of technical 
skills.
    Dr. Mark Milliron, Vice President and Chief Operating 
Officer, League for Innovation in the Community College, 
testified that the key challenges for community colleges in the 
next century will be to develop and adopt the cutting-edge 
technologies, foster and assess student learning, and insure 
that our colleges bring communities together. Building on the 
previous statement, Dr. Milliron stated that the following 
challenge would be to better channel our collective energies, 
by working more closely with the federal government and 
corporations. As he sees it the result will be to create 
systems for curriculum transfer, educational and policy reform, 
public and private partnerships, and pilot programs. Dr. 
Milliron concludes by advocating the creation of a National 
Information Technology Curriculum Consortium, that would allow 
corporations, higher education, and government to pool 
resources and share information with the student quickly and 
easily.
    Dr. Allan Arnold, President, Mott Community College (MCC), 
testified that if MCC is to play a viable role in keeping the 
Flint Michigan work force strong and prosperous, it must 
address the needs of the areas displaced workers. Additionally, 
Dr. Arnold stated that MCC must also provide training for 
workers attempting to meet new skill requirements to maintain 
their existing jobs, and for citizens aspiring to join the 
workforce for the first time to earn a wage that will support a 
family. If MCC is to attain this, Dr. Arnold stated, that it 
must have strong computer based programs for its students. Dr. 
Arnold concluded by stating that a national initiative that 
provides incentives to encourage businesses to work with 
community colleges would be a tremendously important tool for 
them as they accept the challenges of developing the Nation's 
workforce.
    Dr. Robert E. Parilla, President, Montgomery College, 
testified that Montgomery College, like many community colleges 
across the country, has chosen to ``tackle technology'' head-
on. Although, Dr. Parilla did qualify by stating that the 
college had no intention of becoming a strictly on-line school, 
he did recognize the importance of utilizing technology to 
enhance students educational experiences. Dr. Parilla noted 
that it is an imperative that community colleges be responsive 
to private sector needs, and therefore involve themselves with 
a number of major business groups. Dr. Parilla stated that in 
order to achieve this at Montgomery College, faculty have begun 
meeting with employers to develop curricula and internship/co-
op opportunities for qualified students. Dr. Parilla mentioned 
that these public-private/education-vendor partnerships are the 
trend for the future, and that all will benefit in the 
production of a well-trained technologically adept workforce.
    Dr. Diana Oblinger, Manager, Academic Programs and 
Strategy, IBM Global Education Industry, testified that 
community colleges will play an increasingly important role in 
education. Ms. Oblinger stated that due to the speed at which 
technology is changing it will be necessary to get educated 
more than once. Therefore, it is incumbent upon community 
colleges to tackle technology, and help ensure that society 
will have a strong lifelong learning system that is capable of 
sustaining economic competitiveness. Additionally, Dr. Oblinger 
discussed the necessity of a close linkage existing between 
business and community colleges, that ensures up to date and 
relevant curricula. Through these partnerships, Dr. Oblinger 
testified that local businesses benefit in that they are able 
to retrain their work forces and hire more qualified workers. 
She concluded by stating that community colleges must do more 
than just tackle technology. Additionally, they must learn to 
partner creatively, and rethink how one effectively educates in 
this new medium.

4.5(hh)--Developing Partnerships for Assistive and Universally Designed 
               Technologies for Persons with Disabilities

                             August 4, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-68

Background

    On August 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Developing Partnerships for Assistive and 
Universally Designed Technologies for Persons with 
Disabilities,'' to discuss the creation, implementation, and 
commercialization of assistive technologies.
    An assistive technology can be a device, whether acquired 
commercially, off-the-shelf, modified, or customized that is 
used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional 
capabilities of individuals with disabilities. A 1993 National 
Council on Disability study indicated that assistive 
technologies had a significant impact on many aspects of the 
lives of people with disabilities. For example, through 
assistive technologies, nearly 75% of school age children with 
disabilities were able to remain in a regular classroom.
    While assistive technology's importance spans age and 
disability classifications, it has been argued that assistive 
technologies do not gain the recognition in the Federal 
Government necessary to provide important assistance in 
research and development programs for technologies which might 
help the disabled. The private sector generally lacks adequate 
incentives to produce assistive technologies and end-users lack 
adequate resources to acquire assistive technology.
    Witnesses included: John Lancaster, Executive Director of 
the President's Committee on Employment of People with 
Disabilities, James Fruchterman, President Arkenstone, Inc., 
Gary Moulton, Ph.D. and David Bolnick, Accessibility Product 
Managers Microsoft Corporation, Mark Lohman Ph.D., President 
and Co-Founder Bartimaeus Group, John Fales, Jr., President 
Blinded American Veterans Foundation (BAVF) and Columnist, The 
Washington Times.

Summary of hearing

    John Lancaster, Executive Director of the President's 
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, testified 
in order to discuss a new public-private sector initiative of 
the President's Committee, which is convening a Technology Task 
Force. The Task Force is composed of companies, including AT&T, 
interested in working together to develop standards for digital 
multimedia applications to enable access to information 
technologies by people with disabilities. He stated that the 
result will be greater employment of persons with disabilities, 
who currently face barriers as most technologies are not 
designed with their needs in mind. Additionally, Mr. Lancaster 
stated that due to the changing nature of the economy, the high 
rate of unemployment in the disabled community, and the 
shortage of workers in the information technology sector, there 
is an opportunity for people with disabilities to secure and 
maintain employment in this field.
    James R. Fruchterman, President of Arkenstone, Inc., 
testified before the Subcommittee in order to express the need 
for developing partnerships for assistive and universally 
designed technology for persons with disabilities. Mr. 
Fruchterman discussed the devices his company has invented to 
help disabled people, including those with learning 
disabilities. Mr. Fruchterman noted that the majority of 
disabled people are unemployed, and therefore economically 
disadvantaged. He asserted that he is financing adaptive 
technology development as a solution to help the disabled help 
themselves. Mr. Fruchterman stated that he encouraged the 
concept of universal design and his long term goal is for 
adaptive technology to become futile because it will no longer 
be necessary.
    Gary M. Moulton, Ph.D., accessibility product manager of 
the Microsoft Corporation, testified in order to express 
Microsoft's commitments: being an industry model for 
accessibility products; helping drive the industry towards 
universal, accessible design; and raising awareness of the 
possibilities available with assistive technology. He 
highlighted accessibility aids that are already available on 
Microsoft software and their Internet browser. Dr. Moulton 
stated that persons with disabilities need to be aware of the 
existence of these features so that they may develop 
competitive academic and workplace skills. Dr. Moulton also 
stated that Microsoft Corporation will form a Disability 
Advisory Council composed of individuals with disabilities to 
keep their efforts on track in the further development of 
assistive technologies.
    Mark Lohman, President and co-founder Bartimaeus Group, 
testified before the Subcommittee to state his opinion 
regarding a government funded research and private enterprise 
partnership in the field of assistive technology. Mr. Lohman is 
the President and co-founder of the Bartimaeus Group, which 
focuses on providing access solutions to individuals who are 
blind or visually impaired. Mr. Lohman noted the progress his 
company has made, specifically in regards to computer product 
development. However, Mr. Lohman stressed that the group is in 
a difficult position, because they cannot afford to develop all 
of their technologies. This situation would be alleviated if 
the government supported a program to assist companies like the 
Bartimaeus Group.
    John Fales, Jr., President Blinded American Veterans 
Foundation (BAVF) and Columnist, The Washington Times, 
testified to the importance of integrating assistive 
technologies into computer systems, specifically Microsoft's 
suite of computer operating systems. Mr. Fales recommended that 
Microsoft continue to develop and upgrade assistive 
technologies, and that they continue to implement these 
technologies in the future. Mr. Fales discussed the dire 
situation that many disabled people face in regards to 
employment, and suggested that much of this could be alleviated 
in the future if assistive technologies continue to be 
developed.

4.5(ii)--Technology Development at the Federal Aviation Administration: 
   Computer and Information Technology Challenges of the 21st Century

                             August 6, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-70

Background

    On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technology Development at the Federal 
Aviation Administration: Computer and Information Technology 
Challenges of the 21st Century,'' to review the effectiveness 
of the FAA's Year 2000 compliance efforts and to determine 
whether the FAA is implementing the appropriate and necessary 
security measures as it modernizes its air traffic control 
infrastructure.
    The FAA is in the process of modernizing its air traffic 
control system. Since 1995, FAA has been developing a 
comprehensive architecture for the National Airspace System 
(NAS) infrastructure that will support all air operations 
within the U.S. and certain oceanic areas. As the FAA 
modernizes the aging air traffic control equipment with an open 
architecture complex of interconnected network systems, the NAS 
becomes even more vulnerable to cyber attacks. The General 
Accounting Office recently issued a report critical of FAA's 
efforts to ensure its modernized system is secure.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, U.S. Federal 
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; Mr. John Meche, Deputy 
Assistant Inspector General for Finance, Economic and 
Information Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Washington, DC; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil 
Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Washington, DC.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate Administrator for 
Research and Acquisitions, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration 
addressed information security and Year 2000 issues in relation 
to the National Airspace System (NAS). Mr. DeGaetano was also 
accompanied by Mr. Ray Long, the Director of the Agency's Year 
2000 Program. Mr. DeGaetano testified that the FAA has had 
information security efforts under way for several years, and 
they have made significant progress in ensuring that new 
systems coming on-line in the NAS have the appropriate level of 
information security safeguarding. However, the General 
Accounting Office's (GAO) recent audit has been helpful to FAA 
by highlighting several areas in our information security 
framework that can be improved. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that 
the FAA has already taken actions that are responsive to 
several of the GAO's recommendations, and are in the process of 
determining a course of action with regard to the remaining 
issues. GAO's most significant recommendations urges the FAA to 
take a more coordinated management approach to information 
security, a responsibility which is currently shared by several 
FAA lines of business, and to develop a means of ensuring that 
information security policy is always followed. The GAO also 
reiterated a previous recommendation that the FAA should have a 
Chief Information Officer (CIO) that reports directly to the 
Administrator. Mr. DeGaetano stated that in response to these 
suggestions Administrator Garvey has agreed that a CIO 
reporting directly to her is appropriate. The Administrator is 
talking to candidates now, and it is clear that she wants to 
make a selection as soon as possible. While the details of the 
final management structure need to be worked out, the CIO will 
be responsible for information security at the FAA. 
Additionally, FAA recognizes the importance of ensuring that 
new NAS systems being brought on line are safeguarded from 
unauthorized access. To address this issue the FAA has 
vulnerability assessments, threat assessments, security plans, 
certifications and accreditations currently being evaluated for 
new systems being integrated into the NAS and administrative 
infrastructure of FAA. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that as 
assessments of new systems are completed, the civil aviation 
security office will certify the security of the system, or 
require that appropriate countermeasures, if necessary, be 
taken. Mr. DeGaetano concluded by emphasizing that FAA is in 
general agreement that information security efforts can be more 
efficiently managed and enforced, and that there are several 
finite improvements that can be made to specific procedures. 
They are in the process of evaluating how to accomplish several 
of the GAO's recommendations, and are taking steps to appoint a 
CIO who reports to the Administrator and will have the 
authority to determine how clear information security policies 
will be disseminated--and most importantly--enforced. 
Additionally, FAA continues work to ensure that new NAS systems 
are appropriately secure, and are prioritizing assessments and 
countermeasures, as necessary, for NAS legacy systems. Their 
work on Y2K continues to make quick and steady progress, and 
they will keep the Committee closely informed of their efforts.
    Mr. John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for 
Finance, Economic and Information Technology, U.S. Department 
of Transportation addressed progress FAA has made on its Year-
2000 efforts since his testimony before the Subcommittee on 
February 4, 1998; the status of the Year-2000 program and 
computer network security; the challenges ahead for the Year 
2000 and telecommunications networks; and the actions FAA and 
DOT should undertake to solve their Year-2000 and computer 
security problems. Mr. Meche stated that FAA is reporting to 
him they are on schedule to achieve the next major OMB 
milestone--fixing all known Year-2000 problems by September 30, 
1998. However, there are three areas where FAA needs more 
attention. First, FAA needs better documentation to support the 
completeness of the renovation work, especially with 
replacement parts and system interfaces. Second, FAA needs to 
determine whether six of the new systems under development are 
Year-2000 compliant. And third, FAA needs to begin testing the 
systems. In addressing the computer security challenges for 
FAA, Mr. Meche emphasized that FAA, as part of its NAS 
modernization, plans to use a common network to support both 
administrative and NAS operational needs, which could lead to 
additional exposure for the NAS. For example, during a review 
of FAA computer security, the DOT IG's office found that the 
primary and backup Host computers are located in the same room. 
A single event within the computer room, such as fire, could 
render both computers inoperable. Mr. Meche identified actions 
FAA and DOT need to take to gain the confidence that there will 
be no significant Year 2000 and computer security issues. They 
include the need to: complete Year 2000 assessments of the six 
systems being developed, and ensure repair work is completed 
for all required elements including code modification, system 
replacement, and interfaces; reevaluate the FAA master schedule 
and make a concerted effort to accelerate the implementation 
schedule for all systems to March 31, 1999, or as soon 
thereafter as possible; and enhance departmental computer 
security by (1) ensuring back door users are in compliance with 
DOT security requirements; (2) developing schedules to certify 
systems and install network security evaluation tools; and (3) 
providing for physical separation of primary and backup Host 
replacement computers. Taking steps to remedy these and other 
concerns will ensure that NAS modernization also provides a 
much higher level of security and stability within the FAA's 
electronic information system.
    Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information 
Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office testified on the 
significant information technology challenges confronting the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)--challenges that affect 
the level of risk facing the agency and the flying public. Mr. 
Willemssen determined that while the FAA has made progress in 
managing its Year 2000 problem and has completed critical steps 
in defining which systems need to be fixed and how to fix them, 
it is doubtful that FAA can adequately do all of this in the 
time remaining. Accordingly, they must determine how to ensure 
continuity of critical operations in the likely event of some 
systems' failures. With regard to computer security, Mr. 
Willemssen believes that FAA cannot provide assurances that the 
air traffic control systems on which it depends are 
sufficiently resistant to intrusion. FAA's weak computer 
security practices were detailed in the classified version of a 
report made available by GAO in May to key Congressional 
Committees and appropriate agency officials. In short, Mr. 
Willemssen is concerned that FAA faces significant challenges--
both in addressing the Year 2000 problem and correcting its 
computer security weaknesses and that failure to address either 
of these issues effectively could prove devastating. FAA needs 
to pay careful attention to security issues, especially during 
the next 17 months as FAA makes a tremendous number of Year 
2000-related changes to its mission-critical systems. If 
insufficient attention is paid to computer security during this 
time, existing vulnerabilities will be compounded. GAO observed 
that strong leadership and rigorous process discipline are 
needed if FAA is to successfully and safely navigate into the 
next century.

     4.5(jj)--Industrial Biotechnology: A Solution for the Future?

                           September 17, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-69

Background

    On September 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology 
convened a hearing entitled, ``Industrial Biotechnology: A 
Solution for the Future?,'' to review on-going private sector 
research and development in the field of industrial 
biotechnology and the potential benefits associated with this 
research, and also to examine how to safeguard the United 
States competitive advantage in industrial biotechnology.
    The hearing focused on the ongoing research and development 
in the industrial biotechnology field and how such research may 
yield significant benefits in the fields of health care, 
products manufacturing, food production, and environmental 
technology. The hearing also provided a forum to discuss the 
risks, both real and perceived, associated with biotechnology.
    Witnesses included: Robert Dorsch, Ph.D., Director, 
Biotechnology Development, DuPont Life Sciences, Wilmington, 
DE; Karl Sanford, Ph.D., Vice President, Technology, Genecor 
International, Palo Alto, CA; Edward Eisenstein, Ph.D., 
Associate Director, Center for Advanced Research in 
Biotechnology, Rockville, MD.

Summary of hearing

    Robert Dorsch, Ph.D., Director, Biotechnology Development, 
DuPont Life Sciences, testified that during his tenure at 
DuPont, he has conducted and led engineering research, 
biotechnology scale-up, and new business start-ups. During the 
last five years, he has been responsible for biotechnology 
strategy development and is currently working on a portfolio of 
industrial biotechnology development projects. Dr. Dorsch 
believes that the Federal Government is playing a catalytic 
role in many areas of technology development. Government 
involvement takes many different forms, ranging from practical 
work to demonstrate low-cost ethanol fermentations from waste 
biomass, to the more intricate work on the thermodynamics of 
enzyme systems carried out at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. He further emphasized that continued 
support of basic science and engineering in biotechnology 
fields is certain to contribute to the long-term sustainable 
development of the U.S. and global chemical industry. This 
gives the Federal Government a unique opportunity to affect the 
quality of life of all citizens. Dr. Dorsch related that 
DuPont's reasons for beginning to study the applicability of 
biotechnology should apply equally to the Federal Government. 
Those reasons included: accelerated growth of knowledge and 
number of biotechnology tools suggested that new approaches to 
making previously unattainable molecular structures would now 
be possible; and a deeper understanding that biological 
manufacturing processes could operate under milder conditions, 
i.e., lower temperatures, lower pressures, and less corrosive 
conditions. These differences lead to both lower investment and 
cleaner manufacturing processes. Making these new molecules 
with these new types of processes also allows for a new range 
of starting materials such as corn, a source of sugar to feed 
the fermentation processes, hence offering the opportunity to 
switch to a renewable resource base. Dr. Dorsch concluded by 
emphasizing that new knowledge has tremendous effects that are 
hardly ever apparent at the time the work is done, which is why 
the Federal Government plays, and should continue to play, such 
an integral role in funding.
    Karl Sanford, Ph.D., Vice President, Technology, Genecor 
International, testified that while most of the attention on 
biotechnology has been focused for many years on the 
pharmaceutical industry, industrial biotechnology, a less well 
publicized aspect of biotechnology, is beginning to address 
significant unmet needs crucial to the sustainable development 
of our world. For example, Dr. Sanford, questioned the ability 
of U.S. industry to compete in a world where we must all do 
more with less. He believes that industrial biotechnology may 
provide a powerful new alternatives to the traditional 
practices. Dr. Sanford emphasizes that the goal of Genencor 
International is to lead the way forward in this new paradigm 
of industrial biotechnology research. Dr. Sanford further 
believes that this new examination of the role of biotechnology 
has often overlooked, but significant, social benefit. For 
example, when biotechnology is used for industrial processes, 
energy is saved, renewable resources replace fossil fuel, and 
pollution is prevented or reduced. He further emphasized that 
the technological advancement is progressing at an astonishing 
rate. Biotechnology and computer technology, two previously 
unpaired technologies, have crossed paths in the area of gene 
sequencing. This area needs to be cultivated because there are 
great opportunities for industrial biotechnology to improve our 
everyday lives.
    Edward Eisenstein, Ph.D., Associate Director, Center for 
Advanced Research in Biotechnology, addressed the potential of 
industrial biotechnology to provide a safe and cost-effective 
alternative for the production of many profitable compounds and 
fine chemicals from the perspective of a basic research center 
(i.e., CARB). Dr. Eisenstein emphasized the importance of 
CARB's primary purpose of promoting advanced research and 
interdisciplinary training in fundamental problems at the 
forefront of biotechnology through the collaboration of 
scientists from NIST and industry. This purpose allows CARB to 
facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration resulting in more 
sound and efficient biotechnology advancement. For example, 
their work in both protein and metabolic engineering, through 
collaboration with other scientists, has made advancement and 
the dissemination of such advancement much easier, thereby, 
creating a much more efficient use of research dollars. Dr. 
Eisenstein concluded by emphasizing the importance of 
protecting the role of basic research in the emerging field of 
industrial biotechnology.

          4.5(kk)--Year 2000: What Every Consumer Should Know

                           September 24, 1998

                      Hearing Volume Number 105-86

Background

    On September 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight entitled, ``Year 2000: What Every Consumer Should 
Know,'' to determine the impact of the Year 2000 computer 
problem on American consumers.
    Although the Year 2000 problem is primarily found in 
computer software, the problem also exists in some hardware 
components where integrated circuits, also called imbedded 
chips, store or process data. Some imbedded chips are pre-
programmed by the manufacturer to store or process year data 
using only two digits. Embedded chips are used in all computer 
hardware, including PC's and mainframes. Embedded chips are 
also used in many consumer electronic devices and some control 
different types of systems including thermostats, lighting, 
sprinklers, medical equipment, telephone services, and other 
consumer products.
    The hearing discussed concerns consumers had about products 
in their homes, and helped to raise awareness of the Year 2000 
problem.
    Witnesses included: Robert Holleyman, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, The Business Software Alliance; Gary 
Shapiro, President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers 
Association; Gary J. Beach, Publisher, CIO Magazine; Paloma 
O'Riley, Co-Founder Cassandra Project; and, Michael Hyatt, 
Author, The Millennium Bug.

Summary of hearing

    Robert Holleyman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), testified that due to 
certain technical conventions the two-digit date field was 
adopted, shared, passed on, and reused in much of the early 
software, firmware, and hardware development, throughout the 
world. Mr. Holleyman stated that the Year 2000 issue is a 
policy matter, that will only be effectively addressed 
collectively. Additionally, Mr. Holleyman testified that PC 
home users may face difficulty with some of their software, but 
mentioned that users who have recently purchased their systems 
may expect to face fewer problems than those with older 
systems. Mr. Holleyman noted that consumers must take 
responsibility for finding out whether their computer systems 
are Y2K ready, and then take proactive measures to ensure that 
they transition into the millennium without problems. Mr. 
Holleyman testified that the most troublesome effects of the 
Y2K issue will arise from embedded systems. Mr. Holleyman and 
BSA support Congressional efforts to address the disclosure 
liability dilemma.
    Gary Shapiro, President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers 
Association (CEMA), testified that most consumer electronics 
(CE) products will not suffer any kind of Y2K problems. Mr. 
Shapiro stated that the majority of CE systems in use today 
have been made to accommodate the date change. Furthermore, 
regarding the few non-Y2K compliant CE systems in use today, 
most do not use or need a date to function. Mr. Shapiro 
testified that the Y2K impact on the small number of older CE 
systems will therefore be minimal, and that a simple manual 
resetting, or the addition of software upgrades, will easily 
provide a remedy in most cases. Mr. Shapiro stated that in the 
few cases where manual resetting would not work, he did not 
anticipate much impact on consumers. Mr. Shapiro testified that 
consumers should be able to find out whether or not they have a 
Y2K problem by contacting the manufacturer. Mr. Shapiro 
concluded by stating that Congress should move forward 
expeditiously with passage of legislation to provide limited 
liability protection for companies making Y2K disclosures.
    Gary J. Beach, Publisher, CIO Magazine, testified that CIO 
Communications commissioned the CIO Year 2000 Consumer Study to 
determine consumer awareness and concerns regarding the Year 
2000 problem. Mr. Beach stated that a total of 643 individuals 
were contacted for the study, and of those 38% were not aware 
of the Y2K problem and 62% were. Mr. Beach indicated that most 
often respondents became aware of the Y2K problem through TV/
radio (48%), print publications (29%) or work (20%). Mr. Beach 
stated that most respondents (80%) to the survey felt fairly 
confident that the Y2K problem would be fixed before January 1, 
2000. Mr. Beach stated that the report shows that respondents 
are concerned about the Y2K problem on the government level, 
and 34% expect that the government should be the one to monitor 
and report on the progress solving the Y2K problem. Mr. Beach 
stated that participants in the survey blame the Year 2000 
problem on the technology industry (22%), government (12%), and 
private business (5%). Moreover, forty-six percent of the 
respondents mentioned that they would look into a lawsuit if 
they were injured as a result of a product malfunction at the 
turn of the century. Thirty-two percent of the study sample 
indicated that they would be likely to close a bank account 
before the turn of the century.
    Paloma O'Riley, Co-Founder Cassandra Project, testified 
that compliance in the face of the level of our dependence on 
critical infrastructure is unlikely, and that we must recognize 
due to the interconnectedness of our society, that systems are 
only as compliant as the weakest link in the network. Ms. 
O'Riley stated that it is therefore imperative that contingency 
planning begin immediately. Furthermore, she stated that the 
public must be given enough notice and information to form 
their own contingency plans. Ms. O'Riley concluded by stating 
that in addition to providing leadership, government must take 
steps to protect the public from the direct, indirect, and 
delayed consequences of the Y2K problem.
    Michael Hyatt, Author, The Millennium Bug, testified that 
some level of disruption is now inevitable, since it is 
impossible to get all of our systems repaired before January 1, 
2000. Mr. Hyatt stated that the failure of these systems will 
affect government agencies, infrastructure providers, and 
businesses both large and small. Furthermore, he stated that it 
will affect each of us individually, including our associates 
at work, our neighbors, and our friends and family. Mr. Hyatt 
believes that Y2K is also a consumer issue, because ultimately 
it will be the consumers who will feel its impact. Mr. Hyatt 
testified that a three-pronged strategy is needed in order to 
mitigate the consumer impact of Y2K. The strategy that he 
proposed is as follows; (1) awareness needs to be built at 
every level; (2) we must continue to press for compliance; (3) 
and finally, most importantly, we must begin to make 
contingency plans. Mr. Hyatt stated that consumers must make 
life continuity plans, especially in regards to the possible 
disruption of basic services like food, water, and shelter. Mr. 
Hyatt concluded by discussing what Congress could do to help 
alleviate the upcoming problems posed by Y2K. First, Congress 
can help build awareness, by educating the public about the Y2K 
problem. Second, Congress should encourage consumers to make 
personal contingency plans. In order to stimulate contingency 
planning, he proposed that Congress commission a study on the 
feasibility of allowing consumers to deduct from their taxes 
preparedness expenses. Finally, Congress should encourage 
religious organizations and private charities to prepare for 
those who either don't have the means or the foresight to 
prepare for themselves.

                  4.5(ll)--Aviation and the Year 2000

                           September 29, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-89

Background

    On September 29, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a joint hearing with the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure; and the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, entitled, ``Aviation and the Year 2000.'' The 
hearing focused on the progress made by the aviation toward 
addressing the Y2K problem, to what extent contingency plans 
have been developed, efforts to coordinate with the FAA in its 
Y2K implementation plan, and examined the FAA's efforts to 
coordinate its efforts with the international community to 
ensure a seamless transition to the Year 2000.
    Witnesses included: Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., 
Former Chairman, House Investigations and Oversight Committee, 
Bruce F. Webster, Chief Technical Officer, Object System Group, 
Co-Chair, Washington, DC. Year 2000 Group, David E. Sullivan, 
President, ZONAR Corporation, The Honorable Jane F. Garvey, 
Federal Aviation Administrator, John Kelly, Jr., Assistant 
Administrator for Weather Services, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Carol 
B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air 
Transport Association of America, Walter S. Coleman, Regional 
Airline Association, Richard C. Cullerton, Assistant Vice 
President for Engineering, Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority, Dwight Greenlee, Director of Administration, Wichita 
Airport Authority.

Summary of hearing

    Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., Former Chairman, House 
Investigations and Oversight Committee, testified that the FAA 
has accelerated its testing and remediation programs, and has 
made remarkable progress in moving hundreds of mission-critical 
systems toward Y2K compliance. Congressman Clinger stated that 
the Host computer will be fully functional on January 1, 2000, 
and that the agency will reach their goal of 99% compliance by 
September 1999. Additionally, Congressman Clinger stated that 
the airline industry's Y2K Program has been successful. 
Congressman Clinger concluded by stating that the progress of 
the last six months has demonstrated the aviation industry's 
continued commitment to safety and dedication to excellence.
    Bruce F. Webster, Chief Technical Officer, Object System 
Group, Co-Chair, Washington, DC Year 2000 Group testified that 
the Y2K problem will not bring civilization to a halt, but it 
will not be a mere bump in the road either. Mr. Webster noted 
that the following economic sectors were vulnerable according 
to the Cutter Consortium assessment: financial services, 
utility and power industries, telecommunications, 
manufacturing, industrial and consumer services, social 
services, food and agribusiness, chemicals and petrochemicals, 
and hotels and tourism. Additionally, the Cutter Consortium 
indicated that transportation was particularly vulnerable. Mr. 
Webster concluded by stating that while the Y2K disruption will 
be measured in days or weeks, one needs to remember that it 
only took a few weeks of work stoppage at one supplier to cause 
General Motors to shut down its entire North American 
manufacturing system, lay off 200,000 workers, lose $1 to $2 
billion, and all by itself impact the U.S. economy. 
Furthermore, with Y2K we may face dozens of analogous 
simultaneous scenarios, all interacting and intensifying one 
another. Because of this, the Y2K problem must be the most 
pressing issue for Congress and the Administration.
    David E. Sullivan, President, ZONAR Corporation, testified 
that we are now in the midst of an effort to fix the entire 
world's inventory of computer programs. This current plan 
requires changing hundreds of billions of lines of old, 
reliable program code into new, improved, and untested code. 
Based on the computer industry statistics, hundreds of millions 
of errors will be made, and a large percentage of these errors 
will not be repaired before the year 2000 deadline. Mr. 
Sullivan stated that even a small number of failures, when they 
occur at the same time, may trigger a chain reaction. Mr. 
Sullivan stated that the Y2K solution needs to be looked at in 
a new way. The new approach that Mr. Sullivan advocated is 
based on the idea that we can change the years instead of the 
program. While this approach is unconventional and temporary, 
Mr. Sullivan insisted that it works. Since computers don't 
really know what the date is we will be able to subtract 28 
from the real year, and obtain 1972's calendar which is 
identical to 2000's. With this new method, Mr. Sullivan stated 
that we would be able to postpone the Y2K problem until we are 
truly ready for it.
    The Honorable Jane F. Garvey, Federal Aviation 
Administrator, testified that the FAA will not be compromised 
on January 1, 2000. Administrator Garvey stated that the FAA 
has closed a significant gap in the Office of Management and 
Budget's Federal Y2K compliance schedule, and continues to move 
steadily toward its final solution. Furthermore, Ms. Garvey 
stated that FAA was scheduled to complete renovations of 99% of 
all required systems. With respect to the Host computer, Ms. 
Garvey stated that the FAA's vendors have developed a well-
defined strategy for the successful transition to the Host 
computer of the 21st century. However, she also mentioned that 
as a contingency to the Host replacement, renovations to the 
existing Host computer had been completed as of July 31. In 
regards to FAA's wider repair efforts, Ms. Garvey stated the 
FAA was on schedule to have the majority of its systems 
compliant with the DOT's and OMB's deadline of March 31, 1999, 
and all FAA systems will be fully compliant by the end of June 
1999. Ms. Garvey mentioned that the FAA had made great strides 
in its partnerships with the domestic and international 
aviation industry, and that this has raised awareness and 
allowed people to better work together to solve Y2K problems. 
Administrator Garvey concluded by stating that the FAA has 
worked extensively in the international arena.
    John Kelly, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather 
Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, testified that the National Weather 
Service, in conjunction with other National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration agencies and Department of Commerce 
Information Technology groups have been working since 1996 to 
ensure that all its systems are Y2K compliant. Mr. Kelly stated 
that all NWS computer based systems have been assessed in 
accordance with the U.S. Government Y2K compliance standards 
and requirements, and that these systems have either been 
certified or are in the process of being certified as Y2K 
compliant. Mr. Kelly stated that contingency plans will be in 
place to ensure that the continued flow of weather data is 
available after the millennium switch. Mr. Kelly concluded by 
stating that based upon the successful Y2K testing accomplished 
to date, the generally non-date centric nature of weather and 
satellite date products, the partnerships established for the 
exchange of data, and the planning being done to verify the 
end-to-end testing of our systems and communications, the NWS 
along with NESDIS has a high level of confidence in their 
abilities to continue operations during the Y2K date change.
    Ms. Carol B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Air Transport Association of America, testified that 
she is confident the aviation system will operate safely on 
December 31, 1999; on January 1, 2000; and beyond. Furthermore, 
as part of the industry's Y2K readiness efforts, Ms. Hallett 
stated that contingency plans are being developed for every 
conceivable adversity. Ms. Hallett testified that airlines 
individually recognized the Y2K problem several years ago, and 
mentioned that over 300 airlines worldwide are engaged in a 
cooperative effort to determine the Y2K readiness of the 
aviation industry. Ms. Hallett concluded that the Y2K challenge 
is similar in many ways to the multitude of operational 
challenges that the airlines face daily. She believes that the 
experience, coupled with the industry information survey and 
exchange program, the planning efforts and resources devoted to 
this challenge by the individual airlines, and the support of 
Congress and the Administration, puts them in a position to 
provide safe, efficient and economical air transportation on 
January 1, 2000.
    Walter S. Coleman, Regional Airline Association, testified 
that the Regional Airline Association members, which include 
airlines and suppliers, are participating in both individual 
and industry initiatives to address the issues associated with 
ensuring that the technology dependent software and processors 
will function safely and efficiently in the Year 2000. Mr. 
Coleman stated that the RAA is also working with the FAA as 
necessary to assist in the mutual need for a fully implemented 
Y2K program by June 30, 1999. Mr. Coleman moved on to discuss 
RAA's Y2K ``Tool Kit'' to help airports in the country served 
by RAA member airlines. Mr. Coleman concluded by stating that 
the RAA will continue to work with the FAA to ensure a safe, 
reliable and efficient air transportation system throughout 
1999 and into 2000.
    Richard C. Cullerton, Assistant Vice President for 
Engineering, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, 
testified that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 
operates both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and 
Washington Dulles International Airport. Together, Mr. 
Cullerton reports that these airports move over 30 million 
passengers a year. Due to the disruption the Y2K problem poses, 
the Authority takes it very seriously in order to ensure the 
safety of its future travelers. In order to combat the problem, 
the Authority has set up a Task Force to address potential Y2K 
impacts. Furthermore, the Authority has implemented a 
remediation approach based on the GAO format that encompasses 
the following five phases: Awareness, Assessment, Renovation, 
Validation, and Implementation. Mr. Cullerton indicated that 
the Awareness Phase has been completed and that the Assessment 
Phase is underway. Furthermore, the Authority has divided the 
Y2K problem into four areas: Personal Computers, software, 
embedded systems, and external interfaces. He stated that each 
area is being worked on concurrently. To date, the Authority 
has developed an inventory of over 500 potential non-compliant 
Y2K systems components. Mr. Cullerton concluded by stating that 
the Authority feels confident that it can resolve the critical 
system issues over the next 16 months, and ensure that both of 
its airports operate normally on Saturday, January 1, 2000.
    Dwight Greenlee, Director of Administration, Wichita 
Airport Authority, testified that given the limited time 
remaining, it has become critical at all levels to prioritize 
resources to assure that ``mission critical'' systems perform 
as required. Mr. Greenlee stated that for this reason the 
Wichita Airport Authority joined with others to pool resources 
to solve their Y2K problem. However, Mr. Greenlee stated that 
legal measures discourage many others from cooperation that 
requires commitment of funds, people and the sharing of 
information, and indicated that it is necessary to pass 
legislation to relieve this dilemma. Mr. Greenlee moved on and 
discussed the situation that many smaller regional airports 
find themselves in, specifically in regards to the high costs 
associated with relieving their Y2K problems. They must either 
issue debt financing, apply for Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP) funds, include the request in a Passenger Facility Charge 
(PFC), or attempt all of the above. However, the application 
process for AIP and PFC funds is time consuming, and to be able 
to help smaller airports with their Y2K effort a fast track 
procedure must be implemented.

  4.5(mm)--Status of the District of Columbia's Year 2000 Compliance 
                                 Effort

                            October 2, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-92

Background

    On October 2, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia; Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
entitled ``The Status of the District of Columbia's Year 2000 
Compliance Effort,'' to review the Year 2000 computer challenge 
compliance efforts by the Government of the District of 
Columbia.
    On June 17, 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
submitted a report to the DC Subcommittee that the District of 
Columbia faces serious problems in ensuring that vital services 
are not disrupted by the Year 2000 problem. Due to the current 
financial constraints facing the District, most current systems 
utilized by the DC Government are not 2000 compliant. The DC 
Inspector General also found that there is no overall Year 2000 
plan.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jack Brock, Director Information 
Management Issues, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, The Honorable 
Constance B. Newman, Vice Chair, District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Authority, Washington, D.C., Dr. 
Camille C. Barnett, Chief Management Officer, Government of the 
District of Columbia, Washington D.C., Ms. Suzanne Peck, Chief 
Technology Officer, Government of the District of Columbia, 
Washington, D.C.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Jack Brock, Director, Information Management Issues, 
Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General 
Accounting Office, testified that until this past June, the 
District had only made limited progress in addressing its Y2K 
problem. Mr. Brock stated that since June, the pace of the 
District's Y2K effort has picked up considerably, and this 
should substantially improve its ability to complete the tasks 
ahead. However, Mr. Brock stated that since the District was so 
far behind in addressing this problem, the risk that critical 
processes could fail is greatly increased. Mr. Brock concluded 
by stating that the District needs an absolute commitment from 
its leadership to make the most of the short time remaining.
    Constance Newman, Vice Chair of the District of Columbia 
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
testified that the District started very late in addressing the 
Y2K problem. This has necessitated a work schedule that 
requires certain steps to be undertaken simultaneously rather 
than in the optimum situation where they would be implemented 
sequentially. Additionally, Ms. Newman requested that Congress 
give the District consideration when it debates the 
appropriation of $3.25 billion in aid to government agencies in 
achieving Y2K compliance. Ms. Newman concluded by discussing 
the opportunities that arise as logical extensions out of the 
currently approved management reform technology infrastructure 
projects. She stated that the successful completion of these 
projects will dramatically increase the District's ability to 
improve services to citizens, reduce costs, and expand revenue 
opportunities. Dr. Camille Cates Barnett, Chief Management 
Officer for the Government of the District of Columbia, 
testified that until June the Districts Y2K efforts had been 
moving slowly. However, since June the District has moved 
quickly to engage the problem. The first milestone was 
completed on August 28, 1998 when the District identified 336 
mission-critical systems, 84 of which are Y2K compliant. The 
others require a mix of testing and remediation. Dr. Barnett 
stated that the District is significantly behind, and has much 
more work to do before it can confidently call itself Y2K 
compliant.
    Suzanne Peck, Chief Technology Officer for the Government 
of the District of Columbia, testified that the total cost of 
the Districts Y2K problem will probably be in the range of $80-
130M. Ms. Peck stated the District's most important task over 
the next 15 months is to effectively manage the risk of 
disruption to essential city services. Expecting that some of 
the city's agencies will still fail after remediation and 
testing, Ms. Peck stressed the need for contingency planning. 
Additionally, for these contingency plans to be successful, a 
substantial commitment of resources must be made by agencies. 
Ms. Peck also stressed the need for agencies to develop full 
blown disaster recovery plans.

           4.5(nn)--Fastener Quality Act: Needed or Outdated?

                            October 8, 1998

                       Hearing Volume No. 105-94

Background

    On October 8, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Fastener Quality Act: Needed or Outdated?''
    Despite its passage in 1990, FQA has never been 
implemented. Questions about the adequacy of laboratories 
facilities to test fasteners in a timely manner, the definition 
of fasteners covered by the Act, and the need for FQA have 
dogged the law and prevented implementation of a final NIST 
rule.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Member 
of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC; The 
Honorable Donald Manzullo, Member of Congress, U.S. House of 
Representatives, Washington, DC; The Honorable Raymond Kammer, 
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Rockville, MD; Richard Klimisch, Ph.D., Vice President-
Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association, Washington, DC; Mr. Tommy Grant, President, Grant 
Fastener, Inc., Houston, TX; Mr. Robert Brunner, Vice President 
and General Manager, Shakeproof/ITW, Elgin, IL.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress, U.S. 
House of Representatives, addressed a number of issues 
important in this examination. Congressman Hastert emphasized 
that dramatic changes have occurred over the last decade, since 
the law was passed, in the fastener manufacturing process. This 
fact is explicitly recognized by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology in their Final Rule implementing the 
FQA published earlier this year. He also expressed that it is 
important to realize that increases in fastener quality and 
public safety over the last decade have occurred in the absence 
of the implementation of the FQA. Thus it is safe to conclude 
that the Act has served its purpose--without ever being 
implemented. Furthermore, he believes that the lack of clear 
evidence suggesting that fasteners pose a serious risk to 
public safety is one of the key problems that have plagued the 
FQA since its inception. In other words, anectdotal evidence 
alone may have replaced hard science in necessitating this Act. 
Congressman Hastert concluded by cautioning Congress to take a 
much closer look at the origination of the Act in order to 
determine the onerous burden that will be placed on many small 
businesses.
    The Honorable Donald Manzullo, Member of Congress, U.S. 
House of Representatives, welcomed the opportunity to address 
the issue of the disposition of the Fastener Quality Act (FQA) 
as no issue has as greater an impact on the future of fastener 
businesses in his district and across the United States than 
this one. Congressman Manzullo feels that any lasting 
resolution to modify the FQA must address the concerns raised 
by the small manufacturers within the fastener industry. These 
problems with the FQA from the perspective of small fastener 
firms are numerous: ambiguity about which fasteners the Act 
covers; availability and proximity of accredited labs; 
confusion about the definition of certification; prohibitive 
compliance costs; over-regulation of the industry; loss of 
market share to foreign competitors because the FQA exempts 
fasteners imported as components of larger parts; and lack of 
information about required tests of a specialized product are 
all major concerns of fastener manufacturers in his district. 
He cautioned that resolution of these matters needs to be an 
important part of any final modification of the FQA. Otherwise 
small fastener manufacturers across the U.S. will have serious 
problems. Congressman Manzullo concluded by emphasizing that he 
believes all interested parties can and should work together to 
arrive at an agreeable solution.
    The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, addressed the specific concerns 
that Congress and industry appear to have regarding the 
ultimate resolution of the FQA. He detailed the three steps 
that NIST and the Department of Commerce are taking to deal 
effectively with this: First, the Department published a 
Federal Register notice on October 7, 1998, requesting 
information from the public about important issues related to 
the study including changes in fastener manufacturing 
technology over the past eight years and information on other 
regulatory programs. Second, the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) has agreed to conduct a three-day workshop in 
mid-November to document how fastener manufacturing technology 
has changed since 1990. ASME is the premier technical and 
educational society in mechanical engineering and have recent, 
and direct, experience in conducting such studies. Their goal 
is to quantify not only the sophistication of the technology 
now being used, but also to learn the extent to which it is 
used across the industry. Third, staff from NIST not previously 
involved in fastener activities will document other fastener 
regulatory programs. In conclusion, Director Kammer emphasized 
that the Department of Commerce is working vigorously to 
actively solicit--and consider seriously--all suggestions for 
changes to the Act. In the interim they are also moving forward 
to the implementation of the Act as required by law.
    Richard Klimisch, Ph.D., Vice President--Engineering 
Affairs Division, American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association, emphasized that since the domestic automotive 
industry is the single largest consumer of industrial fasteners 
in the U.S. economy the AAMA takes very seriously the 
performance of fasteners. AAMA believes the entire universe of 
industrial fastener users would agree that the Fastener Quality 
Act, in its present form, is unworkable and will cause great 
disruption to the U.S. economy without providing any 
significant public safety benefit. That the law was passed 
eight years ago and yet still has not been implemented calls 
into question the necessity of such an onerous burden being 
placed on so many manufacturers. AAMA and its member companies 
recommend very strongly that the current law as written be 
replaced and that Congress and the Secretary of Commerce, as 
directed by PL 105-234, approach the matter of whether and how 
industrial fasteners should be regulated with a ``clean sheet 
of paper.''
    Mr. Tommy Grant, President, Grant Fastener, Inc., believes 
that just as there was a need for a fastener quality law then, 
there is a need now. He emphasized that the FQA is a badly 
needed public safety legislation. Mr. Grant concedes that 
perhaps forty years ago the U.S. did not need such an umpire, 
but now our entire society lacks honesty and ethics, thereby, 
necessitating the FQA. Mr. Grant believes that FQA is a simple, 
and inexpensive law that ensures that what is being supplied 
matches what is ordered. He believes that if a manufacturer is 
capable of doing his job, then he shouldn't be objecting to the 
act. He also cautioned against changing the legislation due to 
concerns that it will adversely impact small business. The law 
as written, and attested to him by a number of small fastener 
manufacturers, will have a minuscule impact on small 
manufacturers.
    Mr. Robert Brunner, Vice President and General Manager, 
Shakeproof/ITW, testified on behalf of the Industrial Fasteners 
Institute (IFI); a trade association representing the fastener 
manufacturing industry in North America, including Canada, 
Mexico, and the United States, and its suppliers of raw 
materials, machinery, tooling, installation equipment and 
engineering services from around the world. He emphasized that 
IFI strongly supported Congressional action in the form of PL 
105-234, delaying implementation of the Fastener Quality Act 
(PL 101-592, as amended) so as to examine fully whether the Act 
is still needed. Mr. Brunner contends that since there have 
been significant changes in fastener manufacturing and 
purchasing practices since the FQA was first passed in 1990, an 
examination of the continued necessity of the law is in order. 
The goal of the IFI is zero defects in parts, including 
fasteners. In fact many are already required to institute 
Quality Assurance Systems(QAS) with stated goals achieving zero 
defects. IFI also contends that the study Congress directed the 
Department of Commerce to perform and submit to Congress in 
February 1999 to identify changes that have occurred in the 
fastener industry is overdue and will demonstrate that the 
present FQA is both unworkable and unnecessary in today's 
private sector fastener environment. Additionally, IFI stands 
ready to assist the Commerce Department in assessing the 
changes that have occurred in the industry, and hopes that the 
Department will work closely with industry in conducting the 
study and in drafting its Report and recommendations to 
Congress. Mr. Brunner recommended that Congress schedule 
additional hearings on the FQA once it receives the Commerce 
Secretary's report and recommendations so that Congress can 
have the opportunity to explore options for amending the Act 
with industry and other impacted interests, both domestic and 
foreign, including distributors, federal agencies that procure 
fasteners, and federal agencies that already have prosecutorial 
jurisdiction before taking action.






