[House Report 106-1052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 614

106th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 106-1052


 
                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                for the

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS




                            JANUARY 2, 2001

January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-008                     WASHINGTON : 2001


                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       RALPH M. HALL, Texas
LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   BART GORDON, Tennessee
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
DANA ROHRABACHER, California         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas                    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California              LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
NICK SMITH, Michigan                 ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
DAVE WELDON, Florida                 DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois            NICK LAMPSON, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   MARK UDALL, Colorado
MERRILL COOK, Utah                   DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,           ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    Washington                       MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California     DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
GARY G. MILLER, California           JOE BACA, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South 
    Carolina
JACK METCALF, Washington




                                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Committee History................................................     1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science....    11
    1.1--P.L. 106-34, Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999 
      (H.R. 1183)................................................    11
    1.2--P.L. 106-65, National Defense Authorization Act for 
      Fiscal Year 2000 (S. 1059).................................    11
    1.3--P.L. 106-82, To provide for the conveyance of certain 
      property from the United States to Stanislaus County, 
      California (H.R. 356)......................................    29
    1.4--P.L. 106-178, Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (H.R. 
      1883)......................................................    30
    1.5--P.L. 106-181, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
      Reform Act for the 21st Century (H.R. 1000/H.R. 1551, Civil 
      Aviation Research and Development Authorization Act of 
      1999)......................................................    31
    1.6--P.L. 106-193, Methane Hydrate Research and Development 
      Act of 2000 (H.R. 1753/S. 330).............................    32
    1.7--P.L. 106-224, Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 
      (H.R. 2559/Title I--Biomass Research and Development Act of 
      2000 in S. 935, National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals 
      Act of 1999, as passed by the Senate, became Title III of 
      H.R. 2559).................................................    34
    1.8--P.L. 106-391, National Aeronautics and Space 
      Administration Authorization Act of FY 2000, FY 2001, and 
      FY 2002 (H.R. 1654)........................................    35
    1.9--P.L. 106-398, National Defense Authorization Act of 
      Fiscal Year 2001 (H.R. 4205)...............................    36
    1.10--P.L. 106-404, Technology Transfer Commercialization Act 
      of 2000 (H.R. 209).........................................    41
    1.11--P.L. 106-405, Commercial Space Transportation 
      Competitiveness Act of 2000 (H.R. 2607)....................    41
    1.12--P.L. 106-503, An Act to authorize appropriations for 
      the United States Fire Administration, and for carrying out 
      the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, for fiscal 
      years 2001, 2002, and 2003, and for other purposes (H.R. 
      1550/H.R. 1184 S. 1639, Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
      Authorization Act of 2000).................................    42
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    45
    2.1--Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and 
      Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1552).    45
    2.2--National Weather Service and Related Agencies 
      Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1553)......................    46
    2.3--Department of Energy Research, Development, and 
      Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1655)........    48
    2.4--Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy 
      Technology Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1656)...........    50
    2.5--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and 
      Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of 
      1999 (H.R. 1742)...........................................    53
    2.6--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and 
      Radiation Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1743)............    56
    2.7--National Institute of Standards and Technology 
      Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1744)......................    58
    2.8--Networking and Information Technology Research and 
      Development Act (H.R. 2086)................................    58
    2.9--Small Business Innovation Research Program 
      Reauthorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 2392)/Consolidated 
      Appropriations Act, 2001, conference report H. Rept. 106-
      1033 (H.R. 4577)/Small Business Reauthorization Act (H.R. 
      5667)/Certified Development Company Program Improvements 
      Act of 2000 (H.R. 2614)....................................    60
    2.10--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 2413)..    62
    2.11--Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000 (H.R. 2572).......    63
    2.12--To prevent the elimination of certain reports (H.R. 
      3904)......................................................    63
    2.13--To ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate 
      mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its 
      policy and site performance in the areas of safeguards and 
      security and cyber security (H.R. 3906)....................    64
    2.14--National Science Education Act (H.R. 4271).............    65
    2.15--Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 4429)    65
    2.16--To designate the museum operated by the Secretary of 
      Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of 
      Science and Energy, and for other purposes (H.R. 4940)/
      Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (H.R. 4577)..........    66
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the 
  Committee on Science...........................................    69
    3.1--H. Res. 267, Expressing the sense of the House of 
      Representatives with regard to Shuttle Mission STS-93, 
      commanded by Col. Eileen Collins, the first female space 
      shuttle commander..........................................    69
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
  Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee 
  Legislative Activities.........................................    71
    4.1--Committee on Science....................................    71
        4.1(a) January 20, 1999--The Year 2000 Problem: Status 
          Report on the Federal, State, Local, and Foreign 
          Governments............................................    71
        4.1(b) March 17, 1999--Why and How You Should Learn Math 
          and Science............................................    73
        4.1(c) April 28, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education: 
          What Is Being Done To Improve It?......................    75
        4.1(d) May 20, 1999--Security at the Department of 
          Energy: Who's Protecting the Nation's Secrets?.........    77
        4.1(e) June 10, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education--
          Finding, Training and Keeping Good Teachers............    78
        4.1(f) June 29, 1999--The Rudman Report on Security 
          Problems at the Department of Energy...................    80
        4.1(g) August 4, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education--
          Testing and Licensing Teachers.........................    81
        4.1(h) March 22, 2000--EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or 
          Open Debate............................................    82
        4.1(i) April 12, 2000--NASA's Mars Program After The 
          Young Report, Part 1...................................    84
        4.1(j) May 17, 2000--A Plan To Renew Science, Math, 
          Engineering and Technology Education In Kindergarten 
          Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4271, National Science 
          Education Enhancement Act..............................    85
        4.1(k) June 13, 2000--Reviewing Science, Math, 
          Engineering and Technology Education in Kindergarten 
          Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4272, National Science 
          Education Enhancement Act..............................    86
        4.1(l) June 20, 2000--NASA's Mars Program After The Young 
          Report, Part II........................................    88
        4.1(m) July 19, 2000--Encouraging Science, Math, 
          Engineering and Technology Education in Kindergarten 
          Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4273, National Science 
          Education Incentive Act................................    89
        4.1(n) September 27, 2000--Computer Security Lapses: 
          Should FAA Be Grounded?................................    90
        4.1(o) October 4, 2000--Intolerance at EPA: Harming 
          People, Harming Science?...............................    91
    4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research..........................    93
        4.2(a) February 23, 1999--National Earthquake Hazards 
          Reduction Program Reauthorization......................    93
        4.2(b) March 16, 1999--Information Technology for the 
          21st Century...........................................    95
        4.2(c) March 23, 1999--The United States Fire 
          Administration Authorization for Fiscal Years 2000 and 
          2001...................................................    97
        4.2(d) March 24, 1999--H.R. 749, The Home Page Tax Repeal 
          Act....................................................    99
        4.2(e) April 28, 1999--National Science Foundation Fiscal 
          Year 2000 Budget Request...............................   100
        4.2(f) June 9, 1999--The U.S. Antarctic Research Program.   100
        4.2(g) June 16, 1999--Tonadoes: Understanding, Modeling 
          and Forecasting Supercell Storms.......................   101
        4.2(h) June 22, 1999--Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-
          Science and Its Prospects for the Next Decade..........   103
        4.2(i) July 14, 1999--H.R. 2086, Networking and 
          Information Technology Research and Development Act....   104
        4.2(j) July 29, 1999--Attracting A New Generation to Math 
          and Science: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in 
          Education and H.R. 1265, Mathematics and Science 
          Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999....................   106
        4.2(k) August 3, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab 
          to the Field to the Market Part I......................   108
        4.2(l) September 22, 1999--Overcoming Barriers to 
          Utilization of Technology in the Classroom.............   109
        4.2(m) September 28, 1999--The Impact of Basic Research 
          on Technological Innnovation and National Prosperity...   111
        4.2(n) October 5, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the 
          Lab to the Field to the Market, Part II................   112
        4.2(o) October 19, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the 
          Lab to the Field to the Market, Part III...............   114
        4.2(p) October 20, 1999--The Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico 
          Earthquakes: Lessons Learned...........................   115
        4.2(q) October 26, 1999--Education Research: Is What We 
          Don't Know Hurting Our Children?.......................   117
        4.2(r) February 16, 2000--National Science Foundation FY 
          2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part I: Research and 
          Related Activities And Major Research Equipment........   118
        4.2(s) February 29, 2000--National Science Foundation FY 
          2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part II: Education 
          and Human Resources....................................   119
        4.2(t) March 15, 2000--National Science Foundation FY 
          2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part III: A View 
          From Outside NSF.......................................   120
        4.2(u) May 9, 2000--The Internet, Distance Learning and 
          the Future of the Research University..................   122
        4.2(v) July 27, 2000--The State of Ocean And Marine 
          Science 4.2(w) September 12, 2000--Beyond Silicon-Based 
          Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing.............   124
        4.2(w) September 12, 2000--Beyond Silicon-Based 
          Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing.............   125
        4.2(x) October 4, 2000--Benchmarking U.S. Science: What 
          Can It Tell Us?........................................   127
    4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment..................   128
        4.3(a) February 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
          Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps......................   128
        4.3(b) March 3, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy Offices of 
          Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and 
          Environmental Management...............................   130
        4.3(c) March 10, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of 
          Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; 
          and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.............   132
        4.3(d) March 18, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency 
          Research and Development...............................   134
        4.3(e) March 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy Results Act 
          Implementation.........................................   136
        4.3(f) April 14, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change 
          Budget Authorization Request...........................   138
        4.3(g) April 15, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
          Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
          Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps......................   139
        4.3(h) May 12, 1999--S. 330 and H.R. 1753, Methane 
          Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999...........   141
        4.3(i) June 16, 1999--Tornadoes: Understanding, Modeling 
          and Forecasting Supercell Storms.......................   144
        4.3(j) June 17, 1999--EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) 
          Chemical Testing Program...............................   146
        4.3(k) July 13, 1999--Restructuring the Department of 
          Energy.................................................   147
        4.3(l) July 21, 1999--Reducing Sulfur in Gasoline and 
          Diesel Fuel............................................   148
        4.3(m) July 22, 1999--External Regulation of DOE 
          Facilities: Pilot Project Results......................   150
        4.3(n) September 14, 1999--Reformulated Gasoline, Part I.   152
        4.3(o) September 30, 1999--Reformulated Gasoline, Part II   153
        4.3(p) October 5, 1999--Fuels for the Future.............   155
        4.3(q) October 6, 1999--Is CO2 A Pollutant and Does EPA 
          Have the Power to Regulate It?.........................   156
        4.3(r) October 21, 1999--Superfund RD&D..................   158
        4.3(s) October 28, 1999--H.R. 2819, Biomass Research and 
          Development Act of 1999 and H.R. 2827, National 
          Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999............   160
        4.3(t) March 1, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of 
          Science, Environment, Safety and Health, and 
          Environmental Management...............................   162
        4.3(u) March 9, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Climate Change 
          Budget Authorization Request...........................   163
        4.3(v) March 16, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of 
          Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy, 
          and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.............   164
        4.3(w) March 23, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
          Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency 
          Science and Technology Budget..........................   165
        4.3(x) March 29, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
          Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration.........................................   166
        4.3(y) April 6, 2000--The Human Genome Project...........   167
        4.3(z) July 13, 2000--Strengthening Science At The U.S. 
          Environmental Protection Agency--National Research 
          Council Findings.......................................   168
        4.3(aa) July 18, 2000--Reexamining The Scientific Basis 
          For The Linear No-Threshold Model Of Low-Dose Radiation   169
        4.3(bb) July 25, 2000--Nuclear Energy's Role: Improving 
          U.S. Energy Security and Reducing Greenhouse Gas 
          Emissions..............................................   170
        4.3(cc) July 27, 2000--The State of Ocean and Marine 
          Science................................................   171
    4.4--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics...................   172
        4.4(a) February 11, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
          Authorization, Part I..................................   172
        4.4(b) February 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
          Authorization, Part II.................................   174
        4.4(c) February 25, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
          Authorization, Part III................................   175
        4.4(d) March 3, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
          Authorization, Part IV.................................   177
        4.4(e) March 11, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
          Authorization, Part V..................................   178
        4.4(f) March 24, 1999--Range Modernization, Part I.......   181
        4.4(g) April 21, 1999--U.S. Commercial Space Launch 
          Competitiveness, Part I................................   182
        4.4(h) May 12, 1999--Y2K In Orbit: Impact on Satellites 
          and the Global Positioning System......................   184
        4.4(i) June 10, 1999--U.S. Commercial Space Launch 
          Competitiveness, Part II...............................   186
        4.4(j) June 29, 1999--Range Modernization, Part II.......   188
        4.4(k) July 13, 1999--H.R. 1883, Iran Nonproliferation 
          Act of 1999............................................   190
        4.4(l) September 23, 1999--Space Shuttle Safety..........   191
        4.4(m) September 29, 1999--NASA's X-33 Program...........   193
        4.4(n) October 13, 1999--Commercial Spaceplanes..........   194
        4.4(o) October 21, 1999--Safety and Performance Upgrades 
          to NASA's Space Shuttle................................   196
        4.4(p) October 27, 1999--Space Transportation 
          Architecture Studies: The Future of Earth-to-Orbit 
          Spaceflight............................................   198
        4.4(q) February 16, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 NASA 
          Authorization: NASA Posture............................   200
        4.4(r) March 16, 2000--NASA FY 2001 Budget Request for 
          Human Spaceflight......................................   201
        4.4(s) March 22, 2000--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: 
          Life and Microgravity Research.........................   202
        4.4(t) April 11, 2000--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: 
          Aero-Space Technology Enterprise.......................   203
        4.4(u) May 10, 2000--FY 2001 Budget Request: NASA's Earth 
          Science Program........................................   203
        4.4(v) May 24, 2000--U.S. Bilateral Space Launch Trade 
          Agreements.............................................   204
        4.4(w) July 18, 2000--Financing Commercial Space Ventures   205
        4.4(x) September 7, 2000--The Technical Feasibility Of 
          Space Solar Power......................................   206
        4.4(y) September 13, 2000--The State Of NASA's Space 
          Science Enterprise.....................................   207
        4.4(z) September 28, 2000--Range Privatization: How Fast, 
          How Soon and How Much?.................................   207
    4.5--Subcommittee on Technology..............................   208
        4.5(a) February 11, 1999--Review of the Fiscal Year 2000 
          Budget Request for the Technology Administration.......   208
        4.5(b) February 23, 1999--The Impact of Y2K: Can the 
          Postal service still deliver? Review of the Fiscal Year 
          2000 Budget Request for the Technology Administration..   211
        4.5(c) February 25, 1999--Unscrewing the Fastener Quality 
          Act....................................................   212
        4.5(d) March 2, 1999--Year 2000 Problem at the Department 
          of Defense: How Prepared Is Our Nation's Security?.....   215
        4.5(e) March 4, 1999--Funding Requirements for FAA 
          Research and Development...............................   217
        4.5(f) March 9, 1999--The Impact of Litigation on Fixing 
          Y2K....................................................   219
        4.5(g) March 15, 1999--Will Transportation and FAA Be 
          Ready for the Year 2000?...............................   220
        4.5(h) April 13, 1999--Are The Federal Government's 
          Critical Programs Ready For January 1, 2000?...........   221
        4.5(i) April 15, 1999--The Melissa Virus: Inoculating Our 
          Information Technology From Emerging Threats...........   224
        4.5(j) April 21, 1999--Genetics Testing in the New 
          Millennium: Advances, Standards and Implications.......   225
        4.5(k) May 12, 1999--Y2K in Orbit: Impact on Satellites 
          and the Global Positioning System......................   227
        4.5(l) May 20, 1999--Easing Traffic Congestion and 
          Improving Vehicle Safety: ITS and Transportation 
          Technology Solutions for the 21st Century..............   229
        4.5(m) June 17, 1999--Federal Research and Small 
          Business: A Review of the Small Business Innovation 
          Research Program.......................................   230
        4.5(n) June 24, 1999--Federal Agencies Under Attack: Why 
          Are Government Websites Vulnerable?....................   231
        4.5(o) July 1, 1999--H.R. 2086, Networking and 
          Information Technology Research and Development Act of 
          1999: Resources for IT Research........................   233
        4.5(p) August 4, 1999--The Computer Security Impact of 
          Y2K: Expanded Risks or Fraud?..........................   234
        4.5(q) September 9, 1999--FAA And Y2K: Will Air Travel Be 
          Stopped Or Significantly Delayed On January 1st And 
          Beyond?................................................   236
        4.5(r) September 14, 1999--National Technical Information 
          Service: A Review of the Department of Commerce's Plan 
          to Close the Agency....................................   237
        4.5(s) September 15, 1999--The Year 2000 Computer 
          Problem: Implications for International Travel.........   239
        4.5(t) September 22, 1999--Overcoming Barriers to the 
          Utilization of Technology in the Classroom.............   239
        4.5(u) September 23, 1999--Small Manufacturing and the 
          Challenges of the New Millennium.......................   241
        4.5(v) September 30, 1999--A Review of H.R. 2413, the 
          Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999..............   242
        4.5(w) October 6, 1999--State of the States: Will Y2K 
          Disrupt Essential Services?............................   244
        4.5(x) October 22, 1999--Y2K and Nuclear Power: Will 
          Reactors React Responsibly?............................   246
        4.5(y) October 27, 1999--Competing in the New Millennium: 
          Challenges Facing Small Biotechnology Firms............   247
        4.5(z) October 29, 1999--Y2K And Contingency And Day 1 
          Plans: If Computers Fail, What Will You Do?............   249
        4.5(aa) November 4, 1999--Y2K Myths and Realities........   249
        4.5(bb) January 27, 2000--The Year 2000 Computer Problem: 
          Did The World Overreact and What Did We Learn?.........   251
        4.5(cc) March 1, 2000--R&D To Improve Aviation Safety And 
          Efficiency: A Review Of The FAA Fiscal Year 2001 
          Funding Request For R&D................................   253
        4.5(dd) March 9, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request 
          For The Technology Administration/National Institute of 
          Standards And Technology Including Computer Security 
          And E-Commerce Initiatives.............................   254
        4.5(ee) March 15, 2000--Standards Conformity And The 
          Federal Government: A Review Of Section 12 Of P.L. 104-
          113....................................................   256
        4.5(ff) March 30, 2000--The Changing Face of Healthcare 
          In The Electronic Age..................................   257
        4.5(gg) April 13, 2000--Wireless Internet Technologies...   259
        4.5(hh) May 10, 2000--The Love Bug Virus: Protecting 
          Lovesick Computers From Malicious Attack...............   260
        4.5(ii) May 23, 2000--Technology Transfer Challenges And 
          Partnerships: A Review Of The Department Of Commerce's 
          Biennial Report on Technology Transfer.................   262
        4.5(jj) June 22, 2000--E-Commerce: A Review Of Standards 
          And Technology To Support Interoperability.............   263
        4.5(kk) July 13, 2000--A Review Of The Morella Commission 
          Report: Recommendations To Attract More Women and 
          Minorities into Science, Engineering And Technology....   264
        4.5(ll) September 13, 2000--The Role Of Technical 
          Standards In Today's Society and in the Future.........   266
        4.5(mm) October 5, 2000--Rural Access To Technology: 
          Connecting the Last American Frontier..................   267

                                APPENDIX

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2000......   269
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2001......   294
List of Publications of the Committee on Science (106th Congress)   334


                                                 Union Calendar No. 614
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1052

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




              SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                                _______
                                

January 2, 2001.--Committee 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, 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 acted to create a standing 
committee in an entirely new area.
    The Committee officially began 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.
    Jurisdiction over energy, environmental, atmospheric, civil 
aviation R&D, and the National Weather Service issues was added 
to the general realm of scientific research and development.
    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 eight 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.
    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 served as a 
Member of the Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee. 
When Olin Teague became chairman of the full 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 Committee initiated 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. 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 511 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 the 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 in 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 and 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.
    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. Trained in industrial physics, Brown worked as a 
civil engineer for many years before entering politics.
    Elected to the Congress in 1962, Brown was 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.
    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 was intended to act 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, the 
Committee and House of Representatives passed authorizations 
for every agency under the Committee's jurisdiction. 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. 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, he served as Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
    Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership, the Committee on 
Science worked in a bipartisan fashion to report out a 
significant number of legislative initiatives focused on 
advancing U.S. interests in research and development. 
Throughout the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Science 
Committee aggressively implemented the Government Performance 
and Results Act (Results Act), legislation making federal 
agencies accountable for the money they spend.
    At the start of the 105th Congress, the Speaker of the 
House charged the Committee on Science 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 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.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner made oversight one of his top 
priorities and as a result of the Committee's aggressive 
agenda, Majority Leader Richard Armey recognized Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for his outstanding oversight efforts with the 
``Excellence in Programmatic Oversight Award''. The award is 
presented to members who hold federal agencies and programs 
accountable to American taxpayers.
    The Science Committee played a crucial role in numerous 
issues of national and international significance during 
Chairman Sensenbrenner's tenure. Acting in accordance with the 
Committee's jurisdiction over climate change issues, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner was chosen by the Speaker of the House to lead 
the U.S. delegation to the Kyoto (Dec. 97), Buenos Aires (Nov. 
98), and The Hague (Nov. 2000) 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 guidance to the House leadership on global 
warming negotiations. Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's 
leadership, the Committee examined the science supporting the 
Kyoto Protocol and the economic harm it could pose to the 
Nation, as well as the science used to establish the regulatory 
framework for ozone and air quality strategies.
    Much of the world anxiously awaited midnight of January 1, 
2000 to see if the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem would cause 
the catastrophe that some had predicted. The Science Committee, 
through the Subcommittee on Technology, Chaired by Constance 
Morella (R-MD), held its first hearing on the Y2K problem in 
1996 and held or participated in over 30 hearings on the 
subject. The Committee's aggressive oversight pushed federal 
agencies to meet their deadlines to ensure the safety and well 
being of American citizens.
    Over many years the Science Committee closely monitored 
development of the International Space Station, and through its 
efforts, and those of Chairman Sensenbrenner, forced the 
Russian government to meet its obligations. In October of 2000, 
a crew of American and Russian astronauts became the first 
inhabitants of the space station. Chairman Sensenbrenner's main 
concern with the space station was to ensure that cost and 
schedule overruns were minimized. 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 to deal with Russian non-performance and delays.
    The Nation was also rocked by charges of espionage at one 
of the country's premier national laboratories. The Department 
of Energy lab at Los Alamos, NM was home to the government's 
most prized and secret nuclear programs. Once it became 
apparent that there was significant and credible evidence that 
nuclear secrets had been stolen, Chairman Sensenbrenner began 
investigating the implications these security breaches might 
have on national security and the state of science at our 
Nation's labs.
    The Committee's oversight agenda also played a crucial role 
in promoting sound science and fiscal responsibility throughout 
the federal government. Chairman Sensenbrenner initiated an 
investigation into allegations of intolerance and 
discrimination at the Environmental Protection Agency and 
introduced legislation to hold agencies accountable for such 
actions. Sensenbrenner also shed light on severe cost and 
schedule overruns at the Department of Energy's National 
Ignition Facility. This project is expected to take six years 
longer than planned at an extra cost to the taxpayers of $2 
billion. Additionally, Chairman Sensenbrenner fought a proposed 
tax on the Spallation Neutron Source facility by the State of 
Tennessee. The Chairman's oversight of this issue saved Federal 
taxpayer's tens of millions of dollars.
    Aggressive oversight is only one part of the picture. 
During Chairman Sensenbrenner's tenure, funding for civilian 
federal R&D increased by 39%. Funding for the National Science 
Foundation increased 23%, including its highest ever 
appropriation in FY2001. The Science Committee also passed 
legislation introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner through the 
House to authorize nearly $7 billion for information technology 
(IT) R&D throughout the federal government. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner also successfully pushed for passage of a NASA 
authorization bill--the first such authorization since 1992.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner made cutting waste, fraud and abuse 
in federal agencies a top priority. At the same time, funding 
for Federal R&D steadily increased during his tenure. This 
combination of fiscal responsibility and a steady, solid 
investment in Federal R&D served to ensure a solid foundation 
for the scientific community at the beginning of the new 
millennium. The Science Committee is justifiably proud of these 
accomplishments, and as it enters its sixth decade of existence 
it looks forward to working with our Nation's research and 
development communities to continue to promote sound science 
policy.


     Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

    During the 106th Congress, 94 bills were referred to the 
Committee on Science; 26 bills were reported or discharged by 
the Committee; 21 of those measures passed the House; committee 
interests were conferenced in 4 bills; and 12 measures were 
enacted.

  1.1--P.L. 106-34, FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999 (H.R. 
                                 1183)

Background and summary of legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 1183 is to amend the Fastener Quality 
Act of 1990 (FQA) to strengthen the protection against the sale 
of mismarked, misrepresented, and counterfeit fasteners and to 
eliminate unnecessary requirements, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 1183 modifies the Fastener Quality Act of 1990 (FQA) 
to recognize new quality practices in the fastener industry, 
focuses on assuring public safety, and imposes the least 
possible additional burdens on an already regulated industry. 
To that end, H.R. 1183 fights fraud by clarifying that anyone 
intentionally misrepresenting the strength or other 
characteristics of a fastener is subject to the criminal 
penalties and civil remedies of the Act; ensures accountability 
by requiring that virtually all fasteners sold in commerce to 
be marked with the registered trademark of their manufacturer; 
reduces the burdensome paperwork requirements of the Act by 
allowing documents to be stored and transmitted in electronic 
format; and, recognizes industry's growing utilization of 
improved quality assurance and management systems by allowing 
fasteners manufactured in accordance with certain quality 
assurance systems to be deemed in compliance with the 
requirements of the Act. The automotive, aerospace and heavy 
equipment manufacturers project the legislation will save over 
$1 billion annually in unnecessary federal regulations.
Legislative history
    On March 25, 1998, the Full Committee marked up H.R. 1183, 
which was introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner. The legislation 
was adopted, as amended, by a voice vote, and ordered reported 
by a voice vote.

 1.2--P.L. 106-65, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
 2000 (S. 1059) (SECTIONS 3141-3148, 3150, 3156, 3164, 3174, AND TITLE 
                  XXXII OF S. 1059, PUBLIC LAW 106-65)

Background and summary of legislation

    On July 1, 1999, the Speaker appointed Science Committee 
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Ranking Minority Member 
Jerry F. Costello (IL-12) as additional conferees to S. 1059, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 
for consideration of Sections 1049, 3151-53, and 3155-65 of the 
Senate bill, and Sections 3167, 3170, 3184, 3188-90, and 3191 
of the House amendment and modifications committed to 
conference. These conference committee deliberations, contained 
in H. Rept. 106-301 (Conference Report to accompany S. 1059), 
resulted in the enactment of Sections 1062, 3141-3148, 3150, 
3156, 3164, 3174, and Title XXXII of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), 
which was signed into law by the President on October 5, 1999. 
Descriptions of these provisions follow.

            Section 1062--Assessment of electromagnetic spectrum 
                    reallocation

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 1049) that 
would require that any system licensed to operate on portions 
of the frequency spectrum currently used by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) be designed in such a way as to ensure that it 
neither interferes with, nor receives interference from, the 
military systems of the DOD that are operating in those bands. 
The provision would further require that any costs associated 
with the redesign of military systems for the purpose of moving 
them from a frequency for use by another system, public or 
private, be paid by the entity whose system or systems are 
displacing the military system.
    The House amendment contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that authorizes the 
surrender of frequencies where DOD currently has the primary 
assignment, only if the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Commerce, 
jointly certify to Congress that the surrender of such portions 
of the spectrum will not degrade essential military capability. 
Alternative frequencies, with the necessary comparable 
technical characteristics, would have to be identified and made 
available to the DOD, if necessary, to restore the essential 
military capability that will be lost as a result of the 
surrender of the original spectrum. Essential military 
capability is that capability provided by the use or planned 
use of that portion of the spectrum, as of the date of the 
proposed allocation. In addition, the provision would require 
that 8 MHz that were identified for auction in the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 be reassigned to the Federal Government for 
primary use by the DOD. The conferees urge the Secretary of 
Defense to share such frequencies with state and local 
government public safety radio services, to the extent that 
such sharing will not result in harmful interference between 
the DOD systems and the public safety systems proposed for 
operation on those frequencies. This provision does not 
otherwise change the requirement for the Federal Communications 
Commission to auction the remaining frequencies that were 
identified for reallocation pursuant to the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 or the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
    The provision further provides for an interagency review, 
assessment and report to Congress and the President on the 
progress made in implementation of national spectrum planning, 
the reallocation of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal 
use, and the implications of such reallocations to the affected 
Federal agencies, which would include the effects of the 
reallocation on critical military and intelligence 
capabilities, civil space programs, and other Federal 
Government systems used to protect public safety.

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

       Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Safeguards, Security, and 
                          Counterintelligence

Section 3141--Short title

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3151) that 
would cite the title of subtitle D as ``Safeguards, Security, 
and Counterintelligence at Department of Energy Facilities.'' 
The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3181) that 
would cite the title of subtitle F as ``The National Security 
Information Protection Improvement Act.''
    The House receded.

Section 3142--Commission on Safeguards, Security, and 
        Counterintelligence at Department of Energy facilities

    The Senate bill included a provision (Section 3152) that 
would repeal Sections 3161 and 3162(b) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), to 
eliminate the requirement for the Department of Energy (DOE) 
Security Management Board. The provision creates a permanent, 
independent Commission on Safeguards, Security, and 
Counterintelligence at DOE Facilities to assess the adequacy of 
safeguards, security, and counterintelligence at such 
facilities. The provision requires the Commission to assess 
specifically the adequacy of: (1) safeguards, security, and 
counterintelligence programs, plans, and budgets of each DOE 
headquarters program element and each DOE field office; (2) 
capabilities and skills within DOE Headquarters and field 
organizations; and (3) all relevant DOE guidance, including DOE 
Orders, Presidential Decision Directives, and the Design Threat 
Basis document. The provision requires the Commission to make 
recommendations regarding any changes in security or 
counterintelligence policies and procedures necessary to 
balance risk and capability in order to deter or react to 
credible threats.
    The provision requires the Commission to be composed of 
nine members serving four-year, staggered terms. The provision 
further requires that appointments be made not later than 60 
days after enactment of the provision, as follows: two by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, in 
consultation with the ranking member of that Committee; one by 
the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate, in consultation with the Chairman of that Committee; 
two by the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the 
House of Representatives, in consultation with the ranking 
member of that Committee; one by the ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, in 
consultation with the Chairman of that Committee; one by the 
Secretary of Defense; one by the DCI; and one by the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The provision 
also requires that: (1) the chairman of the Commission be 
designated from among the members of the Commission by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives; (2) the Commission 
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
February 15 of each year, an annual activities, findings, and 
recommendations report; and (3) the report include any 
recommendations for legislative and administrative action.
    The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the 
House receded.
    The conferees recommended that of the funds authorized to 
be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2000 by Sections 3101 and 3103, 
not more than $1.0 million be available to the Commission.

Section 3143--Background investigations of certain personnel at 
        Department of Energy facilities

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3153) that 
would require the conduct of a full background investigation, 
meeting the requirements of Section 145 of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954 of any DOE employee or any DOE contractor employee 
whose duties or assignments are required to be carried out in 
physical proximity to locations where Restricted Data or 
Formerly Restricted Data may be located or who has regular 
access to locations where Restricted Data is located. The 
provision would require the Secretary to meet requirements of 
this provision one year from the date of enactment of this 
provision. The House amendment contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that limits such 
requirements to DOE and DOE contractor employees who work at a 
nuclear weapons laboratory or a nuclear weapons production 
facility.
    The conferees understood that this requirement will result 
in increased costs to the DOE. In order to address this need, 
the conferees recommended an increase to the budget request for 
security investigations, as discussed elsewhere in this Act.

Section 3144--Conduct of security clearances

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3163) that 
would require that any background investigation on an 
individual seeking a security clearance for access to 
Restricted Data be conducted by the FBI. The provision would 
require the Director of the FBI to comply with this requirement 
within one year. The provision would further require the 
Director to submit to the congressional defense committees, the 
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
Representatives a report on the implementation of this 
provision, not later than six months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the 
House receded with an amendment that limits the requirement to 
those DOE employees and DOE contractor employees who work in a 
program designated by the Secretary of Energy as special access 
or personnel assurance and accountability programs. The 
provision requires the Director, within 18 months of the date 
of enactment of this Act, to comply with this requirement. The 
provision also modifies the report requirement by requiring an 
assessment of the capability of the FBI to carry out this 
provision, an estimate of the additional resources that would 
be required, and the extent that contractor personnel would be 
utilized.

Section 3145--Protection of classified information during laboratory-
        to-laboratory exchanges

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3164) that 
would require the Secretary of Energy to ensure that all DOE 
employees and DOE contractor employees who participate in 
laboratory-to-laboratory cooperative activities are fully 
trained in matters related to the protection of classified 
information and potential espionage and counterintelligence 
threats. The provision would further authorize the Secretary to 
create a pool of counterintelligence experts to be available to 
accompany DOE-sponsored delegations overseas with the purpose 
of identifying and mitigating potential espionage threats.
    The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the 
House receded.

Section 3146--Restrictions on access to national laboratories by 
        foreign visitors from sensitive countries

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3156) that 
would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any funds 
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to 
the DOE by Section 3101 or 3103 of the Senate bill for 
conducting a cooperative program (including studies and 
planning) with the People's Republic of China, Nations of the 
Former Soviet Union, or any nation designated as a sensitive 
nation by the Secretary of State beginning on the date that is 
45 days after the date of enactment of this provision and 
continuing until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary 
of Energy, the DCI, and the Director of the FBI individually 
submit a certification that such programs: (1) are compliant 
with DOE orders, regulations, and policies relating to 
counterintelligence, safeguards and security, and personnel 
assurance program matters; (2) are compliant with Presidential 
Decision Directives and other regulations relating to 
counterintelligence and safeguards and security matters; (3) 
include adequate protections against inadvertent release of 
Restricted Data, National Security Information, or any other 
information that might harm the interests of the United States; 
and (4) do not represent an undue risk to the national security 
interests of the United States. The provision would require 
that the certification be provided to the congressional defense 
committees, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, 
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
of Representatives. The prohibition would not apply to ongoing 
activities carried out under title III of this Act relating to 
cooperative threat reduction with states of the former Soviet 
Union or to programs carried out pursuant to a provision noted 
elsewhere in this Act for the materials protection control and 
accounting program of the DOE, but would apply to the Nuclear 
Cities Initiative and Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.
    The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section 
3190) that would require the Secretary of Energy to complete a 
background review on any individual who is a citizen or agent 
of a nation designated by the Secretary as sensitive before 
such an individual would be permitted access to a DOE national 
laboratory. The provision would prohibit any individual who is 
a citizen or agent of a nation designated as sensitive by the 
Secretary from entering a DOE national laboratory, beginning 30 
days after the date of enactment of this Section and continuing 
until 45 days after the date that the DOE Director of 
Counterintelligence, with the concurrence of the Director of 
the FBI, certifies that all appropriate measures are in place 
to prevent espionage or intelligence gathering activities by a 
sensitive nation. The provision would authorize the Secretary 
to waive the prohibition on any individual if the Secretary 
determines it is in the national security interests of the 
United States. The prohibition would not apply to any 
individual who is an employee or assignee as of the date of 
enactment of this provision, who has undergone a background 
review as required by this provision, or who is the 
representative of a nation that has entered into an agreement 
with the United States and the admittance of that nation to the 
DOE laboratory is deemed by the Secretary to be in the 
interests of the United States.
    The Senate receded with an amendment that requires the 
Secretary to complete a background review on any individual who 
is a citizen or agent of a nation designated by the Secretary 
as sensitive before such an individual would be permitted 
access to a facility of a DOE national laboratory other than 
areas where access is provided to the general public. The 
amendment prohibits any individual who is a citizen or agent of 
a nation designated as sensitive by the Secretary from entering 
a DOE national laboratory other than areas accessible to the 
general public, beginning 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Section and continuing until 45 days after the date 
that the DOE Director of Counterintelligence, the Director of 
the FBI, and the DCI individually submits a certification that 
the foreign visitors program at the national laboratories: (1) 
includes all appropriate measures to prevent espionage or 
intelligence gathering activities by a sensitive nation; (2) 
are compliant with DOE orders, regulations, and policies 
relating to counterintelligence, safeguards and security, and 
personnel assurance program matters; (3) are compliant with 
Presidential Decision Directives and other regulations relating 
to counterintelligence and safeguards and security matters; (4) 
include adequate protections against inadvertent release of 
Restricted Data, National Security Information, or any other 
information that might harm the interests of the United States; 
and (5) do not represent an undue risk to the national security 
interests of the United States. The provision also authorizes 
the Secretary to waive the prohibition on any individual or 
delegation if the Secretary determines it is in the national 
security interests of the United States to grant the waiver. 
The prohibition does not apply to any individual who is an 
employee or assignee of the DOE or a DOE contractor as of the 
date of enactment of this provision and who has undergone a 
background review as required by this provision. In addition, 
the provision exempts from the moratorium activities relating 
to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program or Materials 
Protection Control and Accounting Program.

Section 3147--Department of Energy regulations relating to the 
        safeguarding and security of restricted data

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3155) that 
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a) by 
inserting a new Section that would authorize the assessment of 
civil penalties of not more than $100,000 per incidence for any 
person who violates an applicable DOE rule, regulation, or 
order related to safeguarding or securing Restricted Data. The 
provision would further authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
assess monetary penalties against DOE contractors for any 
violation of a law, regulation, or DOE Order relating to the 
protection of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data.
    The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section 
3167) that would authorize identical penalties, but would 
eliminate an exemption in current law which would otherwise 
have prohibited assessing such penalties against certain non-
profit contractors conducting work on behalf of the DOE.
    The Senate receded with an amendment that limits the amount 
of any penalties that could be levied against the non-profit 
contractors to not more than the total fee earned by such 
contractors in a given fiscal year. The amendment would not 
allow the assessment of any penalties against such non-profit 
contractors until they entered into a new contractual agreement 
with the DOE.
    The conferees were concerned that lax management by both 
the DOE and its management and operating contractors has led to 
increased risks to U.S. national security. The conferees did 
not view this action as a precedent for any future actions or 
discussion that may occur in the coming deliberations on 
extension of the Price-Anderson Act. The conferees believed 
that protection of classified information and materials is 
wholly within the control of such contractors and that all DOE 
contractors, including non-profit entities, should be 
accountable in this area.

Section 3148--Increased penalties for misuse of restricted data

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3157) that 
would modify the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2274) by 
doubling the penalties for release or misuse of Restricted 
Data.
    The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section 
3189) that would increase by twenty times the penalties for 
release of Restricted Data.
    The Senate receded with an amendment that would increase by 
five times the penalties for release of Restricted Data.

Section 3150--Notice to congressional committees of certain security 
        and counterintelligence failures within nuclear energy defense 
        programs

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3162) that 
would require the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with 
the DCI and the Director of the FBI, to notify the 
congressional defense committees of each serious security or 
counterintelligence failure at a DOE facility that the 
Secretary considers likely to cause significant harm or damage 
to the national security interests of the United States. The 
provision would require the Secretary to submit such notice not 
later than 30 days after learning of the failure. The provision 
would also require the Senate and the House of Representatives 
to establish procedures to protect any classified or law 
enforcement information included in such notice.
    The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section 
3166) that would require the Secretary of Energy to notify the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives whenever the Secretary has any knowledge that 
classified information relating to military applications of 
nuclear energy has been disclosed in an unauthorized manner to 
a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
    The House receded with an amendment that requires the 
Secretary, after consultation with the Director of CIA and the 
Director of the FBI, to notify the Armed Services Committees of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives of each security or 
counterintelligence failure or compromise of classified 
information at a DOE facility or a facility operated by a DOE 
contractor that the Secretary considers likely to cause 
significant harm or damage to the national security interests 
of the United States. The provision requires the Secretary to 
submit such notice not later than 30 days after learning of the 
failure. The provision also requires the Senate and the House 
of Representatives to establish procedures to protect any 
classified or law enforcement information included in such 
notice.
    The conferees noted that the Armed Services Committees of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives are the committees 
of Congress with primary oversight of atomic energy defense 
activities of the DOE. As such, the conferees believed it is 
necessary that the two committees be kept fully informed of any 
counterintelligence or security failure or a serious compromise 
of classified information to a foreign power, either through 
espionage or through willful or accidental release by a U.S. 
citizen. This information is essential in order that the 
committees can effectively carry out appropriate oversight 
activities and determine if such a disclosure of classified 
information caused significant damage to U.S. national security 
interests. The conferees further noted that nothing in this 
provision shall be construed to modify or supercede any other 
requirement to report on intelligence-related issues to the 
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House or 
Representatives.

Section 3156--Definition of restricted data

    The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3165) that 
would define Restricted Data for the purposes of subtitle D of 
the Senate bill. The House amendment contained no similar 
provision, and the House receded.

               Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Personnel

Section 3164--Whistleblower Protection Program

    The Senate bill included a provision (Section 3160) that 
would require the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
whistleblower protection program to ensure that no DOE employee 
or DOE contractor employee may be discharged, demoted, or 
otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing 
information relating to the protection of classified 
information which the employee reasonably believes to provide 
direct and specific evidence of a violation of any Federal law, 
gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, abuse of 
authority, or a false statement to Congress on a material fact. 
The provision would protect such disclosures of information 
only if they are made to a Federal entity designated by the 
Secretary of Energy to receive such information, the FBI, the 
Inspector General of the DOE, or a member of a committee of 
Congress having primary responsibility for oversight of the 
department, agency, element of the Federal Government to which 
the information relates, an employee of a committee of Congress 
having primary responsibility for oversight of the department, 
agency, or element of the Federal Government to which the 
information relates and who holds an appropriate security 
clearance for access to the information.
    The House amendment contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that requires the 
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Inspector General, to 
provide assistance and guidance to each protected individual 
who seeks to make a protected disclosure under this Section to 
include: (1) identifying the persons or entities to which a 
disclosure may be made; (2) advising individuals on the steps 
to be taken to protect the security of the information to be 
disclosed; (3) taking appropriate actions to protect the 
identity of that individual throughout that disclosure; and (4) 
taking appropriate actions to coordinate that disclosure with 
any other Federal agency or agencies in which the information 
originated. The provision also requires the Secretary to notify 
individuals of their rights under this Section.
    The provision further requires the DOE Office of Hearings 
and Appeals to review any complaint submitted by a DOE employee 
or DOE contractor employee who alleges that the employee has 
been discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as 
a reprisal for disclosing information relating to the 
protection of classified information which the employee 
reasonably believes to provide direct and specific evidence of 
a violation of any Federal law, gross mismanagement, a gross 
waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a false statement to 
Congress on a material fact. The provision requires that the 
information must have been disclosed pursuant to procedures 
established by the DOE Inspector General to protect the 
security of the information to be disclosed. The Office of 
Hearings and Appeals would be required to investigate all such 
complaints that are determined to be not frivolous. The 
provision also requires the Office of Hearings and Appeals to 
provide an annual report on all such investigations and a 
summary of the results of such investigations to the 
congressional defense committees. In addition, the provision 
requires the Secretary to take remedial action when 
appropriate, and it requires the Secretary to submit a report 
to the congressional defense committees describing how the 
program would be implemented.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters

Section 3174--Sense of Congress regarding technology transfer 
        coordination for Department of Energy national laboratories

    The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3170) 
that would require the Secretary of Energy to ensure for the 
Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that: (1) technology 
transfer policies in patenting, licensing, and 
commercialization are consistent with other DOE sites; (2) the 
contractor operating the laboratory make available to aggrieved 
private-sector entities expedited alternative dispute 
resolution procedures, including binding and non-binding 
procedures, to resolve commercialization, license, or patent 
disputes where the contractor is alleged to be at fault; (3) 
the alternative dispute resolution procedure to be utilized in 
any disputes be chosen jointly by the Secretary, the site 
contractor, and the aggrieved party; (4) the contractor submit 
an annual report to the Secretary regarding technology transfer 
successes, current technology transfer disputes involving the 
laboratory, and progress toward resolving such disputes; and 
(5) training of laboratory personnel responsible for patenting, 
licensing, and commercialization activities is adequate to 
ensure such employees are knowledgeable of appropriate legal, 
procedural, and ethical standards.
    The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
    The Senate receded with an amendment that expresses a sense 
of Congress that technology transfer policies in patenting, 
licensing, and commercialization at DOE national laboratories 
should be consistent and that training of laboratory personnel 
responsible for patenting, licensing, and commercialization 
activities be adequate to ensure such employees are 
knowledgeable of appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical 
standards.

         TITLE XXXII--NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3165) 
that would require the Secretary of Energy to assign to the 
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs direct 
authority over, and responsibility for, the nuclear weapons 
production facilities and national laboratories with respect to 
strategic management, policy development and guidance, budget 
guidance and formulation, resource requirements determinations 
and allocations, administration of contracts, environmental 
safety and health operations, integrated safety and management, 
safeguard and security operations, and relations with 
government agencies. The provision would also establish that 
certain nuclear weapons production facilities, national 
laboratories, and operations offices report directly to the 
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. The provision would 
further allow the Assistant Secretary to delegate to such 
operations offices a number of support functions, including 
operational activities, program execution, personnel, 
contracting and procurement, facility operations oversight, and 
integration of production and research activities.
    The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
    The Senate receded with an amendment that would 
substantially reorganize the national security programs of the 
DOE.
    The conferees noted that the Select Committee on U.S. 
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the 
People's Republic of China (known as the Cox Committee) 
concluded that Chinese espionage efforts had successfully 
gathered sensitive information related to U.S. nuclear weapons 
designs. The conferees further noted that the President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), chaired by former 
Senator Warren Rudman, after reviewing the security failures at 
DOE, concluded that the root causes of the counterintelligence 
failures pertained to poor organization and a failure of 
accountability. The PFIAB noted that many previous efforts to 
improve organization and accountability at DOE had failed, and 
concluded that ``. . . the Department of Energy is a 
dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of 
reforming itself.''
    To correct these systemic problems, the conferees agreed to 
establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 
a semi-autonomous agency within the DOE that would be 
responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear 
propulsion, defense nuclear nonproliferation, and fissile 
material disposition; establish security, counterintelligence, 
and intelligence offices; and prescribe personnel, budgeting, 
and other management practices for the NNSA.

Section 3201--Short title

    Section 3201 provides that this title may be cited as the 
``National Nuclear Security Administration Act''.

Section 3202--Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of Department of 
        Energy

    Section 3202 amends the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
7132) to establish in the DOE an Under Secretary for Nuclear 
Security appointed by the President with the advice and consent 
of the Senate. The Under Secretary--who is to have an extensive 
background in national security, organizational management, and 
appropriate technical fields; and be well qualified to manage 
the nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and materials 
disposition programs of the NNSA in a manner that advances and 
protects the U.S. national security--serves as the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security under the NNSA Act. As 
Administrator, the Under Secretary is subject to the authority, 
direction, and control of the Secretary of Energy. Such 
authority, direction, and control can only be delegated to the 
Deputy Secretary of Energy.

Section 3203--Establishment of policy for National Nuclear Security 
        Administration

    Section 3203 provides that the Secretary of Energy, acting 
through the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security, shall be 
responsible for establishing policy for the NNSA. The Secretary 
may direct DOE officials who are not within the NNSA to review 
programs and activities of the Administration and to make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding administration of 
those programs.

Section 3204--Organization of Department of Energy counter-intelligence 
        and intelligence programs and activities

    Section 3204 amends the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
7101) to specify that the Secretary of Energy shall be 
responsible for developing, and promulgating the security, 
counterintelligence, and intelligence policies of the DOE. This 
provision also establishes the DOE Offices of 
Counterintelligence and Intelligence.
    The Director of the DOE Office of Counterintelligence is to 
be a member of the Senior Executive Service and is responsible 
for establishing policy for counterintelligence programs and 
activities at DOE facilities in order to reduce the threat of 
disclosure of classified and other sensitive information at the 
facilities. The provision also requires the Director of the 
Office of Counterintelligence to report on the status and the 
effectiveness of the counterintelligence programs at facilities 
of the DOE during the preceding year. In addition, the Director 
of each DOE National Laboratory must certify in writing to the 
Director of the Office of Counterintelligence whether that 
Laboratory is in full compliance with all DOE security 
requirements and, if not, what measures are being taken to 
bring that Laboratory into compliance and a schedule for 
implementing those measures.
    The Director of the DOE Office of Intelligence is to be a 
member of the Senior Executive Service and is responsible for 
the programs and activities of the DOE relating to the analysis 
of intelligence with respect to nuclear weapons and materials 
and energy security.

               Subtitle A--Establishment and Organization


Section 3211--Establishment and mission

    Section 3211 establishes within the DOE a separately 
organized agency known as the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA). The NNSA's mission is to: (1) Enhance 
U.S. national security through the military application of 
nuclear energy; (2) maintain and enhance the safety, 
reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test, 
in order to meet national security requirements; (3) provide 
the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear 
propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation 
of those plants; (4) promote international nuclear safety and 
nonproliferation; (5) reduce global danger from weapons of mass 
destruction; and (6) support U.S. leadership in science and 
technology.
    This provision also requires that the Administrator ensure 
that all operations and activities of the Administration are 
consistent with the principles of environmental protection and 
the safety and health of the public and the Administration's 
workforce.

Section 3212--Administrator for Nuclear Security

    Section 3212 establishes the Under Secretary for Nuclear 
Security as the Administrator for the NNSA. The Administrator 
has authority over and is responsible for all programs and 
activities of the Administration, except for the functions of 
the Office of Naval Reactors as specified in Executive Order 
12344, including the following: (1) Strategic management; (2) 
policy development and guidance; (3) budget formulation, 
guidance, and execution, and other financial matters; (4) 
resource requirements determination and allocation; (5) program 
management and direction; (6) safeguards and security; (7) 
emergency management; (8) integrated safety management; (9) 
environment, safety, and health operations; (10) administration 
of contracts, including the management and operations of the 
nuclear weapons production facilities and the national security 
laboratories; (11) intelligence; (12) counterintelligence; (13) 
personnel, including the selection, appointment, distribution, 
supervision, establishing of compensation, and separation of 
personnel in accordance with subtitle C of this title; (14) 
procurement of services of experts and consultants in 
accordance with Section 3109 of title 5, U.S. Code; (15) legal 
matters; (16) legislative affairs; (17) public affairs; and 
(18) liaison with other elements of the DOE and with other 
Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, and the 
public. The Administrator may establish Administration-specific 
policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary.

Section 3213--Status of administration and contractor personnel within 
        the Department of Energy

    Section 3213 makes each officer or employee of the 
Administration, in carrying out the functions of the 
Administration, subject to the authority, direction, and 
control of the Administrator, the Secretary of Energy acting 
through the Administrator, or the Administrator's designee 
within the Administration. Officers or employees of the 
Administration are not responsible to, or subject to the 
authority, direction, or control of any other officer, agent, 
or employee of the DOE. The provision also stipulates that each 
officer or employee of a contractor of the Administration is 
not responsible to, or subject to the authority, direction, or 
control of any other officer, agent, or employee of the DOE who 
is not an employee of the Administration, with the exception of 
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Energy.

Section 3214--Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs

    Section 3214 establishes the position of Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs within the NNSA, subject to 
appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The provision makes the Deputy Administrator 
responsible for maintaining and enhancing the safety, 
reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile. The head of each national security laboratory and 
nuclear weapons production facility must report to the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs, consistent with applicable 
contractual obligations.

Section 3215--Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    Section 3215 establishes the position of Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation within the 
NNSA subject to appointment by the President with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. The provision makes the Deputy 
Administrator responsible for preventing the spread of 
materials, technology, and expertise relating to weapons of 
mass destruction; and for eliminating inventories of surplus 
fissile material.

Section 3216--Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors

    Section 3216 establishes the position of Deputy 
Administrator for Naval Reactors. The director of the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program, provided for under the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Executive Order, shall serve as the Deputy 
Administrator for Naval Reactors. The provision assigns to the 
Deputy Administrator the responsibilities, authorities, and 
accountability for all functions of the Office of Naval 
Reactors.

Section 3217--General Counsel

    Section 3217 establishes a General Counsel for the 
Administration.

Section 3218--Staff of Administration

    Section 3218 requires the Administrator to maintain within 
the Administration sufficient staff to assist him or her in 
carrying out the duties of that position. The Administrator is 
to assign to the staff responsibility for the functions of 
personnel, legislative affairs, public affairs, and liaison 
with other elements of the DOE, other Federal agencies, and the 
public.

                Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Security


Section 3231--Protection of national security information

    Section 3231 requires the Administrator, subject to the 
approval of the Secretary of Energy, to establish policies and 
procedures to ensure maximum protection to classified 
information in the possession of the Administration. The 
Administrator must establish procedures requiring personnel of 
the Administration to report to the Administrator on 
significant violations of law or executive order relating to 
the management of classified information.

Section 3232--Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and an 
        Office of Defense Nuclear Security

    Section 3232 establishes an Office of Defense Nuclear 
Counterintelligence and an Office of Defense Nuclear Security 
within the NNSA. The Offices is to be headed by a Chief of 
Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and a Chief of Defense 
Nuclear Security.
    The Chief of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence is to 
report to the Administrator and is to implement 
counterintelligence policies directed by the Secretary and the 
Administrator. This Chief is to develop programs for the 
Administration to prevent the disclosure of classified or 
sensitive information, and is to develop and administer 
personnel assurance programs within the Administration.
    The Chief of Defense Nuclear Security reports to the 
Administrator and implements security policies directed by the 
Secretary and the Administrator. This Chief is responsible for 
the development and implementation of security programs for the 
Administration including the protection, control, and 
accounting of nuclear materials and the physical security and 
cybersecurity for all facilities of the Administration.

Section 3233--Counterintelligence programs

    Section 3233 requires the Administrator to establish and 
maintain a counterintelligence program at each laboratory or 
production facility. The Administrator is required to assign an 
employee of the Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence 
to each facility at which Restricted Data is located, other 
than a laboratory or a production facility. This employee is to 
assess counterintelligence and security matters at the 
facility.

Section 3234--Procedures relating to access by individuals to 
        classified areas and information of Administration

    Section 3234 requires the Administrator to establish 
procedures to ensure that individuals are not permitted 
unescorted access to any classified area, or access to 
classified information, of the Administration until security 
clearances are verified.

Section 3235--Government access to information of Administration 
        computers

    Section 3235 requires the Administrator to establish 
procedures to govern access to all information on 
Administration computers. These procedures provide that any 
individual who has access to information on an Administration 
computer be required, as a condition of such access, to provide 
to the Administrator written consent permitting access by an 
authorized investigative agency to any Administration computer. 
In addition, the provision stipulates that, notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, no user of an Administration computer 
shall have any expectation of privacy in the use of that 
computer.

Section 3236--Congressional oversight of special access programs

    Section 3236 requires the Administrator to submit an annual 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 
Administration's special access programs. Each annual report 
shall contain budgetary information for special access programs 
and a brief discussion of each program. This provision also 
required an annual report on the new special access programs 
with a justification for designating the program as special 
access, and an identification of existing programs or 
technologies that are similar to the subject of the new special 
access program. A new special access program is not allowed to 
begin until 30 days after House and Senate Committees on Armed 
Services have been notified that a new special access program 
is about to be initiated. The provision also requires a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 14 days before 
any special access program is declassified.

               Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Personnel


Section 3241--Authority to establish certain scientific, engineering, 
        and technical positions

    Section 3241 provides the NNSA Administrator authority to 
establish up to 300 scientific, engineering, and technical 
positions, hire qualified personnel to fill those positions, 
and set appropriate compensation levels.

Section 3242--Voluntary early retirement authority

    Section 3242 provides the Secretary of Energy temporary 
authority to offer voluntary early retirement to not more than 
600 DOE employees affected by the establishment of the NNSA.

Section 3243--Severance pay

    Section 3243 provides the Secretary of Energy authority to 
pay severance pay in one lump sum to those DOE employees 
entitled to severance pay as a result of the establishment of 
the NNSA.

Section 3244--Combined coverage of health care benefits

    Section 3244 provides the Secretary of Energy authority to 
continue to pay the government's share of health insurance 
premiums to those DOE employees who are involuntarily separated 
as a result of the establishment of the NNSA.

              Subtitle D--Budget and Financial Management


Section 3251--Separate treatment on budget

    Section 3251 requires the President to submit the NNSA 
budget separately within the amounts requested for the DOE. The 
Section also requires that the budget justification materials 
submitted to Congress in support of the budget be specified in 
individual program elements.

Section 3252--Planning, programming, and budgeting

    Section 3252 requires the Administrator to establish a 
sound planning, programming, and budgeting process for the 
activities of the Administration using funds that are available 
for obligation for a limited number of years.

Section 3253--Future-years nuclear security program

    Section 3253 requires the Administrator to submit a future-
year nuclear security program containing the estimated 
expenditures necessary to support the programs, projects, and 
activities of the Administration for a five-year period and the 
anticipated workload requirements for each Administration site 
during the period of the plan. It also requires that the 
Administrator submit materials detailing how the funds 
identified for each program element in the weapons activities 
budget will help ensure the reliability and safety of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile.

                  Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions


Section 3261--Environmental protection, safety, and health requirements

    Section 3261 requires the Administrator to ensure that 
Administration operations comply with applicable environmental, 
safety and health statutes and to develop procedures for 
meeting such requirements. The provision also provides that the 
Secretary of Energy continues to have overall authority and 
oversight responsibility to ensure that such compliance occurs.

Section 3262--Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

    Section 3262 requires the Administrator to establish 
procedures that ensure that Administration activities are 
operated in full compliance with the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation.

Section 3263--Sharing of technology with Department of Defense

    Section 3263 requires the Administrator, in cooperation 
with the Secretary of Defense, to establish procedures that 
allow for the sharing of technology and expertise between the 
Administration and the Department of Defense.

Section 3264--Use of capabilities of National Security Laboratories by 
        entities outside Administration

    Section 3264 requires the Administrator to establish 
procedures that, consistent with the national security mission 
of the Administration, make the capabilities of the national 
security laboratories available to elements of the DOE that are 
not part of the Administration, other Federal agencies and 
other entities.

                        Subtitle F--Definitions


Section 3281--Definitions

    Section 3281 defines the terms: (1) ``national security 
laboratory'' to mean (A) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 
Alamos, New Mexico; (B) Sandia National Laboratories, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Livermore, California; and (C) 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California; 
(2) ``nuclear weapons production facility'' to mean (A) the 
Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri; (B) the Pantex Plant, 
Amarillo, Texas; (C) the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; (D) 
The tritium operations facilities at the Savannah River Site, 
Aiken, South Carolina; (E) the Nevada Test Site, Nevada; and 
(F) any DOE facility that the Secretary of Energy, in 
consultation with the Administrator and the Congress, 
determines to be consistent with the Administration's mission; 
(3) ``classified information'' to mean any information that has 
been determined pursuant to Executive Order No. 12333 of 
December 4, 1981 (50 U.S.C. 401 note), Executive Order No. 
12958 of April 17, 1995 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or successor 
orders, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure 
and that is so designated; (4) ``Restricted Data'' to have the 
meaning given such term in Section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)); and (5) ``congressional 
defense committees'' to mean--(A) the Committee on Armed 
Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and 
(B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

Subtitle G--Amendatory Provisions, Transition Provisions, and Effective 
                                 Dates


Section 3291--Functions transferred

    Section 3291 transfers to the Administrator all national 
security functions and activities performed immediately before 
the date of the enactment of this Act by the following elements 
of the DOE: (1) the Office of Defense Programs; (2) The Office 
of Nonproliferation and National Security; (3) The Office of 
Fissile Materials Disposition; (4) the nuclear weapons 
production facilities; (5) the national security laboratories; 
and (6) the Office of Naval Reactors. The Secretary of Energy 
may transfer to the Administrator any other facility, mission, 
or function that the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator and Congress, determines to be consistent with 
the mission of the Administration. And the Secretary of Energy 
is permitted to transfer environmental and waste management 
activities to other elements of the Department.

Section 3292--Transfer of funds and employees

    Section 3292 requires the Secretary of Energy to transfer 
to the Administration the balance of funding associated with 
the functions transferred to the Administration, as well as the 
employees necessary to carry out those functions.

Section 3293--Pay levels

    Section 3293 establishes the compensation for the Under 
Secretary for Nuclear Security at executive level III and 
establishes the compensation for Deputy Administrators of the 
Administration at executive level IV.

Section 3294--Conforming amendments

    Section 3294 makes conforming changes to the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, the DOE Organization Act, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-60), and 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(Public Law 104-201).

Section 3295--Transition provisions

    Section 3295 sets dates by which the Administration has to 
come into compliance with the provisions of title 32 of this 
Act. The Administrator is required: (1) to comply with the 
financial and fiscal management principles specified in Section 
3252 by October 1, 2000, and to report to the Armed Services 
Committees of the House and the Senate by January 1, 2000 on a 
plan to achieve that compliance; (2) to submit the first future 
year nuclear security program required in Section 3253 with the 
FY 2001 budget; and (3) to comply with the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation specified in Section 3263 by October 1, 2000 and 
report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by 
January 1, 2000 on a plan to achieve that compliance.

Section 3296--Applicability of preexisting laws and regulations

    Section 3296 establishes that all provisions of law and 
regulations in effect immediately before the effective date of 
title 32 of this Act remain in force unless otherwise 
specified.

Section 3297--Report containing implementation plan of Secretary of 
        Energy

    Section 3297 requires the Secretary to submit to the House 
and Senate Armed Services Committees a report containing the 
Secretary's plan for the implementation of the provisions of 
this title.

Section 3298--Classification in United States Code

    Section 3298 establishes a new chapter of title 50 for the 
provisions of title 32 of this Act.

Section 3299--Effective dates

    Section 3299 establishes March 1, 2000 as the effective 
date of the provisions of title 32, except for Sections 3202, 
3204, 3251, 3295, and 3297, which become effective upon the 
date of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, implementation of 
this title is to begin immediately upon enactment so as to 
ensure that the period between enactment of this Act and the 
effective date of this title shall serve as a transition period 
to achieve full compliance of the requirements of this title no 
later than March 1, 2000.

  1.3--P.L. 106-82, To provide for the conveyance of certain property 
   from the United States to Stanislaus County, California (H.R. 356)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 356, To provide for the conveyance of certain property 
from the United States to Stanislaus County, California, was 
introduced to transfer excess federal property at the NASA Ames 
Research Center (CA) to the county government of Stanislaus 
County. The bill transferred approximately 1528 acres of the 
Crows Landing facility to the county for county purposes, while 
maintaining federal responsibility for addressing any 
environmental cleanup necessitated by prior federal activities. 
NASA further retains the right to use the property for aviation 
purposes.

Legislative history

    The bill was introduced on January 19, 1999 by 
Representative Gary Condit, whose district includes the 
aforementioned property. It was referred to the Committee on 
Science's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics the same day. 
The Subcommittee recommended adoption after a legislative 
markup on July 29, 1999. The Committee on Science further 
recommended adoption by the House of Representatives following 
a legislative markup on September 9, 1999. The House passed the 
bill under suspension of the rules on October 4, 1999. The 
Senate adopted the measure by unanimous consent on October 13, 
1999 and the President signed the bill into law on October 27, 
1999.

    1.4--P.L. 106-178, Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (H.R. 1883)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Iran Nonproliferation Act was introduced to improve 
intelligence reporting on Iran's proliferation activities 
between the Executive and Legislative branches and to reduce 
the ability of Iran to acquire weapons of mass destruction and 
ballistic missiles.
    Given open testimony from the intelligence community that 
Iran's efforts to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of 
mass destruction are being assisted by elements of the Russian 
aerospace industry, Section 6 of the bill prohibits NASA from 
purchasing any goods and services from the Russian Aviation and 
Space Agency until the President certifies that: It is the 
policy of the Russian government to prevent illicit technology 
transfer to Iran; that the Russian government is taking active 
measures to prevent such transfers; and that the Russian 
Aviation and Space Agency and all entities under its 
jurisdiction have not, in the prior year, engaged in any 
illicit transfers of technology to Iran.
    Exceptions are made for emergency situations in which the 
lives of ISS crewmembers are in imminent danger and for the 
Service Module.

Legislative history

    The bill was principally drafted in the Committee on 
International Relations with support from the Committee on 
Science. International Relations Committee Chairman Gilman 
introduced H.R. 1883 on May 20, 1999 with Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Berman as original co-
sponsors. Eventually, the bill had 229 co-sponsors from both 
sides of the aisle.
    H.R. 1883 was referred jointly to the Committees on 
International Relations and the Science Committee on May 20, 
2000. The Committee on International Relations held a markup 
session and ordered the bill reported, amended, by the Yeas and 
Nays: 33-0 on September 9, 1999. The Committee on Science 
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
on June 4, 1999. The subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held 
a markup session and forwarded the bill to the Science 
Committee, amended, by the Yeas and Nays: 19-3 on July 29, 
2000. The Science Committee then held a markup session and 
ordered the bill reported, as amended, to the House on 
September 9, 1999 by the Yeas and Nays: 41-0. On September 14, 
2000 H. Rept. 106-315, Part I was reported to the House and the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, as 
amended, by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 419-0 (Roll No. 
409), at which time it was sent to the Senate. On February 24, 
2000 the Senate passed the bill with an amendment by a Yea-Nay 
vote of 98-0 (Record Vote Number: 12). The House agreed to the 
Senate amendments by the Yeas and Nays: 420-0 (Roll No. 28) on 
March 1, 2000. The President signed the bill and it became 
Public Law 106-178 on March 14, 2000.

 1.5--P.L. 106-181, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
for the 21st Century (H.R. 1000/H.R. 1551, Civil Aviation Research and 
                 Development Authorization Act of 1999)

Background and summary of legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 1551 is to authorize the Federal 
Aviation Administration to conduct research and development 
activities for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. The projects improve 
the national airspace system by increasing its safety, 
security, capacity, and productivity to meet the expected air 
traffic demands of the future.
    H.R. 1551, the Civil Aviation Research and Development 
Authorization Act of 1999, was introduced by the Chairwoman of 
the Technology Subcommittee, Ms. Connie Morella, and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. James Barcia.
    The agency's R&D efforts develop and validate the 
technology and knowledge required for the FAA to ensure the 
safety, efficiency, and security of our national air 
transportation system. Today, the system is under heavy 
pressure to keep pace with the rising aviation demands of the 
coming century.
    During floor consideration of H.R. 1551, a Manager's 
Amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner that was crafted in 
consultation with the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee eliminated certain provisions of H.R. 1551 that were 
already authorized through the House passage of H.R. 1000, the 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. As 
amended by the Manager's Amendment, H.R. 1551 authorizes $208 
million in FY 2000 and $223 million in FY 2001 for the FAA to 
conduct research and development in the areas of air traffic 
management, communications, navigation, weather, aircraft 
safety, system security, airport technology and human factors. 
The legislation fully funded the Administration's FY 2000 
request and allowed a modest, but necessary increase of three 
percent over the FY 1999 enacted funding level for the various 
research and development activities.
    Consistent with the Administration's request, H.R. 1551 
authorized $16 million in FY 2000 and $30 million in FY 2001 to 
carry out the Safe Flight 21 operational evaluation project. 
This support came after the FAA, under pressure from the 
Science Committee, scaled-back the project's size, achieved 
industry consensus and support, and provided the Committee with 
a better accounting of the projects role in achieving the 
agency's efficiency goals for the 21st Century.
    Recognizing that our nation's commercial aircraft fleet 
continues to age, H.R. 1551 included a provision directing the 
FAA to expand its current aging aircraft R&D efforts to include 
non-structural components. Also, H.R. 1551 included important 
oversight provisions to ensure that our nation's investments in 
aviation research and development are effectively utilized. For 
instance, Section 5 of the legislation requires the FAA to work 
cooperatively with NASA to jointly prepare and transmit to 
Congress an integrated civil aviation safety R&D plan that 
clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the two 
agencies. Section 4 amends the current law to require the FAA 
to develop a National Aviation Research Plan in accordance with 
the Government Performance and Results Act. Finally, H.R. 1551 
ensured accountability and public access to award information 
by requiring the FAA to post the abstracts related to all R&D 
grants and awards on the agency's Internet home page.
    Many of the provisions of H.R. 1551 were included in P.L. 
106-181, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
for the 21st Century. In particular, Title IX of the Act 
authorizes $224 million in FY 2000, $237 million in FY 2001, 
and $249 million in FY 2002 for FAA's Research, Engineering and 
Development projects and activities.

Legislative history

    On April 29, 1999, the Full Committee marked up the 
legislation (H.R. 1551), which was introduced by the 
Subcommittee Chairwoman, Mrs. Connie Morella. The legislation 
was adopted, as amended, by a voice vote, and ordered reported, 
by a voice vote.
    On September 15, 1999 The House adopted the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union and passed H.R. 1551 
unanimously by a voice vote.
    Provisions of H.R. 1551 were incorporated into P.L. 106-
181, ``The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
for the 21st Century.''

 1.6--P.L. 106-193, Methane Research and Development Act of 2000 (H.R. 
                              1753/S. 330)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 1753, the Methane Research and Development Act of 
2000, was introduced by Representative Michael F. Doyle (PA-18) 
on May 11, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Within the Science 
Committee, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment on May 11, and within the Resources Committee, it 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources on May 21.

Legislative history

    The Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment marked-
up the bill on May 12, 1999, and forwarded it to the Full 
Science Committee (amended) by voice vote. The Full Science 
Committee marked-up the bill on September 9 and ordered it to 
be reported (amended) by Voice Vote. On October 13, 1999, the 
Science Committee filed H. Rept. 106-377, Part 1.
    The Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
held a hearing on H.R. 1753 on May 25, 1999. The Full Resources 
Committee marked-up the bill on June 30 and ordered it to be 
reported (amended) by Voice Vote. On October 18, 1999, the 
Resources Committee filed H. Rept. 106-377, Part 2.
    The House passed H.R. 1753 under suspension of the rules on 
October 26, 1999, by Voice Vote, and the bill was received in 
the Senate on October 27, 1999. On November 19, the Senate 
passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. On 
April 3, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment with an 
amendment pursuant to H. Res. 453, and passed the bill under 
suspension of the rules by Voice Vote. On April 13, the Senate 
agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendments by 
Unanimous Consent. The President signed H.R. 1753 into law on 
May 2, 2000 (Public Law 106-193).
    As enacted, the legislation directs the Secretary of 
Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy, to commence a methane hydrate research and development 
(R&D) program.
    Section 3 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to award 
program grants or contracts (based on a competitive merit-based 
process), or enter into cooperative agreements with 
institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises.
    Section 3 also directs the Secretary to establish a panel 
to: (1) provide advice on applications of methane hydrates and 
priorities for the program; and (2) report to Congress on the 
impact on global climate change from methane hydrate formation 
and degassing and the consumption of natural gas produced from 
such hydrates. It limits to five percent the amount of program 
funding that can be used for administrative expense and 
prohibits the use of program funding for building construction, 
and requires the Secretary, in awarding such grants or 
contracts or entering into such cooperative agreements, to: (1) 
facilitate and develop partnerships among government, industry, 
and institutions of higher education; (2) undertake programs to 
develop basic information necessary for promoting long-term 
interest in methane hydrate resources as an energy source; (3) 
ensure that the data and information developed through the 
program are accessible and widely disseminated; (4) promote 
cooperation among agencies that are developing technologies 
that may hold promise for methane hydrate resource development; 
and (5) report annually to Congress on accomplishments.
    Section 4 amends the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 
to: (1) redefine ``marine mineral resource'' to include methane 
hydrate (for the purposes of the marine mineral resources 
research program); and (2) define ``methane hydrate.''
    Section 5 authorizes appropriations for FY 2002 through 
2005: $5.0 million for FY 2001; $7.5 million for FY 2002; $11.0 
million for FY 2003; and $12.0 million for each of FY 2004 and 
FY 2005.
    Section 6 sunsets the methane hydrate R&D program after the 
end of FY 2005, and Section 7 instructs the Secretary to enter 
into an agreement with the National Research Council for a 
study and report to Congress on the progress made under the 
methane hydrate R&D program, together with any recommendations 
for future methane hydrate R&D needs.
    Finally, Section 8 requires the Secretary to provide to the 
House Committee on Science any report or study prepared at the 
direction of any congressional committee.

1.7--P.L. 106-224, Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 2559/
   Title I--Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 in S. 935, 
National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999, as passed by the 
                 Senate, became Title III of H.R. 2559)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000, 
which was signed into law by the President on June 22, 2000, 
combines features of three separate bills that were referred to 
the Committee on Science: Title I of S. 935 and H.R. 2827, the 
National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999; and H.R. 
2819, the Biomass Research and Development Act of 1999.
    As enacted, the legislation includes the following 
provisions.
    Section 301 cites Title III as the ``Biomass Research and 
Development Act of 2000'' (hereafter, ``Act'').
    Section 302 lists 13 findings, and Section 303 defines ten 
terms.
    Section 304 mandates cooperation and coordination between 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy with 
respect to policies and procedures that promote R&D leading to 
the production of biobased industrial products. In order to 
facilitate this cooperation and coordination, a senior official 
in each of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and DOE is 
to be designated as a ``point of contact.'' The points of 
contact are to assist in arranging interlaboratory and site-
specific supplemental agreements for research, development, and 
demonstration projects relating to biobased industrial 
products; serve as cochairpersons of the Biomass Research and 
Development Board; administer the Initiative; and respond in 
writing to each recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
    Section 305 requires the Secretaries of Energy and 
Agriculture to jointly establish the Biomass Research and 
Development Board to coordinate programs within and among 
departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the 
purpose of promoting the use of biobased industrial products. 
This Board is to supercede the Interagency Council on Biobased 
Products and Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134. 
This section also specifies the Board's membership, duties, 
funding, and frequency of meetings.
    Section 306 establishes the Biomass Research and 
Development Technical Advisory Committee, which is to supercede 
the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and Bioenergy 
established by Executive Order 13134. This section also 
specifies the Advisory Committee's membership and appointment 
process, duties, coordination, frequency of meetings, and 
terms. With respect to terms, members of the Advisory Committee 
shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, except that: (1) \1/
3\ of the members initially appointed shall be appointed for a 
term of 1 year; and (2) \1/3\ of the members initially 
appointed shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
    Section 307 requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Energy, acting through their respective points of contact and 
in consultation with the Biomass Research and Development 
Board, to establish and carry out a Biomass R&D Initiative 
under which competitively awarded grants, contracts, and other 
financial assistance are provided to, or entered into with, 
eligible entities to carry out research, development, and 
demonstration on biobased industrial products. Other provisions 
of Section 307 address the purposes of grants, contracts, and 
other financial assistance under this section; eligible 
entities; uses of grants, contract, and assistance; technology 
and information transfer to agricultural users; and 
authorization of appropriations. In particular, Section 307(f) 
authorizes USDA $49.0 million for each of FYs 2000 through 
2005, which is in addition to funds appropriated for biomass 
R&D under the general authority of the Secretary of Energy (and 
which may also be used to carry out the Act).
    Section 308 authorizes the Secretaries of Energy and 
Agriculture to provide administrative support and funds of DOE 
and USDA to the Board and the Advisory Committee as are 
necessary to enable them to carry out this Act. Not more than 4 
percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year may be 
used to pay the administrative costs of carrying out this Act.
    Section 309 requires that an initial report be jointly 
submitted to Congress by the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Energy within 180 days of enactment of the Act and that an 
annual report be submitted to Congress for each fiscal year for 
which funds are made available.
    Finally, Section 310 terminates the authority under this 
Act on December 31, 2005.

   1.8--P.L. 106-391, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     Authorization Act of FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 (H.R. 1654)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Act of 2000 authorizes funding for NASA's 
activities in fiscal years (FY) 2000, 2001, and 2002. H.R. 1654 
authorized $13.601 billion for FY 2000, $14.184 billion for FY 
2001 and $14.625 billion for FY 2002. The FY 2000 authorization 
was at the level of the appropriation. The President requested 
$14.035 billion for NASA in FY 2001 and $14.465 billion for 
NASA in FY 2002. The bill's highlights are summarized below.
     Provides a $25.0 billion cost cap for 
International Space Station (ISS) development and a $17.7 
billion cost cap for Space Shuttle launch costs in connection 
with ISS to control cost growth. The cost cap does not apply to 
operations, research, or crew return activities after ISS 
completion. An additional contingency fund of $5 billion for 
ISS and $3.5 billion for Space Shuttle is authorized to provide 
flexibility in case of an emergency or other unusual 
circumstance.
     Directs NASA to establish a non-governmental 
organization (NGO) to manage research and commercial activities 
on the ISS after it is completed to improve scientific utility 
of the Space Station.
     Prohibits NASA from spending funds to design, 
procure, or develop an inflatable space module to replace 
currently planned and already-built ISS components. Technical, 
cost, and schedule uncertainties with inflatable technology 
make it prohibitively risky to substitute into the current ISS 
design. The provision, however, does not preclude NASA from 
leasing a commercially developed inflatable structure as long 
as it costs the same or less than the current design, does not 
cause a schedule delay, or increase safety risks. Includes 
initiatives encouraging the NASA administrator to seek 
reduction in Space Station utilization rights for International 
Partners that willfully violate any of their commitments to the 
program. Provides for equitable utilization of the ISS in 
accordance with the ISS Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA).
     Authorizes a 2.5% increase in funding in FY 2001 
and FY 2002 for Science, Aeronautics and Technology, such as 
Space Science, Life & Microgravity, Earth Science, Aero-Space 
Technology, and Academic Programs. Increases funding for Life & 
Microgravity Research: +10.8% in FY 2001 and +14.5% in FY 2002. 
Authorizes $290 million in FY 2001 and $610 million in FY 2002 
for the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. 
Authorizes $492 million in FY 2001 for Space Shuttle safety and 
performance upgrades. Also, the bill directs NASA to conduct a 
study to assess the relative priority of Shuttle upgrades which 
are under consideration. Directs NASA to conduct a study to 
assess the readiness of the scientific community to use the 
Space Station for life and microgravity research.

Legislative history

    Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced H.R. 
1654 on May 5, 1999. The bill was cosponsored by Congressman 
George E. Brown, of California, Congressman Merrill Cook of 
Utah, Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, Congressman 
Gary Miller of California, Congressman George R. Nethercutt, 
Jr. of Washington, and Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida.
    The Committee on Science held a markup session of H.R. 1654 
on May 13, 1999 and ordered the legislation reported as 
amended. The report was filed on May 18, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
145). H.R. 1654 was passed by the House of Representatives on 
May 19, 1999 by a recorded vote: 259--168 (Roll no. 139). On 
November 5, 1999 the Senate passed H.R. 1654 with an amendment 
by unanimous consent. The House and Senate negotiated a 
compromise of the bill in conference and filed conference 
report H. Rept. 106-843 on September 12, 2000. The House agreed 
to the conference report on September 14, 2000 by the Yeas and 
Nays: 399--17 (Roll no. 475) and the Senate agreed to the 
conference report by unanimous consent on October 13, 2000. On 
October 30, 2000 H.R. 1654 was signed by the President and 
became Public Law 106-391.

 1.9--P.L. 106-398, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 
 for Fiscal Year 2001 (H.R. 4205/H.R. 5408) (Sections 1061-1065, 3161-
                   3165, 3196 and 3197 of H.R. 5408)

                 Background and summary of legislation

    On July 27, 2000, the Speaker appointed Science Committee 
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Ranking Minority Member 
Bart Gordon (TN-12) as additional conferees to H.R. 4205, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, for 
consideration of Sections 1402, 1403, 3161-3167, 3169, and 3176 
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference.
    The Speaker also appointed Subcommittee on Technology 
Chairman Constance A. Morella (MD-8) in lieu of Mr. Calvert for 
consideration of Sections 1402, 1403, and 3176 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference. These 
conference committee deliberations, contained in H. Rept. 106-
945 (Enactment of Provisions of H.R. 5408, the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4205), resulted in the 
enactment of Sections 1061-1065, 3161-3165, 3196 and 3197 of 
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), which was signed into 
law by the President on October 30, 2000. Descriptions of these 
provisions follow.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS


           Subtitle G--Government Information Security Reform

    Sections 1061-1065 address Government information security 
reform.
    The Senate amendment contained a series of provisions 
(Sections 1401-1405) that would provide for reform of Federal 
information security practices.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would simplify 
audit and evaluation requirements and would clarify the roles 
and responsibilities of the Department of Defense (DOD).
    The amendment would establish a new subchapter of title 44, 
United States Code, addressing the responsibilities of the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal agencies--
including the National Institute of Science and Technology--in 
the area of information security. This new subchapter would 
remain in effect for two years after the effective date of the 
provision. The amendment would provide specific guidance on the 
responsibilities of certain agencies including the DOD. The 
amendment would also address the relationship between the 
defense information assurance program established under section 
2224, title 10, United States Code, and the government-wide 
information security program.
    The conferees noted that the conference agreement would 
provide the DOD authority to implement its own information 
assurance policy in accordance with the requirements of section 
2224, title 10, United States Code. The amendment would require 
the Director of OMB to delegate policy and oversight authority 
with regard to national security systems, classified systems, 
and other critical information systems of the Department of 
Defense and Intelligence Community to the Secretary of Defense, 
the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and, if designated 
by the President, an additional agency head. These agencies 
would be directed to develop their own information security 
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines. For the DOD, 
these policies, principles, standards and guidelines would be 
required to cover the full range of information assurance 
issues addressed in section 2224 of title 10, United States 
Code.

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS


       Subtitle E--National Laboratories Partnership Improvement


Section 3161--Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 3163) 
that would authorize the Secretary of Energy to obligate up to 
$10.0 million per year for a three-year period to establish the 
Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program. The pilot program 
would promote establishment of technology partnership clusters 
in the vicinity of certain DOE laboratories and plants. The 
provision would authorize each such DOE site to expend 
available funds to carry out cooperative activities with local 
businesses, universities, research organizations, or state, 
local, and tribal governments.
    The House had no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would authorize 
the Administrator of the NNSA to obligate up to $5.0 million 
during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to carry out the pilot 
program.
    The conferees were concerned that technology partnerships 
within the Office of Defense Programs have not been well 
managed in the past nor have they resulted in significant 
return on investment. Nevertheless, the conferees recognized 
that public-private collaborations may, if properly focused and 
managed, result in the development of commercially viable 
technologies that support the core nuclear weapons and nuclear 
nonproliferation missions of the NNSA. The Technology 
Infrastructure Pilot Program will allow the NNSA laboratories 
and facilities to explore new ways to collaborate with private 
entities in research, training, and shared facilities to 
enhance these core NNSA missions. The conferees noted that 
technology networks of this kind have proven successful in the 
private sector. The conferees further noted that the provision 
would not preclude the possibility of subsequent authorizations 
in appropriate circumstances.

Section 3162--Report on small business participation in National 
        Nuclear Security Administration activities

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3164) 
that would require each laboratory to establish a small 
business advocacy and assistance program to increase the 
participation of small businesses in all contracting aspects at 
the laboratory. The provision would also require each 
laboratory to establish a small business assistance program to 
help local small businesses obtain more subcontracts at the 
laboratory and improve the commercial value of their products 
and services.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would require the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than February 15, 2001, regarding the effectiveness of 
NNSA small business programs, recommendations on how to improve 
them, and any legislative changes required to implement such 
improvements.

Section 3163--Study and report related to improving mission 
        effectiveness, partnerships, and technology transfer at 
        national security laboratories and nuclear weapons production 
        facilities

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3166) 
that would require the Secretary of Energy to direct the 
Laboratory Operations Board (LOB) to study and to report on the 
possible benefits of and need for policies and procedures to 
facilitate the transfer of scientific, technical and 
professional personnel among national security laboratories and 
facilities. The LOB would be required to report on the possible 
benefits of and need for changes in the following: (1) the 
indemnification requirements for patents or other intellectual 
property licensed from a laboratory or facility; (2) the 
royalty and fee schedules and types of compensation that may be 
used for patents or other intellectual property licensed to a 
small business concern from a DOE National Laboratory or 
facility; (3) the licensing procedures and requirements for 
patents and other intellectual property, including preferences 
for small businesses started by former laboratory or facility 
employees who invented the patented technology or other 
intellectual property; (4) the infringement and protections 
available to small businesses that have received patents or 
other intellectual property from a laboratory or facility; (5) 
the advance funding requirements for a small business that 
funds a project at a DOE laboratory or facility through a 
Funds-In-Agreement; (6) the intellectual property rights 
allocated to a business that funds a project at a laboratory or 
facility through a Funds-In-Agreement; and (7) the policies on 
royalty payments to inventors employed by a contractor-operated 
DOE laboratory or facility, including those for inventions made 
under a Funds-In-Agreement.
    The LOB would be required to report to the Secretary not 
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 
The Secretary would be required to transmit the report to 
Congress not later than one month after receiving the report of 
the LOB concurrent with the submission of the report of the 
Secretary shall provide recommendations regarding appropriate 
action and legislative proposals.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would require the 
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to prepare and to submit the 
report related to the national security laboratories and 
facilities. The amendment would also require the report to 
include the advantages and disadvantages of providing the NNSA 
Administrator with special contracting authority, such as 
``other transactions'' authority.

Section 3165--Definitions

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3162) 
that would define the terms referenced in subtitle E of this 
Act.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would define the 
terms ``national security laboratory'' and ``nuclear weapons 
production facility'' as they are defined in section 3281 of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 
106-65).

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


Section 3196--Cooperative research and development agreements for 
        government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3176) 
that would amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710) to streamline the approval process for 
cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA) at 
government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities by 
authorizing Federal agencies to substitute an annual strategic 
plan for individual joint work statements. The provision would, 
for a period of five years after the date of enactment of this 
Act, authorize the waiver of any license retained by the 
government if the retention of that license would inhibit 
commercialization of an invention that would otherwise serve an 
important Federal mission. The provision would further 
streamline the CRADA process for GOCO facilities by authorizing 
Federal agencies to permit routine CRADAs to be negotiated and 
signed by GOCO employees.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would limit the 
applicability of the license waiver provision to the activities 
of the NNSA laboratories, and would require a report on all 
license waivers.

Section 3197--Office of Arctic Energy

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3169) 
that would establish the Office of Arctic Energy Research.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The House receded with an amendment that would provide the 
Secretary of Energy with discretionary authority to establish 
the Office of Arctic Energy Research.

Legislative provisions not adopted

    Short Title--The Senate amendment contained a provision 
(Section 3161) that would cite the subtitle E of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 as the National 
Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The Senate receded.
    Technology Partnerships Ombudsman--The Senate amendment 
contained a provision (Section 3165) that would require each 
DOE laboratory to establish a technology partnership ombudsman 
to resolve complaints from outside organizations regarding 
patents, technology licenses, and other issues.
    The House bill contained no similar provision.
    The Senate receded.
    Other Transactions Authority--The Senate amendment 
contained a provision (Section 3167) that would authorize the 
Secretary of Energy to permit the award contracts on a non-
competitive basis, commonly known as ``other transactions'' 
authority.
    The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate 
receded.
    The conferees noted that a report on ``other transactions'' 
authority is required elsewhere in this conference agreement.

 1.10--p.l. 106-404, technology transfer commercialization act of 2000 
                               (h.r. 209)

Background and summary of legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 209 is to promote partnerships with 
Federal laboratories through the commercialization of 
government-owned inventions by reforming technology licensing 
authorities under the Bayh-Dole Act and by permitting 
laboratories to bring already existing government inventions 
into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), 
among other purposes.
    H.R. 209 provides parallel authorities 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, as amended, to allow 
Federal laboratories to include already existing patented 
inventions into a cooperative research and development 
agreement (CRADA).
    Thus, 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.
    H.R. 209 also relaxes the public notification requirements 
removes language that currently results in delays of at least 
five months before a license can be formally granted. 
Additionally, the bill simplifies the requirement for the 
submission of a marketing and business plan for the invention. 
According to testimony from the Technology Subcommittee 
hearings, these requirements and its potential to delay the 
process have been great disincentives for the commercializing 
of on-the-shelf government inventions.

Legislative history

    Congresswoman Constance A. Morella of Maryland introduced 
H.R. 209 on January 6, 1999 in the 106th Congress. On March 25, 
1999, the Science Committee considered H.R. 209. The Committee 
adopted an en bloc amendment and ordered H.R. 209 reported, as 
a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice 
vote.
    On October 5, 2000, H.R. 209 was passed by the Senate under 
unanimous consent with an amendment.
    On October 10, 2000, the House approved the legislation 
sending it to the President to become law.

1.11--P.L. 106-405, COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION COMPETITIVENESS Act 
                          of 2000 (H.R. 2607)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 2607, the Commercial Space Transportation 
Competitiveness Act of 1999, authorizes funding for the Offices 
of Advanced Space Transportation and Space Commerce in the 
Departments of Transportation and Commerce, respectively. 
Moreover, the bill extends commercial launch indemnification 
through the end of calendar 2004. It further requires a report 
from the Secretary of Transportation reviewing alternative 
liability risk-sharing regimes for the U.S. government and the 
U.S. space launch industry. The bill has been identified by the 
private sector as its top priority for maintaining U.S. 
competitiveness vis-a-vis launch competition from other 
countries.

Legislative history

    Chairman Rohrabacher introduced the bill on July 26, 1999. 
The bill acquired 11 co-sponsors, including the ranking 
minority member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
and two other Democrats. After referral to the Committee on 
Science and its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the 
Subcommittee marked the legislation up and recommended its 
adoption on July 29, 1999. On October 4, 1999, the House of 
Representatives considered the bill under the suspension of 
rules and passed it.
    On October 19, 1999, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On October 
13, 2000, Senator McCain laid a substitute before the Senate 
for consideration under unanimous consent. Senate Amendment 
4321 to H.R. 2607 was adopted by unanimous consent on October 
13, 2000 and the bill was referred back the House of 
Representatives. On October 17, 2000 the bill was considered 
and adopted by the House of Representatives under a suspension 
of the rules. The bill was presented to the President on 
October 20, 2000 and signed into law by him on November 1, 
2000.

 1.12--P.L. 106-503, TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
   FIRE ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS 
 REDUCTION ACT OF 1977, FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001, 2002, AND 2003, AND FOR 
              OTHER PURPOSES (H.R. 1550/H.R. 1184/S. 1639)

Background and summary of legislation

    Title I: United States Fire Administration.--Title I 
authorizes: $44.8 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 ($25 
million below the requested level); $47.8 million for FY 2002; 
and $50.0 million for FY 2003. Of the total authorized over the 
three years, $9.75 million has been set aside for research, 
$750,000 for outsourcing of data analysis, and $21.0 million 
for anti-terrorism training. Title I also requires the Fire 
Administration to certify that funds obligated in FY 2002 are 
consistent with the strategic plan required in the bill. In 
addition to the increased authorizations for research funding, 
Title I also requires USFA to establish research priorities and 
to develop a plan for implementing a research agenda.
    Title I also directs USFA to: make available to State and 
local fire and emergency services information on excess federal 
equipment and on setting up cooperative agreements with federal 
facilities, such as military bases; conduct an assessment of 
the need for additional counter-terrorism training for 
emergency responders; review the content and delivery of the 
curriculum offered by the National Fire Academy; post abstracts 
of research grants it awards on its Internet home page, and 
allows, as in the Senate bill, up to $1.0 million in funds to 
be used for fire safety research at the Worcester Polytechnic 
Institute.
    In addition, Title I: repeals obsolete references and 
sections of statute authorizing USFA; repeals a provision in 
law that exempts federally-funded housing built in New York 
City from sprinkler requirements; and, in accordance with the 
amended Senate bill, makes technical changes to the U.S. Code 
relating to the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.
    Title II: Earthquake Hazards Reduction.--Four agencies 
participate in NEHRP--the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST). For FY 2001, Title II of 
H.R. 1550 authorizes the requested level of $104.1 million for 
base earthquake activities in these agencies, including 
specific authorizations for USGS for the Global Seismic Network 
and the Real-Time Seismic Warning System. For each of FYs 2002 
and 2003, Title II authorizes increases to the base program of 
4.25 percent. For FY 2002, Title II authorizes $108.5 million; 
for FY 2003, $113.1 million.
    In addition, Title II includes multi-year authorizations 
for two new projects, each of which grew out of congressional 
direction in the last NEHRP bill and were included in H.R. 
1184. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring 
System (ANSRMS) will update the Nation's existing seismic 
monitoring network, which is based on 30-year-old technology. 
Title II authorizes $170.8 million over FYs 2002 through 2006 
for the U.S. Geological Survey for equipment, and a further 
$14.8 million over two years for the incremental costs of 
system operation.
    The George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation (NEES)--named after the late Ranking 
Minority Member of the Science Committee--will link more than 
30 earthquake engineering research facilities and upgrade and 
expand major earthquake testing facilities. Title II provides 
NSF with a four-year authorization (FYs 2001 through 2004) 
totaling $74.1 million for this program.
    Finally, Title II authorizes funding for studying the New 
Madrid fault and a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 
Committee at the U.S. Geological Survey, requires greater 
inter-agency co-ordination in formulating the Program's budget, 
requests a report on how the Program meets the needs of at-risk 
populations, and repeals obsolete provisions of the statute.

Legislative history

    On October 27, 2000, the House passed H. Res. 655 on a 
recorded vote of 384 to 5. H. Res. 655 provided technical 
corrections to H.R. 1550 and S. 1639 as amended by the Senate. 
The resolution also reflected a compromise between comparable 
bills in the House (H.R. 1550 and H.R. 1184) and Senate (S. 
1639) and incorporated these two bills in Titles I and II, 
respectively, of H.R. 1550.
    On October 31, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to H.R. 1550. H.R. 1550 was signed into law on 
November 13, 2000.
    U.S. Fire Administration.--The Subcommittee on Basic 
Research of the Committee on Science held a hearing on March 
23, 1999 to hear testimony on the Administration's Fiscal Year 
2000 budget request for USFA and to examine issues related to a 
two-year authorization for the agency.
    On April 26, 1999, Mr. Nick Smith (MI), Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research, joined by Ms. Johnson of (TX), 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, 
introduced H.R. 1550, the Fire Administration Authorization Act 
of 1999, a bill to authorize appropriations for USFA for Fiscal 
Years 2000 and 2001.
    The Committee met to consider H.R. 1550 on Thursday, April 
29, 1999. H.R. 1550, as amended, was passed by the Committee by 
voice vote (Report No. 106-133).
    H.R. 1550 passed the House under Suspension of the Rules on 
May 11, 1999 on a recorded vote of 417 to 3.
    Earthquakes Hazards Reduction.--The Subcommittee on Basic 
Research of the Committee on Science held a hearing on February 
23, 1999 to hear testimony on the Administration's FY 2000 
budget request for NEHRP and to examine issues related to a 
two-year authorization for the Program.
    H.R. 1184, a bill to authorize appropriations for carrying 
out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for FYs 2000 
and 2001 and for other purposes, was introduced on March 18, 
1999 by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Basic Research, joined by Representative Constance Morella, 
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology.
    The Committee met to consider H.R. 1184 on March 25, 1999. 
H.R. 1184, as amended, was passed by the Committee by voice 
vote (Report No. 106-99 Part 1).
    H.R. 1184, with a ``Buy American'' amendment offered by 
Representative Jim Traficant, was passed by the House on April 
21, 1999 on a recorded vote of 414 to 3.
  Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

2.1--Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development 
             Programs Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1552)

Background and summary of legislation
    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1553 at hearings held on February 24 and 
April 15, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1552, 
the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and 
Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999, on April 26, 
1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1552 on 
April 29, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, 
amended, by Voice Vote, on April 29, and reported the measure 
to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-987, Part I, on 
October 18, 2000.
    The House Committee on Resources referred H.R. 1552 to the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on 
April 27, 1999. The Subcommittee considered the measure on May 
6, and forwarded it to the Full Resources Committee, amended, 
by Voice Vote, on May 6, 1999. The Full Resources Committee met 
to consider H.R. 1552 on June 30, 1999. The Committee on 
Resources ordered the bill reported, amended, by Voice Vote, on 
June 30.
    As reported by the Science Committee, Sections 3 through 7 
of H.R. 1552 authorize a total of $373,392,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001 for the NOAA and National Science Foundation 
(NSF), including: (1) $200,343,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 
2001 for National Ocean Service (NOS); (2) $44,320,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA's OAR; (3) $63,769,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Program Support; (4) $5,717,000 
for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Facilities; (5) 
$9,243,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Fleet 
Maintenance, Planning and Replacement; and (6) $50,000,000 for 
each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NSF Fleet Maintenance, Planning 
and Replacement.
    In addition, Section 7 also directs the NSF to develop a 
strategy for meeting such requirements and other Federal marine 
research and related environmental research and development 
requirements, considering all options, including methods of 
acquiring vessel services, remote sensing, and any other 
possible means.
    Section 8 directs the Secretary of Commerce to enter into 
contracts, including multiyear contracts, subject to certain 
requirements, for the use of vessels to conduct marine research 
and related environmental research and development activities, 
monitoring, enforcement, and management (with exceptions), and 
to acquire other data necessary for carrying out the NOAA's 
missions. It prohibits the Secretary from entering into any 
contract for the construction, lease-purchase, upgrade, or 
service life extension of any vessel, directs the Secretary to 
use excess capacity of University-National Oceanographic 
Laboratory System vessels where appropriate, and permits the 
Secretary to enter into memoranda of agreement with the 
operators of these vessels for carrying out such requirement.
    Section 9 repeals the NOAA Fleet Modernization Act.
    Section 10 directs the NOAA Administrator to make available 
through NOAA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.
    Section 11 of the bill requires the NOAA Administrator to 
exclude from consideration for grant agreements made after FY 
1999 under the activities for which funds are authorized under 
the bill, any person who received funds (other than due to 
membership in a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to class members according to a formula) appropriated 
for a fiscal year after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from 
any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected 
to a competitive, merit-based award process. It also makes such 
exclusion effective for a period of five years after receipt of 
such Federal funds.

2.2--National Weather Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 
                            1999 (H.R. 1553)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1553 at a hearing held on February 24, 1999. 
Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman 
Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1553, the National Weather 
Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999, on 
April 26, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House 
Committee on Science.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1553 on 
April 29, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, 
amended, on April 16, and reported the measure to the House 
with written report, H. Rept. 106-146, on May 18, 1999.
    The House passed H.R. 1553, amended, on May 19, 1999, and 
the bill was received in the Senate on May 20, 1999, and was 
referred immediately to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
    As passed by the House, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of H.R. 1553 
authorize a total of $1,391,418,000 for FY 2000 and 
$1,458,552,000 for FY 2001 for a number of National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs, including: (1) 
$687,529,000 for FY 2000 and $688,017,000 for FY 2001 for the 
National Weather Service (NWS); $183,290,000 for FY 2000 and 
$187,410,000 for FY 2001 for Atmospheric Research within the 
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); (3) 
$516,749,000 for FY 2000 and $579,275,000 for FY 2001 for the 
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service 
(NESDIS); and (5) $3,850,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for 
Facilities.
    In addition, Section 3 of the bill revises requirements for 
the Secretary of Commerce's duties with respect to the NWS to 
include responsibilities for: (1) serving as the sole official 
source of weather and flood warnings; (2) issuing storm 
warnings; (3) collecting, exchanging, and distributing 
meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data 
and information; (4) preparing hydrometeorological guidance and 
core forecast information; and (5) issuing marine and aviation 
forecasts and warnings. It bars the NWS from providing or 
assisting other entities to provide a service that is currently 
provided or can be provided by commercial enterprise, unless: 
(1) the service provides vital weather warnings and forecasts 
for the protection of life and property of the general public; 
or (2) the U.S. Government is obligated to provide such service 
under international aviation agreements to provide 
meteorological services and exchange meteorological 
information. Section 3 also directs the Secretary to report to 
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, And Transportation of the 
Senate detailing all NWS activities which do not conform to 
requirements of the bill and outlining a timetable for their 
termination. And it expresses the sense of the Congress that 
NWS must fully take into account the dangerous and life 
threatening nature of weather patterns in Wind Zone IV, 
otherwise known as tornado alley, before making any 
determination to close any of its local weather service 
offices.
    Section 7 of the bill requires the NOAA Administrator to 
exclude from consideration for grant agreements made after FY 
1999, under the activities for which funds are authorized under 
the bill, any person who received funds (other than due to 
membership in a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to class members according to a formula) appropriated 
for a fiscal year after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from 
any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected 
to a competitive, merit-based award process. It also makes such 
exclusion effective for a period of five years after receipt of 
such Federal funds.
    Section 8 directs the NOAA Administrator to make available 
through NOAA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.
    Section 9 prohibits any funds authorized pursuant to the 
bill from being expended by an entity unless such entity 
agrees, in expending such assistance, to comply with the Act of 
March 3, 1933, known as the Buy American Act.
    Section 10 expresses the sense of the Congress that 
entities receiving any equipment or products that may be 
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
under the bill should, in expending such assistance, purchase 
only American-made equipment and products. It also requires the 
Secretary to provide a notice describing such statement to each 
recipient of such assistance.
    Section 11 prohibits any person who has been finally 
determined by a court or Federal agency to have intentionally 
affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription or 
any inscription with the same meaning to any product sold in or 
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United 
States, from receiving any contract or subcontract made with 
funds provided pursuant to the bill, pursuant to debarment, 
suspension, and ineligibility procedures.

  2.3--Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration 
                 Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1655)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1655 at hearings held on March 3, March 10, 
March 24, and April 14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced 
H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy [DOE] Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, on 
May 3, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee 
on Science.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1656 on May 
25, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by 
a Yea and Nay Vote of 31 to 1, on May 25, 1999, and reported 
the measure to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-243, 
on July 20, 2000.
    The House considered H.R. 1655 on September 15, 1999, and 
passed the bill, amended, by Voice Vote. H.R. 1655 was received 
in the Senate on September 16, 1999, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
    As passed by the House, Section 3 of H.R. 1655 authorizes 
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for DOE civilian 
energy and scientific RD&D and related commercial application 
of energy technology programs, projects, and activities 
$4,115,506,000 for FY 2000 and $4,242,665,110 for FY 2001, of 
which: (1) $482,266,000 for FY 2000 and $504,595,630 for FY 
2001 is for Energy Supply; (2) $2,657,761,000 for FY 2000 and 
$2,691,465,000 for FY 2001 is for Science; (3) $397,564,000 for 
FY 2000 and $427,102,000 for FY 2001 is for Fossil Energy R&D 
and (4) $577,915,000 for FY 2000 and $619,502,480 for FY 2001 
is for Energy Conservation R&D.
    Section 4 directs the Secretary, acting through the 
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, to commence a program of 
gas hydrate energy and scientific and environmental research 
and development. It also authorizes $5.0 million for FY 2000 
and $7.5 million for FY 2001 for grants to, or contracts or 
cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher education 
and industrial enterprises to carry out gas hydrate research, 
development, and demonstration programs.
    Section 5 requires notice to specified congressional 
committees before any major reorganization of any DOE civilian 
energy or scientific research, development, or demonstration or 
related commercial application of energy technology program.
    Section 6 permits DOE to provide funding, with respect to 
programs and activities described by the bill, only for 
technologies and processes that can be reasonably expected to 
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or 
performance of the technology or process. It also prohibits the 
Secretary, as part of the test and demonstration Parallex 
Project, from selecting a route for the transportation of Mixed 
Oxide Fuel from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Chalk River, Canada, 
without issuing a rule based on the record after an opportunity 
for agency hearing.
    Sections 7, 8 and 9 set forth specified prohibitions and 
congressional reporting requirements for projects that exceed 
certain cost limits, including general plant projects, 
construction projects and those relating to conceptual or 
construction design.
    Section 10 prohibits the obligation of funds for 
construction of a specified project at the Spallation Neutron 
Source at the Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee until: (1) the 
Secretary certifies that senior project management positions 
for the project have been filled by qualified individuals and 
provides information regarding costs, milestones, laboratory 
obligations, and management structure; and (2) the Comptroller 
General reports to Congress that the estimated tax 
reimbursements that DOE would pay to its contractors as a cost 
of constructing the project in Tennessee would be no more than 
the reimbursements it would pay if the same project were 
constructed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 
California, the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, the 
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, or the Brookhaven 
National Laboratory in New York. It also requires the Secretary 
to report annually to Congress on such project as part of DOE's 
budget submission.
    In addition, Section 10 prohibits the use of funds 
authorized by the bill for: (1) U.S. participation in 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Engineering 
Design Activities; (2) the salaries of specified DOE Office of 
Science directors unless such individuals hold postgraduate 
degrees in science or engineering; and (3) grants or contracts 
awarded by DOE to a trade association on a noncompetitive 
basis. It reduces each of the amounts authorized by the bill 
for FY 2000 by: (1) one percent; and (2) 0.7674 percent, with 
each such reduction representing a reduction in travel costs. 
It also reduces each of the amounts authorized for FY 2000 
administrative expenses proportionately to achieve additional 
savings of $30 million, and limits travel costs to one percent 
of the total amounts of funds authorized.
    Section 11 prohibits the use of funds authorized for 
programs under the bill to award management and operating 
contracts for federally owned or operated DOE civilian energy 
laboratories on a noncompetitive basis.
    Section 12 prohibits the use of funds authorized for 
programs under the bill to award or modify a DOE contract in a 
manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
unless the Secretary grants a waiver to allow for such 
deviations.
    Section 13 prohibits the use of funds authorized to be 
appropriated by the bill by DOE to prepare or initiate Requests 
for Proposals for programs under the bill not specifically 
authorized by Congress.
    Section 14 prohibits the use of funds authorized to be 
appropriated by the bill to produce or provide articles or 
services for purposes of selling them to a person outside the 
Federal Government unless the Secretary determines that such 
articles or services are not available from a U.S. commercial 
source.
    Section 15 excludes from consideration for grant agreements 
for programs described by the bill made by DOE after FY 1999 
any person who received funds appropriated for a fiscal year 
after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from any Federal funding 
source for a program that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. It also makes such exclusions 
effective for a period of five years after the person receives 
such Federal funds.
    Section 16 requires the Secretary to make available through 
the DOE's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.
    Section 17 bars the Secretary from admitting to any 
classified area of a federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
energy laboratory any individual who is a citizen of a nation 
that is named on the DOE List of Sensitive Countries. It 
authorizes waivers of such prohibition on a case-by-case basis 
with respect to individuals whose admission is determined to be 
necessary for the furtherance of U.S. civilian science 
interests. It also sets forth congressional notification and 
certification procedures with respect to such waivers, and 
makes this section inapplicable to specified facilities.
    Section 18 prohibits any funds authorized pursuant to the 
bill from being expended by an entity unless such entity 
agrees, in expending such assistance, to comply with the Act of 
March 3, 1933, known as the Buy American Act.
    Section 19 expresses the sense of the Congress that 
entities receiving any equipment or products that may be 
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
under the bill should, in expending such assistance, purchase 
only American-made equipment and products. It also requires the 
Secretary to provide each recipient of such assistance a notice 
describing such statement.
    Section 20 prohibits any person who has been finally 
determined by a court or Federal agency to have intentionally 
affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription or 
any inscription with the same meaning to any product sold in or 
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United 
States, from receiving any contract or subcontract made with 
funds provided pursuant to the bill, pursuant to debarment, 
suspension, and ineligibility procedures.
    Section 21 requires the Secretary to commence a program of 
R&D on the technology necessary to achieve on-site 
transmutation of nuclear waste into nonradioactive substances, 
and authorizes $2.0 million for FY 2000 and $4.0 million in FY 
2001 for grants or contracts to, or cooperative agreements 
with, institutions of higher education and industrial 
enterprises to carry out such program. It also bars the 
Secretary from supporting a technology that involves the 
isolation of plutonium or uranium.
    Section 22 expresses the sense of the Congress that DOE 
should increase its efforts to recruit and employ qualified 
minorities for carrying out research and development functions.

 2.4--Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology 
                 Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1656)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1656 at hearings held on March 3, March 10, 
March 24, and April 14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced 
H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy [DOE] Commercial 
Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999, on 
May 3, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee 
on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and 
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1656 on May 
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by 
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the 
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-492, Part 1, on March 
6, 2000.
    Within the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 1656 was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on May 17, 1999. The 
Committee was discharged from further consideration of the bill 
on June 9, 2000.
    Within the Committee on Education and the Workforce, H.R. 
1656 was referred to the Subcommittee on Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections on May 21, 1999. The Committee was also 
discharged from further consideration of the bill on June 9, 
2000.
    As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1656 authorizes for DOE 
civilian commercial application of energy technology and 
related energy and scientific RD&D programs, projects, and 
activities $702,759,000 for FY 2000 and $711,746,890 for FY 
2001, to remain available through the end of FY 2002, of which: 
(1) $309,662,000 for FY 2000 and $306,857,000 for FY 2001 is 
for Energy Supply; (2) $330,934,000 for FY 2000 and 
$340,862,000 for FY 2001 is for Non-Defense Environmental 
Management; (3) $10,000,000 for FY 2000 and $10,300,000 for FY 
2001 is for Fossil Energy R&D and (4) $52,163,000 for FY 2000 
and $53,727,890 for FY 2001 is for Energy Conservation R&D.
    Section 4 authorizes reprogramming of DOE funds for any 
authorized DOE civilian energy or scientific research, 
development, or demonstration or commercial application of 
energy technology programs, projects, or activities, subject to 
certain reporting requirements. It also requires notice to 
specified congressional committees before any major 
reorganization of any DOE civilian program.
    Section 5 permits DOE to provide funding, with respect to 
programs and activities described by the bill, only for 
technologies or processes that can be reasonably expected to 
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or 
performance of the technology or process.
    Sections 6, 7 and 8 set forth specified prohibitions and 
congressional reporting requirements for projects that exceed 
certain cost limits, including general plant projects, 
construction projects and those relating to conceptual or 
construction design.
    Section 9 prohibits the use of funds in the Clean Coal 
Technology Reserve to initiate or carry out a clean coal 
technology energy demonstration project based outside the 
United States. It also bars the use of funds authorized by the 
bill for grants or contracts awarded by DOE to a trade 
association on a noncompetitive basis.
    Section 10 prohibits the use of funds to award management 
and operating contracts for federally owned or operated 
nonmilitary DOE energy laboratories on a noncompetitive basis.
    Section 11 prohibits the use of funds to award or modify a 
DOE contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary grants a waiver.
    Section 12 prohibits the use of funds by DOE to prepare or 
initiate Requests for Proposals for DOE civilian programs not 
specifically authorized by Congress.
    Section 13 prohibits the use of funds for DOE civilian 
programs to produce or provide articles or services for 
purposes of selling them to a person outside the Federal 
Government, unless the Secretary determines that such articles 
or services are not available from a U.S. commercial source. It 
also exempts from the prohibition on such sale the transmission 
and sale of electricity by any Federal Power Marketing 
Administration.
    Section 14 excludes from consideration for grant agreements 
for DOE civilian programs described by the bill after FY 1999 
any person who received funds appropriated for a fiscal year 
after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from any Federal funding 
source for a program that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. It makes such exclusions effective 
for a period of five years after the person receives such 
Federal funds.
    Section 15 terminates DOE regulatory or enforcement 
authority, effective January 1, 2000, with respect to Federal, 
State, and local environmental, safety, and health requirements 
at any federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy 
laboratory. In addition, Section 15:
           Requires DOE to retain such authority at any 
        such laboratory to the extent that no other agency has 
        such authority;
           Directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
        (NRC), effective January 1, 2000, to assume DOE 
        regulatory and enforcement authorities under the Atomic 
        Energy Act of 1954 with regard to federally owned or 
        operated nonmilitary energy laboratories;
           Provides that contractors operating such 
        facilities shall not be responsible for the costs of 
        decommissioning them;
           Prohibits enforcement actions against such 
        contractors for violations of NRC decommissioning 
        requirements if the violation is the result of a DOE 
        failure to authorize or fund decommissioning 
        activities;
           Requires the NRC and DOE to enter into a 
        memorandum of understanding establishing 
        decommissioning requirements for such laboratories;
           Directs the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration (OSHA), effective January 1, 2000, to 
        assume DOE regulatory and enforcement responsibilities 
        relating to matters covered by the Occupational Safety 
        and Health Act of 1970 with regard to all federally 
        owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories;
           Requires the NRC and OSHA to enter into a 
        memorandum of understanding to govern their respective 
        authorities over occupational safety and health hazards 
        at such laboratories;
           Absolves a DOE contractor operating a 
        federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy 
        laboratory of liability for civil penalties under the 
        Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Occupational Health 
        and Safety Act of 1970 for any actions taken before 
        October 1, 2000, pursuant to the transfer of regulatory 
        and enforcement responsibilities required by the bill; 
        and
           Requires the Secretary to: (1) continue to 
        indemnify such laboratories in accordance with the 
        Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and (2) transmit a plan for 
        termination of DOE's regulatory and enforcement 
        responsibilities for such laboratories to specified 
        congressional committees.
    Section 16 directs the Secretary to make available through 
the DOE Internet home page abstracts relating to all research 
grants and awards made with funds authorized by the bill.
    Section 17 declares a moratorium on the Foreign Visitors 
Program, during which the Secretary may not, until certain 
counterintelligence and safeguards and security measures are 
fully implemented, admit any citizen of a nation named on the 
current DOE List of Sensitive Countries to certain DOE-owned 
classified laboratory facilities. It also requires the Director 
of the FBI and the Secretary to transmit jointly to certain 
congressional committees an annual report on 
counterintelligence and safeguards and security activities at 
DOE laboratories.
    Section 18 instructs the Secretary to ensure: (1) 
consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures with 
respect to patenting, licensing, and commercialization; (2) 
availability of alternative modes of dispute resolution, 
mediation, and negotiation with respect to technology transfer 
and intellectual property matters; (3) annual reports to the 
Secretary on technology transfer and intellectual property 
successes, disputes, and subsequent resolution; and (4) 
laboratory personnel training on legal, procedural, and ethical 
issues affecting patenting, licensing, and commercialization 
activities.
    Section 19 amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to set 
forth civil monetary penalties for violations of DOE 
regulations regarding security of classified or sensitive 
information or data.
    Section 20 directs the Secretary to establish a 
whistleblower protection program to ensure against reprisal 
actions against a DOE or contractor employee for disclosing 
evidence of a certain violations.
    Section 21 sets forth procedural guidelines governing the 
investigation and remediation of alleged reprisals for 
disclosure of certain information to Congress.

2.5--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 
    and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1742)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1742 at hearings held on March 18, 1999. 
Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman 
Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1742, the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] Office of Research and Development 
[ORD] and Science Advisory Board [SAB] Authorization Act of 
1999, on May 10, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House 
Committee on Science.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1743 on May 
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by 
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the 
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-511, on March 6, 2000.
    As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1743 authorizes to be 
appropriated to the EPA Administrator for ORD environmental R&D 
and scientific RD&D programs $504,022,100 for FY 2000 and 
$519,940,600 for FY 2001, to remain available until expended, 
of which: (1) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $2,000,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research 
Center; (2) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,000,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
Center; and (3) $1,000,000 for FY 2000 shall be for a field-
scale environmental R&D project at an existing site for 
remediation of soils contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon 
and lead contaminants. In addition, Section 6 of the bill 
authorizes to be appropriated to the EPA Administrator for SAB 
activities $2,636,200 for FY 2000 and $2,768,000 for FY 2001, 
to remain available until expended.
    Section 4 establishes the EPA Assistant Administrator for 
ORD as EPA's chief scientific official in charge of the 
Agency's environmental R&D and scientific RD&D strategic 
planning. It also requires the EPA Assistant Administrator for 
ORD to review all EPA environmental R&D and scientific RD&D 
programs to ensure that the RD&D is of high quality and does 
not duplicate other Agency programs, and to report annually to 
Congress on such programs that are not of high quality or that 
duplicate other programs;
    Section 5 ensures that fellowship awards to students 
selected under the STAR Graduate Student Fellowship Program are 
used to support only scientific research that furthers the 
mission of the ORD;
    Section 6 strengthens and institutionalizes the role of the 
SAB in analyzing and evaluating EPA's current and planned 
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs and associated 
budgets;
    Section 7 limits the amounts of funds that may be 
reprogrammed.
    Section 8 requires the EPA Administrator to provide to the 
Congress at the same time as the budget request submission a 
detailed budget justification for programs, projects and 
activities authorized by the bill.
    Section 9 provides that not more than one percent of the 
funds authorized by the bill may be used either directly or 
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Agency or travel costs 
for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency. As 
part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the 
Congress, the Administrator must submit a report to the 
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that identifies: (1) 
the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and for 
persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency for the 
fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the two 
previous years; (2) the major purposes for such travel; and (3) 
the sources of funds for such travel. In addition, Section 9 
provides that no funds authorized by the bill may be used 
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract, 
subcontract or any other form of financial assistance awarded 
by the Agency to a trade association on a noncompetitive basis. 
As part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the 
Congress, the Administrator shall also submit a report to the 
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and 
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that shall identify: 
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to 
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year 
of such budget submission, as well as for the two previous 
fiscal years; (2) the services either provided or to be 
provided by each such trade association; and (3) the sources of 
funds for services provided by each such trade association. 
Section 9 also provides that none of the funds authorized by 
the bill may be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, 
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in 
preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol.
    Subsection 10 requires that the Agency only provide funding 
for scientific demonstration projects of the ORD or the SAB for 
technologies or processes that can be reasonably expected to 
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or 
performance of the technology or process.
    Subsection 11 prohibits the use of funds authorized by the 
bill may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of ORD 
or SAB in a manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation unless the EPA Administrator grants, on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. The 
Administrator may not delegate the authority to grant such a 
waiver. It also requires that at least 60 days before a 
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the 
Administrator intends to grant such a waiver, the Administrator 
shall submit to the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on 
Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying the committees 
of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
    Subsection 12 prohibits the Agency from using funds 
authorized by the bill to prepare or initiate Request for 
Proposals for a program, project or activity if Congress has 
not specifically authorized the program, project or activity.
    Section 13 prohibits the use of funds authorized under the 
bill by any program, project or activity of ORD or SAB to 
produce or provide articles or services for the purpose of 
selling to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the 
Administrator determines that comparable articles or services 
are no available from a commercial source in the United States.
    Section 14 excludes from consideration for grant agreements 
made after 1999 by the ORD or the SAB for a period of five 
years--under the programs, projects and activities for which 
funds are authorized under the bill--any person who received 
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based 
award process, except as specifically authorized by the bill.
    Section 15 requires the EPA Administrator to make available 
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.

   2.6--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation 
                 Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1743)

Background and summary of legislation

    The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1743 at hearings held on March 18 and April 
14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1743, the 
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation 
Authorization Act of 1999 on May 10, 1999, and the bill was 
referred to the House Committee on Science.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1743 on May 
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by 
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the 
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-511, on March 6, 2000.
    As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1743 authorizes to be 
appropriated to the EPA Administrator for the OAR for 
environmental R&D and scientific and energy RD&D and commercial 
application of energy technology programs $230,116,100 for 
fiscal year (FY) 2000 and $237,019,600 for FY 2001, to remain 
available until expended, of which: (1) $124,282,600 for FY 
2000 and $128,011,100 for FY 2001 shall be for Science; and (2) 
$105,833,500 for FY 2000 and $109,008,500 for FY 2001 shall be 
for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, including: (A) 
$39,964,000 for FY 2000 and $41,162,900 for FY 2001 for 
Buildings; (B) $32,702,500 for FY 2000 and $33,683,600 for FY 
2001 for Transportation; (C) $19,158,000 for FY 2000 and 
$19,732,740 for FY 2001 for Industry; (D) $3,400,000 for FY 
2000 and $3,502,000 for FY 2001 for Carbon Removal; (E) 
$2,987,000 for FY 2000 and $3,076,600 for FY 2001 for State and 
Local Climate; and (F) $7,622,000 for FY 2000 and $7,850,660 
for FY 2001 for International Capacity Building. It also 
prohibits the obligation of any amounts authorized until 30 
days after the Administrator submits to the Committee on 
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee 
on Appropriations of the Senate, a report detailing for all ORD 
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs, projects and 
activities, by appropriation goal and objectives, for FY 2000 
and each of the previous two FYs--(1) a description of, and 
funding requested or allocated for, each such program, project 
and activity; (2) an identification of all recipients of funds 
to conduct such programs, projects and activities; and (3) an 
estimate of the amounts to be expended by each recipient of 
funds identified in (2).
    Section 4 limits the amounts of funds that may be 
reprogrammed.
    Section 5 requires the EPA Administrator to provide to the 
Congress at the same time as the budget request submission a 
detailed budget justification for programs, projects and 
activities authorized by the bill.
    Section 6 provides that not more than one percent of the 
funds authorized by the bill may be used either directly or 
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Agency or travel costs 
for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency. As 
part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the 
Congress, the Administrator must submit a report to the 
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that identifies--(1) 
the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and for 
persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency for the 
fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the two 
previous years; (2) the major purposes for such travel; and (3) 
the sources of funds for such travel. In addition, Section 6 
provides that no funds authorized by the bill may be used 
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract, 
subcontract or any other form of financial assistance awarded 
by the Agency to a trade association on a noncompetitive basis. 
As part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the 
Congress, the Administrator shall also submit a report to the 
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the 
House, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and 
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that shall identify: 
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to 
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year 
of such budget submission, as well as for the two previous 
fiscal years; (2) the services either provided or to be 
provided by each such trade association; and (3) the sources of 
funds for services provided by each such trade association. 
Section 6 also provides that none of the funds authorized by 
the bill may be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, 
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in 
preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol.
    Subsection 7 requires that the Agency only provide funding 
for scientific or energy or commercial application of energy 
technology demonstration programs of the OAR for technologies 
or processes that can be reasonably expected to yield new, 
measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or performance of 
the technology or process.
    Section 8 prohibits the use of funds authorized by the bill 
to be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of OAR in a 
manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
unless the Administrator grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
waiver to allow for such a deviation. The EPA Administrator may 
not delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
    Subsection 9 prohibits the Agency from using funds 
authorized by the bill to prepare or initiate Request for 
Proposals for a program, project or activity if Congress has 
not specifically authorized the program, project or activity.
    Section 10 prohibits the use of funds authorized under the 
bill by any program, project or activity of OAR to produce or 
provide articles or services for the purpose of selling to a 
person outside the Federal Government, unless the Administrator 
determines that comparable articles or services are not 
available from a commercial source in the U.S.
    Section 11 excludes from consideration for grant agreements 
made after 1999 by the ORD or the SAB for a period of five 
years-under the programs, projects and activities for which 
funds are authorized under the bill--any person who received 
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based 
award process, except as specifically authorized by the bill.
    Section 12 requires the EPA Administrator to make available 
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.

 2.7--National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act 
                          of 1999 (H.R. 1744)

Background and summary of legislation

    Congresswoman Constance Morella introduced H.R. 1744 to the 
House. 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. H.R. 1744 authorizes a 
total of $693,413,000 in FY 2000 and $586,252,000 in FY 2001 
for NIST to carry-out its mission. Specific provisions of the 
legislation are as follows:
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $274,513,000 for NIST 
laboratory functions in FY 2000 and $285,152,000 in FY 2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $5,100,000 for the Baldrige 
National Quality Program in both FY 2000 and FY 2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $106,800,000 for construction 
and maintenance improvements in FY 2000 and $31,800,000 in FY 
2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $7,500,000 for the Under 
Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy in 
both FY 2000 and FY 2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $106,800,000 for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships Program in both FY 2000 
and FY 2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $190,700,000 for the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP) in FY 2000 and $149,900,000 in FY 
2001.
     H.R. 1744 authorizes $2,000,000 for the National 
Technical Information Service in FY 2000.
    H.R. 1744 increases the ATP match requirement to 60 percent 
for non-small business grant recipients and joint ventures and 
stipulates that grants can only be awarded to projects that 
would not proceed in a timely manner without federal 
assistance.
    H.R. 1744 was referred to the committee on May 5, 1999. 
Committee consideration and mark-up session was held on May 26, 
1999.

2.8--Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act 
                         (H.R. 2086/H.R. 4940)

Background and summary of legislation

    On June 9, 1999, Committee on Science Chairman F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. introduced H.R. 2086, the Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD). 
NITRD is a five-year authorization bill that would amend the 
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and return the Federal 
Government's emphasis on IT funding to basic research. This 
bipartisan legislation was introduced with 25 co-sponsors and 
was drafted to reinvigorate basic research programs in IT under 
the jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
    The purpose of H.R. 2086 is to authorize appropriations for 
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 for networking and information 
technology research and development at the National Science 
Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
and Environmental Protection Agency.
    On February 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2086 by voice 
vote. Language was introduced on the House floor to authorize 
NIH IT R&D. The Senate took no action on H.R. 2086. With the 
exception of some increased funding for the Department of 
Energy requested by the Senate, Title II of H.R. 4940 is 
virtually identical to H.R. 2086. H.R. 4940 passed the House by 
voice vote on October 24, 2000.
    For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, H.R. 4940 authorizes a 
total of $7.4 billion for the six agencies participating in the 
High-Performance Computing and Communications, Next Generation 
Internet (NGI), and new NITRD programs. For the programs within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, H.R. 4940 nearly 
doubles IT funding over the five- year authorization of the 
bill. Total funding authorizations, agencies and programs are 
as follows:
         $4,082.7 million for NSF, including:
                --$155 million for large grants of up to $1 
                million for high-end computing, software, and 
                networking research;
                --$250 million for information technology 
                research centers;
                --$385 million for terascale computing;
                --$95 million for universities to establish 
                internship programs for research at private 
                companies;
                --$56 million for educational technology 
                research; and
                --$50 million for the NGI program;
         $903 million for DOE (including $30 million 
        for the NGI program);
         $1,048.4 million for NASA (including $20 
        million for the NGI program);
                 $73 million for NIST (including $11 
                million for the NGI program);
          $71.7 million for NOAA; and
          $22.3 million for EPA.
    New Large Research Grants--H.R. 4940 establishes a new pool 
of grant funding at NSF. These grants are limited to long-term, 
basic IT research with priority given to research which helps 
address issues related to high-end computing, software, social 
and economic consequences of IT, and network stability, 
fragility, security (including privacy) and scalability. All 
grants are required to be peer reviewed by panels that include 
private sector representatives.
    IT Research Centers--H.R. 4940 sets aside $250 million for 
the establishment of IT centers of six or more researchers 
entering into multi-disciplinary collaborations for large-
scale, long-term basic IT research projects.
    Education and Training--H.R. 4940 establishes a $95 million 
program to award grants to college students (including 
community college students) to create for-credit IT industry 
internship programs at two and four year colleges and fund 
NSF's Advanced Technology Education program to improve 
education in fields related to IT. To participate in the 
internship program, a company must commit to providing 50 
percent of the cost of the internship.
    Hardware Acquisition--H.R. 4940 authorizes NSF to 
administer a new combined terascale computing acquisition 
program. The program is authorized a total of $385 million, 
which will be allocated in an open competition by NSF. Awardees 
must agree to integrate with the existing Advanced Partnership 
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure program and give 
access to NITRD research grant recipients.

2.9--SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
  1999 (H.R. 2392)/CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, CONFERENCE 
REPORT H. REPT. 106-1033 (H.R. 4577)/SMALL BUSINESS REAUTHORIZATION ACT 
 (H.R. 5667)/CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 
                            2000 (H.R. 2614)

    The Small Business Innovation Research Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 2392) was introduced on June 
30, 1999, and referred to the House Committees on Small 
Business and Science. Both Committees held hearings and the 
House Committee on Small Business reported H.R. 2392 on 
September 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-329). In the interest of 
moving the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives 
promptly, the Committee on Science agreed not to exercise its 
right to report the legislation, provided that the House 
Committee on Small Business agreed to add the selected portions 
of the Science Committee version of the legislation, as 
Sections 8 through 11 on the House Floor. H.R. 2392 passed the 
House without further amendment on September 27. The Science 
Committee provisions were explained in floor statements by 
Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Morella, and Mark Udall.
    Variations of the bill (involving small business 
reauthorizations; the SBIR language remained the same) had been 
volleyed between the House and Senate, including incorporation 
into the H.R. 2614 conference report, The Certified Development 
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000 (the tax relief 
package). It passed the House on October 26, 2000 and was 
considered (did not pass) by the Senate on October 30. Final 
passage occurred when H.R. 5667, the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (title I incorporated a version of 
H.R. 2392) was incorporated into the Conference Report (H. 
Rept. 106-1033) of H.R. 4577, FY 2001 Labor, Health, and Human 
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (final omnibus appropriations act).
    The following provisions of H.R. 2392 (conference report 
section number of H.R. 5667) are incorporated into the 
conference report of H.R. 4577:
    Section 3 (103) extends the SBIR program through fiscal 
year 2008.
    Section 4 (104) requires the report SBA submits to Congress 
be sent to the Committee on Science. The report is currently 
received only by the House and Senate Small Business 
Committees.
    Section 6 (110) modifies SBIR policy directives. The 
modifications clarify that: (1) follow-on phase III procurement 
contracts with an SBIR company may include procurement of 
products, services, research, or any combination intended for 
use by the Federal government; (2) a commercialization plan for 
all applications of second phase awards moving towards 
commercialization be added; (3) agencies must report annually 
to the SBA administrator on why, if they pursued research, 
development, or production as a result of an SBIR award, they 
did not use the small business awardee.
    Section 7 (106) insures that agencies in the SBIR program 
will submit as part of their annual performance plan under the 
Government Performance and Results Act, a section on the SBIR 
program. This report is also to be submitted to the Committee 
on Science, and the House and Senate Small Business Committees.
    Section 8 (107) establishes a public and private database 
for purposes of evaluating the SBIR program. It was understood 
by the three committees that the SBA collection of data on SBIR 
was incomplete. To address this concern, H.R. 2392 specifies 
certain criteria that are to be collected, such as names of the 
company, amounts of awards, and sales. The committees also 
understand that the commercialization data will be difficult, 
but nevertheless needed to evaluate the commercialization 
requirement under the statute.
    Section 9 (108) requires a report by the National Research 
Council to be submitted to Congress three years after it is 
commissioned, and updated 6 years thereafter. The report is 
designed to evaluate the SBIR program to date. The NRC is 
directed to evaluate how the SBIR program has stimulated 
technological innovation and used small businesses to meet 
Federal research and development needs.
    Section 10 (109) requires the agencies to inform SBA how 
they calculate their extramural budgets. An agencies extramural 
budget is the budget from which SBIR funds are derived. Over 
the years, it has come to the attention of the committees that 
agencies have different methods of calculating their extramural 
budgets for purposes of submission to OMB and purposes of SBIR. 
This provision should clarify how each agency is performing 
their calculations.
    Section 11 (111) establishes the Federal State and 
Technology Partnership Program. This is a five-year competitive 
matching grant program to encourage states to promote the 
development of high-technology small businesses.
    Section 12 (112) establishes a mentoring network designed 
to bring together organizations and small businesses familiar 
with the SBIR program with small businesses interested in 
participating in SBIR. It creates a database of small 
businesses willing to act as mentors in this capacity.
    Section 13 (113) requires SBA to simplify the SBIR 
reporting requirements to reduce the burden on small 
businesses.
    Section 14 (114) extends through fiscal year 2005, section 
501(b)(2) of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, 
and section 9(s) of the Small Business Act. These provisions 
are designed to increase the participation of rural small 
businesses in the SBIR program.

      2.10--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 2413)

Background and summary of legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 2413 is to update the Computer Security 
Act of 1987 to improve computer security for federal civilian 
agencies and the private sector.
    H.R. 2413 provides for greater security for the federal 
civilian agencies that base their procurement decisions for 
computer security hardware and software on NIST standards. The 
legislation also promotes the use of commercially available 
products and encourages an open exchange of information between 
NIST and the private sector. The legislation authorizes a total 
of $8,980,000 in FY 2001 and $9,560,000 in FY 2002. 
Specifically, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000:
     Requires NIST to encourage the acquisition of 
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products to meet civilian 
agency computer security needs. This measure should reduce the 
costs of computer security technologies for federal agencies.
     Enhances the role of the independent Computer 
System Security and Privacy Advisory Board in NIST's decision-
making process by requiring the Board, which is made up of 
representatives from industry, federal agencies and other 
external organizations, to make formal recommendations 
regarding proposed security standards and provide guidance to 
NIST on emerging computer security issues.
     Clarifies that NIST standards and guidelines are 
to be used for the acquisition of computer security 
technologies for the Federal Government and are not intended as 
restrictions on the production or use of encryption or 
electronic authentication technologies by the private sector.
     Updates the Computer Security Act by including 
references to computer networking which has become an 
increasingly important component of the Federal Government 
information technology system.
     Establishes a new computer science fellowship 
program for graduate and undergraduate students studying 
computer security. The bill sets aside $500,000 for the first 
year and $500,000 for the second year, to enable NIST to 
finance computer security fellowships under an existing NIST 
grant program.
     Requires the National Research Council (NRC) to 
conduct a study to assess issues associated with electronic 
authentication technologies.
    Requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to 
actively promote the use of technologies by the Federal 
Government that will enhance the security of federal 
communications networks and information in electronic form; to 
establish a clearinghouse of information available to the 
public on information security threats; and to promote the 
development of market driven consensus standards-based 
infrastructures that will enable more widespread use of 
encryption and electronic authentication technologies for 
confidentiality and authentication.
    On Wednesday, October 20, 1999, the Committee on Science, 
Subcommittee on Technology convened to mark up H.R. 2413, The 
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999, to enhance the 
ability of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) to improve computer security.
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2000, the Committee on Science 
convened to mark up H.R. 2413. An amendment offered by Mrs. 
Morella and Mr. Barcia was offered and adopted by a voice vote. 
With a quorum present, Chairman Sensenbrenner moved that H.R. 
2413, as amended be reported. The motion was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    On Tuesday, October 24, 2000 the House voted to Suspend the 
Rules and pass H.R. 2413 as amended. The motion was agreed to 
by a voice vote.

         2.11--Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000 (H.R. 2572)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 2572, the Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000, 
expresses the sense of Congress that the American people should 
provide a tribute to each of the Apollo astronauts to recognize 
and commemorate their bravery, substantial scientific and 
technical accomplishments, and unique contributions to American 
and world history.
    The bill requires the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration to design and present an 
Apollo Exploration Award, commemorating the accomplishments of 
the astronauts who flew in the Apollo program and makes a lunar 
rock sample its central feature. It prohibits the use of the 
award for monetary gain or profit or its transfer outside of 
the astronaut's family.
    Finally, to protect the taxpayer's interest in the lunar 
sample, the bill provides for recall of a lunar sample 
contained in the award if the Administrator determines that 
such sample is required for scientific purposes.
    The bill was introduced by Congressman Mark Souder on July 
20, 1999 and eventually acquired 34 co-sponsors from both 
parties. It was referred to the Committee on Science on the 
same day. The Committee discharged the bill and the House of 
Representatives considered it under suspension of the rules on 
September 26, 2000. At the conclusion of the debate, the yeas 
and nays were ordered. The vote was tallied with 419 in favor 
and none against (Roll Call No. 490.)
    The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September 
27, 2000.

    2.12--To prevent the elimination of certain reports (H.R. 3904)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 3904, a bill to prevent the elimination of certain 
reports, passed the House on April 3, 2000. The bill prohibits 
the application of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset 
Act of 1995 with respect to 30 specified reports under the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee, including certain 
reports from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
the National Science Foundation, and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. Under the Federal Reports 
Elimination Act, thousands of reports submitted to Congress by 
the Administration are to be eliminated. H.R. 3904 exempts 30 
of the hundreds of reports under the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction considered to be the most relevant to the 
Committee's oversight function. Other Committees in Congress 
have taken similar action with similar bills.
    The bill was referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee on April 4, 2000 where it awaits action.

     2.13--To ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate 
mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its policy and 
  site performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber 
                          security (H.R. 3906)

Background and summary of legislation

    Representative Tom Bliley (VA-7) introduced H.R. 3906 on 
March 14, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee on 
Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, 
and Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    Within the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 3906 was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on March 21, which held a 
hearing on March 22. The Subcommittee considered the measure on 
April 12, and forwarded it to the Full Commerce Committee, 
amended, by Voice Vote. The Full Commerce Committee met to 
consider H.R. 3906 on May 17. The Committee ordered the bill 
reported, amended, by Voice Vote, on May 17, and reported the 
measure to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-696, 
Part 1, on June 23, 2000.
    The Committee on Armed Services met to consider H.R. 3906 
on May 28. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by 
Voice Vote, on May 28, and reported the measure to the House 
with written report, H. Rept. 106-696, Part 2, on July 12, 
2000.
    Within the Committee on Science, H.R. 3906 was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 21. Both 
the Subcommittee and the Full Science Committed were discharged 
from further consideration of the bill on June 23, 2000.
    As introduced, H.R. 3906 establishes an ``Office of 
Independent Security Oversight'' within DOE that reports 
directly to the Secretary of Energy and that is responsible 
for: (1) the independent evaluation of safeguards and security 
policies, practices, and programs throughout the DOE (including 
the NNSA); and (2) the independent evaluation of the 
effectiveness of classified and unclassified computer security 
policies and programs throughout DOE (including the NNSA).
    The bill also requires that the Office conduct evaluations 
every 18 months and conduct follow-up reviews to ensure that 
corrective actions for security problems are effective. The 
Office is to issue annual reports to Congress before each 
February 15 summarizing its prior calendar year activities. 
Subsequently, the Secretary is to issue an annual report to 
Congress before each March 15 that responds to the Office's 
annual report that is to include, among other things, ``an 
explanation for any failure on the part of the DOE to complete 
effectively corrective actions recommended by the Office in its 
previous annual reports. The Office's Director is also required 
to issue a ``Special Report'' immediately to the Secretary and 
to Congress whenever the Director ``becomes aware of 
particularly serious or flagrant problems or deficiencies 
relating to the security programs, practices, or operations of 
the Department of Energy,'' and the Secretary is required to 
respond to Congress within seven calendar days after receiving 
the Director's Special Report ``on the corrective actions taken 
to address such problems.''
    Finally, H.R. 3906 prohibits the Secretary from altering, 
modifying, or otherwise changing the substance of any testimony 
or briefing to Members or Committees of Congress or their 
staffs, or from delaying any such testimony or briefing.

            2.14--National Science Education Act (H.R. 4271)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 4271, the National Science Education Act, focuses on 
improving the science, mathematics, engineering, and technology 
(SMET) education initiatives of the National Science Foundation 
(NSF). H.R. 4271 authorizes the National Science Foundation to 
make grants to schools for various activities, including: (1) 
SMET master teacher programs in the K-8 grades; (2) 
partnerships with private industry to encourage students to 
pursue careers in information technology; (3) dissemination of 
information to high schools regarding prerequisites to 
postsecondary SMET education teacher training; (4) teacher 
technology professional development; and (5) distance learning 
grants.
    H.R. 4271 also authorizes the NSF to provide scholarships 
to: (1) outstanding teachers to participate in scientific 
research; and (2) prospective teachers who have majored in 
science, mathematics, or engineering to fulfill academic 
requirements necessary to become certified as teachers.
    The bill also requires: (1) the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy to catalog the federal SMET education 
programs, review and evaluate the programs, develop a plan for 
interagency coordination, and monitor the plan's 
implementation; (2) the National Science Foundation and the 
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering to evaluate 
studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom; 
and (3) the National Science Foundation to convene a conference 
to bring together private sector participants in SMET 
education.
    H.R. 4271 was introduced by Mr. Ehlers et al on April 13, 
2000, reported by the Committee on Science on September 6, 
2000, and discharged by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on September 21, 2000. The House of Representatives 
took up the bill under suspension of the rules on October 24, 
2000. H.R. 4271 failed under suspension of the rules by a vote 
of 215 yeas to 156 nays.

     2.15--Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 4429)

Background and summary of legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 4429 is to require the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assist 
small and medium-sized manufacturers to successfully integrate 
and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business 
practices, and to authorize NIST to assess critical enterprise 
integration standards and implementation activities for major 
manufacturing industries and to develop a plan for enterprise 
integration for each major manufacturing industry.
    On July 26, 2000, the Committee on Science convened to 
mark-up H.R. 4429, The Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 
2000. A substitute amendment was offered and adopted by voice 
vote. No additional amendments were offered to the substitute.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Hall moved that H.R. 4429, as 
amended, be reported. The motion was adopted by a voice vote.
    On Tuesday, September 26, 2000, H.R. 4429 passed the House 
under Suspension of the Rules by a voice vote.

 2.16--To designate the museum operated by the Secretary of Energy in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of Science and Energy, and 
 for other purposes (H.R. 4940)/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 
                              (H.R. 4577)

Background and summary of legislation

    H.R. 4940 was introduced by Representative Zach Wamp (TN-3) 
on July 24, 2000. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Science, and within the Science Committee, it was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on August 2. The 
Subcommittee discharged the bill on September 21, 2000, and by 
the Committee on October 24.
    The House passed H.R. 4940, amended, under suspension of 
the rules on October 24, 2000, by Voice Vote, and the bill was 
received in the Senate on October 24, 1999. On October 25, the 
Senate passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
    The House passed H.R. 1733 under suspension of the rules on 
October 26, 1999, by Voice Vote, and the bill was received in 
the Senate on October 27, 1999. On November 19, the Senate 
passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. On 
April 3, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment with an 
amendment pursuant to H. Res. 453, and passed the bill under 
suspension of the rules by Voice Vote. On April 13, the Senate 
agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendments by 
Unanimous Consent. The President signed H.R. 1753 into law on 
May 2, 2000 (Public Law 106-193).
    H.R. 4940, as introduced, allows the American Museum of 
Science and Energy (ASME) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to perform 
functions necessary to its existence, including soliciting 
donations, distributing information, and collecting fees, in 
order to cover the costs of the museum. It also authorizes the 
Secretary of Energy to recruit and train volunteers for the 
museum. (Under current law, the funds raised by the ASME 
foundation board would have to be returned to the Treasury and 
would not be captured for the operations of the Museum. H.R. 
4940 is modeled after similar legislation that was passed in 
the 1992-1993 DOD Authorization bill pertaining to the National 
Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico that the DOE 
operates.)
    The amended version of H.R. 4940 passed by the House 
contained two titles. Title I is the original text of the bill, 
as introduced. With the exception of some increased funding for 
the DOE requested by the Senate, Title II is virtually 
identical to H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD), which was 
introduced on June 9, 1999, by Science Committee Chairman F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), and passed by the House, 
amended, by Voice Vote on February 15, 2000. NITRD amends the 
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and returns the Federal 
Government's emphasis of information technology (IT) funding to 
basic research. It authorizes $7.4 billion in appropriations 
for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 for networking and 
information technology R&D, including Next Generation Internet 
(NGI), and new NITRD programs at several locations including 
the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA), DOE, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), NOAA, EPA, and the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH).
     $4,082.7 million for NSF, including:
          --$155 million for large grants of up to $1 million 
        for high-end computing, software, and networking 
        research;
          --$250 million for information technology research 
        centers;
          --$385 million for terascale computing;
          --$95 million for universities to establish 
        internship programs for research at private companies;
          --$56 million for educational technology research; 
        and
          --$50 million for the NGI program;
     $903 million for DOE (including $30 million for 
the NGI program);
     $1,048.4 million for NASA (including $20 million 
for the NGI program);
     $73 million for NIST (including $11 million for 
the NGI program);
     $71.7 million for NOAA;
     $22.3 million for EPA; and
     $1.2 billion for NIH.
    It also establishes a new pool of grant funding at NSF to 
address issues related to high-end computing, software, social 
and economic consequences of IT, and network stability, 
fragility, security (including privacy) and scalability; sets 
aside $250 million for the establishment of IT centers of six 
or more researchers entering into multi-disciplinary 
collaborations for large-scale, long-term basic IT research 
projects; establishes a $95 million program to award grants to 
college students (including community college students) to 
create for-credit IT industry internships programs at two and 
four year colleges; and authorizes NSF to administer a new $385 
million program for combined terascale computing acquisition.
    H.R. 4940 became Title IV of H.R. 5666, A bill making 
miscellaneous appropriations for fiscal year ending September 
30, 2001, which was incorporated in H. Rept. 106-1033, the 
conference report on H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2001. The House and Senate agreed to the conference report 
on December 15, 2000--clearing the measure for the President.
 Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on 
                                Science

 3.1--H.Res. 267, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
    with regard to Shuttle Mission STS-93, commanded by Col. Eileen 
           Collins, the first female space shuttle commander

Background and summary of legislation
    A Space Shuttle mission, STS-93, was launched on July 22, 
1999 to deploy the Chandra X-Ray Telescope with Colonel Eileen 
Collins (USAF) in command, the first shuttle mission ever 
commanded by a woman. The resolution congratulates the crew of 
Shuttle Mission STS-93 and honors Colonel Collins on being the 
first female commander of a United States space shuttle; 
recognizes the important contribution Colonel Collins has made 
to the United States space program and to the advancement of 
women in science; and invites Colonel Collins and the crew of 
STS-93 to the United States Capitol to be honored and 
recognized by the House of Representatives for their 
achievements.
    The resolution was introduced on July 27, 1999, the day 
STS-93 returned to Earth, by Representative Constance Morella 
and referred to the Committee on Science. It eventually 
acquired eight co-sponsors.
    The House considered the resolution on August 2, 1999 under 
suspension of the rules. The House of Representatives adopted 
the measure on a voice vote on August 2, 1999.

   Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
   Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative 
                               Activities

                       4.1--Committee on Science

  4.1(a)--The Year 2000 Problem: Status Report on the Federal, State, 
                     Local, and Foreign Governments

                            January 20, 1999

                       Hearing Volume No. 106-42

Background

    On January 20, 2000 the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``The Year 2000 Problem: Status Report On The Federal, State, 
Local, And Foreign Governments.'' The hearing presented John 
Koskinen with the opportunity to report to the House on the 
status of the Executive Branch's Year 2000 efforts. He also 
provided an assessment of the council's work with State and 
local governments, as well as its work with foreign nations. In 
addition, the committee received testimony from the National 
Intelligence Council which, along with representatives of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, provided a declassified assessment 
of the status of Year 2000 efforts among foreign governments. A 
representative of the U.S. General Accounting Office also 
reported on the issue.
    Witnesses included: Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman, 
President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion; Dr. Lawrence 
K. Gershwin, Ph.D., National Intelligence Officer for Science 
and Technology, National Intelligence Council accompanied by 
Norman Green, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Science 
and Technology, National Intelligence Council; and Mr. Joel 
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
    Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman, President's Council on the 
Year 2000 Conversion, stated that, ``According to the most 
recent OMB report released last month, 61% of all Federal 
mission-critical systems are now Y2K compliant-more than double 
the 27% compliant a year ago. These systems have been tested 
and implemented and will be able to accurately process data 
through the transition from 1999 into the Year 2000. The report 
also states that, of critical systems requiring repair work, 
90% have been fixed and are now being tested.'' The President 
has established an ambitious goal of having 100% of 
government's mission-critical systems Y2K compliant by March 
31, 1999--well ahead of any private sector system remediation 
schedules. Although much work remains, we expect that over 80% 
of the Government's mission-critical systems will meet the 
March goal, and monthly benchmarks with a timetable for 
completing the work will be available for every system still 
being tested or implemented.
    Mr. Koskinen expects that all of the Government's critical 
systems will be Y2K compliant before January 1, 2000.'' States 
administer over 160 Federal programs--that is, Unemployment 
Insurance, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. Generally, most States 
are making good progress in remediating their systems. A 
handful of States report that they have not yet completed their 
critical systems. Mr. Koskinen is increasingly confident that 
there will be no large-scale national disruptions in key 
infrastructure areas, in particular, telecommunications and 
electric power. Banks are well prepared--96% of the Nation's 
depository institutions are on track to meet regulators goal of 
completing Y2K work by June 1999.
    Furthermore, Mr. Koskinen claimed that smaller government 
entities and small businesses are at greatest risk of having 
Y2K problems. Mr. Koskinen believes it necessary to provide the 
public with clear and candid information about the status of 
Year 2000 activities at the Federal, State, local levels and 
the private sector.
    Dr. Lawrence K. Gershwin, Ph.D., National Intelligence 
Officer for Science and Technology, National Intelligence 
Council accompanied by Norman Green, Deputy National 
Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology, National 
Intelligence Council testified that the Y2k situation is very 
fluid, his assessments could change significantly over the next 
several months as more information becomes available. The 
Gartner Group estimates global expenditures could be about one 
to two trillion dollars. ``Governments in many countries have 
begun to plan seriously for Y2K remediation only within the 
last year, some only in the last few months, and some continue 
to significantly underestimate the cost and time requirements 
for remediation and, more importantly, testing. Because so many 
countries are way behind, testing of fixes will come late, and 
unanticipated problems typically arise in that phase.'' Larger 
institutions, particularly in the financial sectors, are most 
advanced in Y2K remediation; small and medium-size entities 
trail in every sector worldwide.
    Dr. Gershwin also stated that most countries have failed to 
address the embedded processor issue. The lowest level of 
preparedness is evident in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin 
America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries, 
including China. Widespread Y2K failures in the Winter of 1999-
2000 in Russia and Ukraine could have major humanitarian 
consequences. Concerns include problems with computer-
controlled systems and subsystems within power distribution 
systems and nuclear power generation stations leading to 
reactor shutdowns. ``While the lines of authority for China's 
Y2K effort have been established, its late start in addressing 
Y2K issues suggests Beijing will fail to solve many of its Y2K 
problems in the limited time remaining, and will probably 
experience failures in key sectors such as telecommunications, 
electric power, and banking.'' Dr. Gershwin does not see a 
problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically 
being launched or nuclear weapons going off due to Y2K 
failures.
    Dr. Gershwin adds that, ``Significant oil exporters to the 
United States and the global market include a number of 
countries--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, 
and Gabon--that are lagging in their Y2K failures.'' Multi-
national corporations in oil-producing countries are highly 
dependent on ports, ocean shipping, and domestic 
infrastructures. ``Foreign officials and companies are looking 
to the West, particularly, the United States for help.'' Thus, 
worldwide litigation issues are already part of the Y2K scene.
    Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, General Accounting Office stated that, 
``As of mid-November 1998, four of the twenty-four major 
departments and agencies (17%) reported that they had not 
completed assessing their mission-critical systems to be 
repaired--over a year behind OMB's government-wide target of 
June, 1997; 16 of the 24 major departments and agencies (67%) 
reported that they had not completed renovating their mission-
critical systems to be repaired--several weeks after OMB's 
government-wide deadline of September 1998; and, 6 of the 24 
major departments and agencies (25%) reported that they had 
validated 50% or fewer of their mission-critical systems to be 
repaired. OMB's government-wide target to complete validation 
is January 1999.'' As of November 1998, many agencies had not 
competed inventorying and or assessing their telecommunications 
or embedded systems.
    In addition, reviews show uneven Federal agency progress. 
Recommendations have centered on project planning, priority 
setting, data exchanges, testing and business continuity and 
contingency planning. According to OMB, all agencies are 
required to independently verify their validation process to 
provide a check that their mission-critical systems will be 
ready for year 2000. He recommends that the President's Council 
continue to aggressively pursue readiness information in areas 
in which it is lacking, that is, the railroad industry, health 
sector and local law enforcement. The Council may want to 
consider legislative remedies such as requiring disclosure of 
Year 2000 readiness data should the use of associations to 
voluntarily collect information not yield necessary 
information. The Council should also consider requesting that 
national associations publicly disclose companies that have 
responded to surveys. The Council could prioritize trade and 
commerce activities critical to the nation's well-being, that 
is, oil, food, pharmaceuticals, as well as identify options to 
be obtain through alternative avenues.

         4.1(b)--Why and How You Should Learn Math and Science


                             March 17, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-21


Background

    On Wednesday, March 17, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., the Science 
Committee held a hearing on the importance of science and math 
education from preschool through high school, and how it can be 
improved. This was the first in a series of hearings on science 
and math education issues to be conducted by the Committee 
during the 106th Congress. The Committee is planning a 
comprehensive examination of current science and math 
education, the future of science and math education, and 
reforms that may be necessary to ensure graduates are well 
prepared to be productive members of American society. The 
purpose of this first hearing was to discuss the directions in 
which science and math education may be heading in the next 
century, to develop a general understanding of why there is an 
increasing need for competent science and math education, and 
to help identify what needs to be undertaken to ensure that 
American students have the background to be competent employees 
in the workplace, smart consumers in the marketplace, and 
contributing citizens of our nation in the 21st Century.
    Witnesses before the Committee included: Dr. Vera Rubin, 
Member, National Science Board; Dr. Rodger Bybee, Executive 
Director and Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Associate Executive 
Director, Center for Science, Math and Engineering Education; 
Amy Kaslow, Senior Fellow, Council on Competitiveness; Dr. 
Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of 
Science; and John Harrison, CEO, Ecutel.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Rubin opened her testimony by reviewing ``Preparing our 
Children: Math and Science Education in the National 
Interest,'' a report recently released by the National Science 
Board, which is the result of a year-long study of the 
disappointing TIMSS results. Because of the high incidence of 
students changing schools, the report concludes that it is 
imperative to develop national strategies to improve K-12 
teaching and learning of math and science. Three areas of 
particular importance to improving education are: (1) a 
consensus on content for each grade level, with instructional 
materials that promote thinking and problem-solving and 
creatively use technology; (2) widely-shared standards in 
teacher preparation, licensing, and professional development; 
and (3) an increased congruence between high school graduation 
requirements and undergraduate performance demands. She 
concluded her testimony by adding that research into each of 
these areas should be the basis for reform.
    Dr. Bybee opened his testimony by stating the importance of 
learning the abilities of scientific inquiry. These skills help 
students learn other disciplines. The skills include 
identifying questions that guide an investigation; designing 
and conducting an investigation; gathering and analyzing data; 
developing descriptions, explanations and predictions using 
evidence; thinking critically and logically to establish a 
relationship between evidence and an explanation; and 
communicating procedures and explanations. He continued that 
the first thing to do to be sure that students learn these 
skills is to teach them through ``hands-on'' methods. He stated 
that this education is possible only with curriculum materials 
that emphasize the abilities of scientific inquiry and 
teachers, who possess, understand and implement these 
abilities. Dr. Bybee concluded by emphasizing the need for 
public support for teaching science as inquiry as a valued 
goal.
    Dr. Ferrini-Mundy opened her testimony by adding the skills 
learned through mathematics also benefit students in areas 
outside of this discipline. She stated that mathematics calls 
for students to pose questions; to collect, organize and 
represent data to answer those questions; to interpret data; 
and to develop and evaluate inferences and predictions. 
Mathematics teaches students to reason; to communicate 
unambiguously; to assess claims; to detect fallacies; to 
evaluate risks; and to analyze evidence. She concluded her 
testimony by stating that we need research into the learning of 
math and science that focuses on particular curricular and 
teaching approaches. Finally, she stated that we need research 
about teacher learning and development.
    Ms. Kaslow opened her testimony by explaining that her 
remarks are based on a Council project that examined what 
happens when the K-12 education system fails to deliver on the 
basics. She testified that the United States' workforce is 
experiencing an acute skills shortage and that many prospective 
and existing workers do not have the skills necessary for the 
jobs being created. Without a significant boost in the quality 
of math and science education, Ms. Kaslow concluded, American 
workers will not be able to become competitive in the 
international economy.
    Dr. Malcom opened her testimony by stating that advanced 
scientific quantitative and technical skills have become 
indispensable not just in technologically-related jobs, but 
also in many other areas of the workforce and in society in 
general. Society has been revolutionized so that everyday 
living requires the skills, knowledge and understanding 
commensurate with a math and science education. Dr. Malcom 
closed her testimony by stating that because the majority of 
the U.S. population is beyond the educational system, it is not 
just improving schools that is necessary, but also relying on 
media and other avenues to relay needed information.
    Mr. Harrison opened his testimony by stating that a lack of 
stringent math and science education is contributing to many 
American job applicants being unqualified for positions with 
Ecutel and like technology companies. He described the 
situation being faced by Ecutel in illustrating a national 
problem: American applicants without competitive skills; 
positions unfilled or filled by foreign workers; and, 
subsequently, funds diverted from investment, marketing and job 
creation to immigration fees for foreign workers, thereby 
allowing Ecutel to make much less of an impact on the economy 
than it otherwise could. He concluded his testimony by 
emphasizing the need for improving the quality of math and 
science education.

4.1(c)--K-12 Math and Science Education: What Is Being Done To Improve 
                                  It?


                             April 28, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-34


Background

    On Wednesday, April 28, 1999 at 9:30 a.m., the Committee on 
Science held a hearing to survey current K-12 math and science 
curricular programs. This was the second in a series of 
hearings on science and mathematics education issues being 
conducted by the Committee during the 106th Congress. The 
purpose of this second hearing was to determine what curricular 
programs are currently available through the Federal Government 
and private organizations to school districts and teachers; 
which programs are being utilized; which ones have proven 
successful and why; what teaching methods associated with the 
various curricular programs are effectual, and the degree of 
impact teacher training has upon the success of individual 
programs. In addition, the hearing examined what level of 
coordination between various agencies of the Federal government 
is standard practice. Finally, it also looked at the current 
and future goals of the agencies and other program sponsors.
    Witnesses before the Committee included: The Honorable Rita 
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; Ms. Judith 
Johnson, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, Department of Education; The Honorable 
Daniel Goldin, Administrator, NASA; Dr. Gerry Wheeler, 
Executive Director, National Science Teachers Association; Mr. 
Gordon Ambach, Executive Director, Council of Chief State 
School Officers.

Summary of the hearing

    Dr. Colwell opened her testimony by explaining the central 
concepts of NSF education programs. First, partnerships that 
pull in all stakeholders are vital to the success of any 
education program. Secondly, NSF seeks quality for education 
programs, which is ensured through such means as peer-review. 
Dr. Colwell also testified to the priorities within NSF for the 
future of education programs. The first priority is building 
better links with NSF research programs in K-12 education. 
Next, she indicated that NSF hopes to promote new strategies 
and collaborations for teacher preparation. Finally, NSF is 
prioritizing increased emphasis on research into learning. She 
concluded her testimony by stating that closer ties in the 
future between science and education agencies will lead to 
opportunities to improve K-12 math and science education.
    Ms. Johnson opened her testimony by explaining that the 
TIMSS results have disclosed that students who have well-
trained teachers and content-rich curricula can demonstrate 
high levels of achievement. She continued by emphasizing three 
key principles of the Department of Education's efforts in math 
and science education. First, challenging curricula should be 
encouraged for all children and the DoEd is disseminating 
information on education resources via the Internet. Secondly, 
high-quality teaching should be supported. Finally, a research 
and evaluation database should be built. She ended her 
testimony by concluding that a high quality education in math 
and science is the means to young people reaching their 
potential.
    Mr. Goldin opened his testimony by emphasizing the critical 
nature of educational success to the future. To these ends, 
NASA both directly funds education programs and is beginning to 
embed education in all NASA programs. As an example, Mr. Goldin 
relayed the story of a child who was transformed from a gang 
member to a college hopeful through participation in a science 
competition. He concluded his testimony by expressing his 
frustration at the funding cutbacks that are preventing more 
emphasis on education programs.
    Dr. Wheeler opened his testimony by explaining that there 
are numerous supplementary curriculum programs, but very few 
year-long programs in K-12 science education. He commented that 
most of these programs were created before the release of 
standards, thus presenting a challenge to the implementation of 
such standards. He testified that several groups are producing 
curriculum materials: professional societies and other non-
profit groups, federal agencies, and the states through the 
utilization of textbooks as the base for teaching science. Dr. 
Wheeler concluded his testimony by emphasizing the need for 
support for teachers, including classroom materials and 
professional development.
    Mr. Ambach opened his testimony by summarizing several 
education indicators--from the increased percentage of students 
taking math and science courses to the percentage of teachers 
teaching out of certified area--that are included within the 
status materials on math and science education collected by the 
Council. He continued by explaining that students in states 
that are approaching reform systemically are scoring higher on 
tests. Mr. Ambach pointed out four approaches the federal 
government could be taking with regard to science and math 
education: funding standards and assessments; funding for 
measurement tests, such as TIMSS; funding technology used both 
for instruction and distance learning; and supporting 
professional development. He concluded by stating that the 
states do not fear strong federal intervention in the case of 
directing funds to math and science.

  4.1(d)--Security at the Department of Energy: Who's Protecting the 
                           Nation's Secrets?


                              May 20, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-9


Background

    On Thursday, May 20, 1999 the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``Hearing on Security at the Department of 
Energy: Who's Protecting The Nation's Secrets?'' to hear 
testimony on security lapses at the Department of Energy 
resulting in the possible theft of nuclear secrets. A recent 
FBI investigation uncovered instances of alleged espionage by a 
scientist employed at the Los Alamos National Lab. This is the 
fourth public case in the past two decades of Chinese espionage 
at Department of Energy (DOE) labs. In addition, the Committee 
discussed a reform package that the DOE put forward to address 
security concerns.
    The lone witness for this hearing was the Honorable Bill 
Richardson, Secretary, U.S. DOE. He was accompanied by the 
Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, DOE Under Secretary, and Mr. Edward 
J. Curran, Director, DOE Office of Counterintelligence.

Summary of hearing

    Secretary Richardson testified on many of the 86 reforms he 
had initiated at DOE's national laboratories, 
counterintelligence, and the overall complex. He said that 
security problems arose because security operations at the 
Department were splintered, there was a lack of accountability, 
and the lab culture was not monitored. The Secretary proposed 
creating a new ``Office of Security and Emergency Operations,'' 
which would report directly to the Secretary and would bring 
all security operations under one roof. Additionally, the 
Secretary's plan would impose a zero-tolerance security policy, 
open the DOE up to scrutiny from independent boards, and 
implement a cybersecurity program. Mr. Richardson also 
testified to the following in response to questions from 
Members:
     A lack of communication is cited as the reason 
that the Administration waited three years after learning of 
the scientist's activities before they decided to take action 
to strengthen security.
     DOE has moved to a 100-percent background check 
policy on scientists from sensitive countries and many people 
have been rejected. DOE rejects scientists if anything 
suspicious is found in the background check.
     Mr. Richardson briefed the President continuously 
since taking office in September 1998. The President's March 
19, 1999 response to a question concerning espionage at DOE in 
which he said, ``I can tell you that no one has reported to me 
that they suspect such a thing has occurred,'' referred 
specifically to a legal case against someone.
     The Secretary supports legislation calling for a 
moratorium on lab visits by citizens of sensitive countries, 
but does not want the language to be drafted broadly so as to 
prevent work that is currently going on in unclassified labs. 
This moratorium could be lifted once the FBI and CIA determine 
that sufficient security is in place.

4.1(e)--K-12 Math and Science Education--Finding, Training and Keeping 
                             Good Teachers


                             June 10, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-63


Background

    On Thursday, June 10, 1998, the Committee on Science and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a joint 
hearing to examine issues related to K-12 mathematics and 
science teachers, including recruitment, pre-service training, 
professional development, and retention. This was the third in 
a series of hearings on science and mathematics education 
issues being conducted by the Committee on Science during the 
106th Congress. The purpose of this third hearing was to 
determine problems and strengths in the U.S. educational 
systems that impact securing the best teachers in every 
mathematics and science classroom. Among those areas explored 
were the recruitment and training of future teachers, 
professional development for teachers and retention of current 
teachers.
    Witnesses appearing before the Committees included: Dr. 
John Staver, Director of the Center for Science Education, 
President of the Association for Education of Teachers of 
Science and Professor at Kansas State University; Mr. Howard 
Voss, Chairman of the Physics Department at Arizona State 
University; Dr. Jane Kahle, Condit Professor of Science 
Education, Miami University of Ohio; and Ms. Pamela B. Tackett, 
Executive Director, Texas State Board for Educator 
Certification.

Summary of the hearing

    Mr. Voss opened his testimony by stating that about two 
million K-12 teachers will have to be recruited by 2007. He 
explained that most teachers are recruited while they are young 
students and that, given the impending timeframe in which these 
teachers will be needed, nothing short of a societal change 
will allow this number of teachers to be added to the teaching 
force. Mr. Voss listed the reasons for the teacher shortage: 
low salaries, lack of societal regard, and improper secondary 
education. He described strategies for adding mathematics and 
science teachers into the profession: ensuring enthusiastic 
elementary and high school teachers who will excite in their 
students an interest in teaching science and mathematics, and 
reforming college programs to make them conducive to choosing 
teaching as a career. Finally, he stated that one of the most 
important strategies for keeping teachers is to treat them as 
professionals.
    Dr. Staver opened his testimony by stating that teachers 
need expertise in four areas: science, teaching, learning and 
the setting in which they plan to teach. He explained that 
effective teacher training programs must teach all four. In 
addition, good programs relate the subject areas to students' 
interests, community concerns and societal issues, while 
getting students involved in action research. Finally, good 
programs promote teaching as a profession by providing 
opportunities for experienced teachers. He stressed the 
effectiveness of professional development schools (PDSs), which 
are schools working in partnership with universities. He closed 
his testimony by cautioning that alternative routes to teacher 
certification may bypass much of the instruction needed to 
fully prepare teachers.
    Dr. Kahle opened her testimony by describing past 
professional development efforts as short-term, standardized 
sessions designed to impart specific skills. She explained that 
such activities usually do not result in the improved content 
knowledge necessary to change teachers' practices or enhance 
student learning. Rather, she asserted, evidence is concluding 
that professional development should include cooperative 
groups, open-ended questioning, extended inquiry, problem-
solving, leadership opportunities and model strategies. It 
should be sustained, content-based and use new teaching 
strategies. In addition, professional development should 
provide time for teachers to reflect on what they have learned. 
It should include ongoing assessments, incentives, graduate 
credit, and should be tied to career goals. Finally, it should 
be accountable. Dr. Kahle explained that teaching practice 
directly impacts student achievement, as has been demonstrated 
by state-wide reform programs, including Systemic Initiatives.
    Ms. Tackett opened her testimony by confirming that there 
is a growing need for teachers, especially those qualified to 
teach math and science. To address this challenge, the State of 
Texas is adopting several approaches. First, programs to 
motivate students interested in science to become science 
teachers are being initiated at state universities. Secondly, 
the universities have gotten legislative encouragement. 
Thirdly, the State has submitted a proposal for a federal grant 
that would establish mentor training, which, she stated, has 
proven effective in teacher retention efforts. Finally, to 
combat unpreparedness as a reason beginning teachers leave the 
profession, the State is requiring schools of education to meet 
new State standards.

  4.1(f)--The Rudman Report on Security Problems at the Department of 
                                 Energy


                             June 29, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-31


Background

    On Tuesday, June 29, 1999, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Rudman Report on Security Problems at 
the U.S. Department of Energy,'' to hear testimony on the 
report published by the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board (PFIAB) entitled, ``Science at its Best, 
Security at its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the 
U.S. Department of Energy.''
    Beginning in January and escalating in March of 1999, a 
series of press reports revealed that employees at the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory may have provided classified 
information to China. On March 18, 1999, President Clinton 
asked PFIAB to ``undertake a review of the security threat at 
the Department of Energy's (DOE) weapons labs and the adequacy 
of the measures that have been taken to address it.'' The 
President also asked PFIAB ``to deliver its completed report to 
the Congress, and to the fullest extent possible consistent 
with our national security, to release an unclassified version 
to the public.'' A Special Investigative Panel of PFIAB spent 
three months reviewing more than 700 reports and studies and 
thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents, 
interviewing over 100 witnesses, and visiting several of the 
DOE labs.
    The sole witness for the hearing was the Honorable Warren 
B. Rudman, Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rudman discussed the findings in the report as follows:
     In the past 20 years there have been over 100 
reports issued on security at DOE labs including 29 GAO 
reports, 61 internal DOE reports, and 12 reports conducted by 
special task forces and ad hoc panels.
     PFIAB recommends that the management structure at 
DOE Nuclear Weapons Labs be fundamentally restructured in favor 
of a system of management that holds each person at the lab 
responsible and accountable for security.
     The science at the DOE labs is perhaps the best in 
the world, and the PFIAB report should not be construed as a 
criticism of these scientific programs, nor does PFIAB propose 
anything that would undermine their effectiveness.
     One of the major problems that has led to security 
breaches at DOE is the overlapping and competing lines of 
authority that lead to a reduced level of accountability by 
employees for their mistakes.
     PFIAB believes that creating a semi-autonomous 
agency within DOE that deals with classified nuclear programs 
would actually grant more power to the Secretary in that the 
locus of responsibility would be more clearly defined. 
Moreover, a semi-autonomous agency would not hamper important 
scientific programs conducted at DOE.
     While PFIAB does not advocate placing civilian 
labs under the jurisdiction of the semi-autonomous agency, it 
does support moving classified programs within the civilian 
labs to other labs that are covered by the semi-autonomous 
agency if DOE proves that security is a problem in the civilian 
labs as well.
     A security stand-down was ordered for three DOE 
labs and some twenty percent of the employees failed to show up 
for it. Senator Rudman explained that this is an example of the 
culture of arrogance at DOE.
     PFIAB was unanimous in deciding that moving the 
weapons labs to the Department of Defense (DOD) was a bad idea. 
Reasons cited for this decision included DOD's inability to 
handle another complex lab and the potential to lose scientists 
if the weapon's labs were put under DOD's jurisdiction.

4.1(g)--K-12 Math and Science Education--Testing and Licensing Teachers


                             August 4, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-64


Background

    On Wednesday, August 4, 1999, the Committee on Science held 
a hearing to examine issues related to K-12 mathematics and 
science teachers, including recruitment, pre-service training, 
professional development, and retention. This was the third in 
a series of hearings on science and mathematics education 
issues being conducted by the Committee on Science during the 
106th Congress. The purpose of this third hearing was to 
determine problems and strengths in the U.S. educational 
systems that impact securing the best teachers in every 
mathematics and science classroom. Among those areas explored 
were the recruitment and training of future teachers, 
professional development for teachers and retention of current 
teachers.
    Witnesses appearing before the Committees included: Dr. 
Marci Kanstoroom, Research Director, Thomas B. Fordham 
Foundation; Dr. Mari Pearlman, Vice President, Teaching and 
Learning Division, Educational Testing Service; Ms. Patte 
Barth, Senior Associate, The Education Trust.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Pearlman opened her testimony by explaining that the 
purpose of licensing tests is to provide a standard by which 
States can determine who has sufficient knowledge to be 
qualified to receive a teaching license. She further clarified 
that such tests are not meant to be able to predict who will be 
an excellent teacher. She continued by examining validity and 
fairness issues and explained the test development process that 
is used to ensure validity and fairness. She concluded by 
calling attention to ETS's recently released study on the 
academic quality of prospective teachers.
    Ms. Barth began by explaining that States' attempts to 
raise standards for students have been limited by inadequately 
prepared teachers. She continued with a summary of The 
Education Trust's studies, including that State licensing 
requirements place more emphasis on pedagogical knowledge as 
opposed to content and do not test at a high enough level. She 
also addressed concerns that higher standards mean fewer 
minority teachers by stressing that minority students can do as 
well on tests if they are taught to high standards. Ms. Barth 
concluded by adding her support for maintaining teacher 
licensure within the States' purview, but also by agreeing with 
the Administration that content area tests should be given to 
all prospective teachers.
    Dr. Kanstoroom opened her testimony by explaining that the 
current licensing systems are not able to ensure both the 
quantity and quality of teachers needed in the classroom. She 
continued that content knowledge is a primary factor in 
determining a good teacher. She explained that alternative 
certification often attracts those with expertise in content, 
such as math and science, as opposed to an educational 
foundation in pedagogy. Although such certification may result 
in increasing the quantity of quality teachers, not every State 
offers an alternative route to teacher certification. Dr. 
Kanstoroom also noted that uniform teacher salaries inhibit 
schools' ability to hire teachers with science and math 
expertise. She concluded by offering suggestions for 
improvement: expand alternative certification options, allow 
teacher pay to respond to market place conditions and require 
teachers to have degrees in the subject matter they teach.

         4.1(h)--EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate


                             March 22, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-95


Background

    On March 22, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate? This 
hearing examined whether the EPA, in its development and 
enforcement of the Part 503 Sludge Rule, failed to foster sound 
science with an open exchange of ideas and information between 
scientists, EPA officials, and private citizens. The hearing 
explored allegations that EPA scientists who disagree with 
EPA's science associated with the sludge rule, were ignored, or 
worse, subjected to harassment. Even more disturbing are 
documented reports of intimidation directed at private citizens 
who express concerns about EPA sludge policies and the science 
behind those policies. Researchers, scientists, their 
representatives and private citizens testified regarding EPA's 
response to concerns raised about the science associated with 
the Part 503 Sludge Rule.
    Witnesses included: J. Charles Fox, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; Stephen M. Kohn, Chairman of the Board of Directors of 
the National Whistleblower Center; Ellen Harrison, Director, 
Cornell Waste Management Institute, Cornell University, New 
York; Mr. Cecil Lue-Hing, Former Director of Research and 
Development, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 
Chicago; and Jane Beswick, a California farmer.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Fox discussed the background of the 503 Sludge Rule and 
the improvements in sewage treatment over the past 30 years. In 
addition he defended the EPA's record of public and scientific 
input in the decision making process, making the following key 
points:
     Eight million dry metric tons of biosolids 
(sludge) are produced annually and 54 percent are disposed of 
through land application.
     Section 405(g) of the Clean Water Act authorizes 
the EPA to promote the safe and beneficial management of 
biosolids.
     Part 503 is a risk-based rule that establishes 
limits on the concentrations of pollutants (including heavy 
metals) and pathogens in sludge, as well as guidelines for its 
land application.
     The development of Part 503 began in 1984 at an 
EPA-sponsored workshop and culminated in 1989 into a proposal 
that included a commitment to continue peer review.
     In 1996 the National Academy of Sciences issued a 
report that confirmed that properly managed and applied sludge 
was safe for use in food crop production.
    Mr. Kohn testified about the harassment and illegal 
termination, by the EPA, of scientists who disagreed with the 
Part 503 sludge rule. In particular, he talked about the cases 
of Dr. David Lewis and Dr. William Marcus. In addition, he 
detailed the agency's lack of a whistleblower protection 
policy. Some of his key points were:
     In October 1999, Dr. Lewis co-authored, along with 
numerous prominent scientists, an article concerning pathogens 
in sludge applied in accordance with the Part 503 Rule.
     Joseph C. Cocalis, industrial hygienist for the 
Centers for Disease Control, later testified that these 
concerns were justified and characterized the EPA's position 
as, ``indefensible from a public health standpoint.''
     EPA publicly criticized Dr. Lewis and accused him 
of violating the Hatch Act, charges they later admitted were 
baseless.
     The EPA supervisors responsible for the 
retaliation and misconduct in whistleblower cases were never 
disciplined.
     Despite a court order, the EPA has yet to 
implement a whistleblower protection policy.
    Ms. Harrison raised concerns about the dangers of 
groundwater contamination associated with the land application 
of biosolids, and EPA's failure to adequately address these 
concerns. In addition, she questioned the EPA's commitment to 
an open peer-review process, and accused them of improperly 
distributing research funds. Key points of her testimony 
included:
     Cornell researchers, teamed with 27 other 
scientists, have suggested limits on land application much 
stricter than the Part 503 Rule.
     Of particular concern to these, and other 
researchers was groundwater contamination from sludge leaching 
in areas of New York with acidic soils and shallow water 
tables.
     The EPA attempted to discredit these studies by 
suggesting that the research methods were inappropriate, even 
though one of their own representatives sat on the project's 
advisory board.
     The EPA sent letters to the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation discouraging them from 
adopting standards more stringent than the Part 503 Rule.
    Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing defended the land application of sludge, 
and the scientific integrity of the Part 503 Rule. He testified 
that biosolids were a safe and effective source of fertilizer 
when applied according to the Part 503 Rule. His key points 
were:
     There has never been any documented illness 
associated with the land application of properly treated 
sludge.
     According to a 1985 study of 47 Ohio farms using 
biosolids, there was no observed link between the land 
application of sludge and disease occurrence in domestic 
animals.
     The Land Practices Peer Review Committee--a 
diverse group of scientists, government officials, attorneys, 
environmental activists, and other stakeholders--worked with 
the EPA to provide an extensive peer review of the sludge rule.
     During this peer review, 5,500 pages of comments 
from 656 participants were received.
     The resulting Part 503 Rule accomplished the goals 
of recycling roughly 5 million tons of biosolids each year, 
while protecting the health of people and the environment.
    Ms. Jane Beswick, a California dairy farmer and coordinator 
of the Coalition for Sludge Education described the harassment 
and intimidation she allegedly received from Dr. Rubin of the 
EPA. This aggravation began after her paper, ``Some 
Misconceptions Concerning Sludge'' was published in 1996, and 
consisted of ten unsolicited mailings.
     The letters from Dr. Rubin began as objections to 
two items in her paper. The first issue concerned landowner 
liability, and the second concerned her distinctions between 
manure and sludge.
     She testified that Dr. Rubin warned that her 
continued focus on the dangers of sludge would eventually 
``focus . . . the regulators' attention on . . . the use of 
manures.''
     This pattern continued; as she became more active 
she received more letters. All the letters contained 
antagonistic language, and warned of future regulations on 
manure.
     Some of the mailings were official correspondence 
from the EPA regarding animal manure and biosolids.
     The ninth mailing was ominous handwritten message 
reading, ``Manure = miscarriages or baby deaths. The bell is 
tolling!''

       4.1(i)--NASA's Mars Program After the Young Report, Part 1


                             April 12, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-96


Background

    On April 12, 2000, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
on NASA's Mars program in the context of the Mars Program 
Independent Assessment Team's (MPIAT) report released on March 
14, 2000. In 1999, all three of NASA's most recent missions to 
Mars ended in failure. As a result, a number of panels, 
including the MPIAT, were convened to look into the reasons 
behind the failures and report their findings and 
recommendations.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Tom Young, retired Executive Vice 
President of Lockheed Martin, Inc., and Chairman of the Mars 
Program Independent Assessment Team; and Mr. John Casani, 
retired Project Manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) 
at the California Institute of Technology and Chairman of the 
JPL Special Review Board that investigated the Mars mission 
failures.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Young presented the MPIAT's findings and 
recommendations regarding the failed Mars missions and NASA's 
overall Mars program.
    Mr. Casani presented the Special Review Board's findings on 
the likely reasons behind the Mars mission failures and the 
panel's recommendations.

    4.1(j)--Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education in 
   Kindergarten through 12th Grade: H.R. 4271, The National Science 
                             Education Act


                              May 17, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-82


Background

    On May 17, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled ``A Plan to Renew Science, Math, Engineering and 
Technology Education in Kindergarten through 12th Grade: H.R. 
4271, The National Science Education Act.'' This was the first 
in a series of hearings to examine certain programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Education (DoEd) that impact 
or address science, mathematics, engineering and technology 
(SMET) education and the ``National Science Education Act'' 
(H.R. 4271), introduced by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers 
(MI). The bill would establish and expand programs relating to 
SMET education for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. 
H.R. 4271 focuses on two primary components of quality 
education: opportunities for all students and assistance for 
teachers.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jeffrey Leaf, Vice President of the 
Board on Pre-College Education for ASME and teacher at Thomas 
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology; Mr. Benjamin 
Boerkoel, Director of Curriculum and Staff Development, Grand 
Rapids Christian Schools; Mr. John Boidock, Vice President for 
Government Relations, Texas Instruments.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Jeffrey Leaf identified improvements of science, math, 
engineering and technology education as being one of the most 
important public policy issues and noted the following in his 
testimony:
     Educational software should encourage critical 
thinking and problem solving.
     Working groups are very important because they 
provide a forum for ideas on curriculum and teaching methods.
     A program of distance learning that stresses 
innovation would help alleviate the shortage of qualified 
technology teachers.
     Master teachers should be used to mentor new 
teachers, while master aides help with set up and maintenance 
of equipment.
    Mr. Boerkoel discussed the implications of H.R. 4271 for 
improving teacher training and curriculum improvement, and made 
the following observations:
     Many new teachers have a less than enthusiastic 
view of math and science; their inadequate training plays a 
large role in this.
     Providing grant money to recruit and hire Master 
Teachers with strong backgrounds and interest in math, science, 
and technology is invaluable to professional development.
     Increasing teacher participation in curriculum 
development through scholarships, working groups, and training 
is important.
     Rural educational opportunities need to be 
enhanced through distance learning components.
     Organizing and maintaining a link to private 
sector funds and expertise help all students, especially the 
economically disadvantaged, by providing the cutting edge 
materials and personal relationships.
    Mr. John Boidock spoke convincingly about the need to 
improve math, science, and technology education for the health 
of our economy.
     The acute shortage of engineers and technology 
workers is due to a variety of factors including a shrinking 
pool of students graduating with the skills needed for these 
jobs.
     The number of bachelors degrees awarded in 
electrical engineering since 1987 has declined steadily, 
falling 46 percent.
     To reverse this trend and maintain America's 
technological supremacy, our schools must produce more students 
with strong math, science and technology skills.
     Companies need to take an active role in our 
schools by ensuring that kids learn what they need to succeed 
in a technology and information-rich society.

    4.1(k)--Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education in 
   Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, and H.R. 4272, National Science 
                       Education Enhancement Act


                             June 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-82


Background

    On June 13, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled ``Hearing on Reviewing Science, Math, Engineering and 
Technology Education in Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, and 
H.R. 4272, The National Science Education Enhancement Act.'' 
This was the second in a series of hearings to examine certain 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education 
(DoEd) that impact or address science, mathematics, engineering 
and technology (SMET) education and the ``National Science 
Education Enhancement Act'' (H.R. 4272), introduced by 
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI). The bill would establish 
and expand programs, many at the DoEd, relating to SMET 
education for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Like 
its companion bills, H.R. 4272 focuses on two primary 
components of quality education: opportunities for all students 
and assistance for teachers.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Len Simutis, Director of the 
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science 
Education at The Ohio State University; Dr. Diane M. Bunce, 
Associate Professor, Chemistry Department, Catholic University 
of America; Dr. Audrey Champagne, Professor of Chemistry & 
Science Education, Department of Educational Theory & Practice, 
State University of New York at Albany; Dr. Janice M. Gruendel, 
Executive Director, Connecticut Voices for Children.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Simutis explained how the Eisenhower National 
Clearinghouse will continue to expand its mission under H.R. 
4272.
     H. R. 4272 would increase the products and 
services that Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) would be 
able to provide to educators across the nation. The legislation 
would also expand the ENC to include K-12 engineering and 
technology education.
     A better evaluation of curriculum resources, 
particularly those which are technology-based, is needed.
     Programs such as ENC's Consortia would help 
deliver expert, research-based advice to teachers, schools, and 
states on how to improve their math and science programs. With 
its economies of scale for expert staff and programs, federal 
resources can be used more efficiently.
    Dr. Diane Bunce spoke for the American Chemical Society and 
offered her critique of H.R. 4272:
     Funding for summer professional development 
institutes, and the emphasis on content-based programs are key 
provisions of H.R. 4272.
     Summer institutes should be a part of university 
degree programs, with college credit available.
     Creation of another government body to oversee 
curricula development is unwarranted, particularly because it 
would duplicate the National Science Education Standards and 
the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks.
     A mentoring program linked with the Master Teacher 
program would improve teacher quality and retention.
     Science education should begin at a young age, and 
programs such as After-School Science Day Care are a great way 
of involving parents in this education.
    Dr. Audrey Champagne spoke extensively on teacher 
education, and possible improvements.
     Participation in induction and continuing 
education programs must be part of a teacher's work year and 
recognized as a professional responsibility for everyone.
     Mentoring is crucial because new teachers are 
given the same responsibilities as veteran teachers.
     The nature of the understanding of science that 
teachers gain as a result of their undergraduate education is 
quite different from the understanding of science required to 
teach science.
     The college faculty who teach undergraduate 
science courses should also have the opportunity to participate 
with K-12 teachers in continuing education activities.
     Because of their ties to the National Science 
Foundation, the NSF Centers for Learning and Teaching are 
uniquely positioned to bring the most recent research in the 
social and natural sciences to education.
    Dr. Janice Gruendel's testimony focused on technology, and 
American teachers' lack of proficiency in using it.
     Technology is the most fundamental tool in all 
disciplines including math, science and engineering.
     Many classrooms are still not wired for the 
internet and only 20-33% of teachers believe they are skilled 
enough to use technology for instruction.
     The most common technology assignments consist of 
``skill and drill'' and very few promote critical thinking.
     H.R. 4272 would make important strides in 
encouraging technology education, especially through work study 
initiatives.
     Allocations in and the effective use of technology 
are not sufficient to meet the needs of our current economic 
environment.

      4.1(l)-- NASA's Mars Program After the Young Report, Part 2


                             June 20, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-96


Background

    On June 20, 2000, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
on NASA's Mars program in the context of the Mars Program 
Independent Assessment Team's (MPIAT) report released on March 
14, 2000. This hearing followed on the Committee's hearing on 
the same subject held on April 12, 2000.
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Dan Goldin, Administrator 
of NASA; Dr. Edward Stone, the Director of the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology; Dr. Pedro 
Rustan, retired Colonel, U.S. Air Force, former Director of the 
Small Satellite Development Office at the National 
Reconnaissance Office, and the program manager of the 
Department of Defense's Clementine mission; and Dr. Alan 
Binder, Director of the Lunar Research Institute and Principal 
Investigator for NASA's Lunar Prospector mission.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Goldin discussed the current state of NASA's Mars 
Program and NASA's reaction to the findings and recommendations 
of the reports issued on the Mars '98 mission failures. In 
addition, he described the steps NASA has taken--and will 
take--to address the problems in the Mars Program, and the 
current status of the ``Faster, Better, Cheaper'' philosophy at 
NASA.
    Dr. Stone addressed these same issues from the perspective 
of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
    Dr. Rustan offered his perspective on the findings and 
recommendations of the Mars Program Independent Assessment 
Team, described relevant similarities and differences between 
the Clementine mission and NASA's recent Mars missions, and 
made general suggestions for successful implementation of the 
``Faster, Better, Cheaper'' concept at NASA.
    Dr. Alan Binder made general comments on NASA's Mars 
program and the Faster, Better, Cheaper'' concept from his 
perspective as the manager of the Lunar Prospector mission.

4.1(m)--Encouraging Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education 
  in Kindergarten Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4273, National Science 
                        Education Incentive Act


                             July 19, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-82


Background

    The purpose of this hearing is to examine certain 
provisions that would modify the tax code to encourage 
activities that will benefit science, math, engineering and 
technology (SMET) education and the ``National Science 
Education Incentive Act'' (H.R. 4273), introduced by 
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI). Like its companion bills, 
H.R. 4273 focuses on two primary components of quality 
education: opportunities for all students and assistance for 
teachers.
    The Committee heard from Dr. Judith Sunley, Acting 
Director, Education and Human Resources, National Science 
Foundation; Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, President, The NASDAQ 
Stock Market; Dr. Cozette Buckney, Chief Educational Officer, 
Chicago Public Schools; Mr. Ted Gardella, K-12 Mathematics and 
Science Coordinator, Battle Creek Public Schools.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Sunley discussed H.R. 4271, 4272, and 4273 and the 
resulting action of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and 
noted that:
     Math and science teachers face isolation in the 
classroom, separation from ongoing developments in math and 
science disciplines, and responsibilities that go well beyond 
math and science.
     Math and science teachers must understand the 
current and potential role of information technologies in 
education, what makes them effective, and how to expand that 
effectiveness.
     Math and science teachers must develop, identify, 
and disseminate excellent curricula and instructional materials 
for math and science.
    Mr. Berkeley discussed the Stock Market's interest in K-12 
education and how to improve education using H.R. 4273 and 
pointed out that:
     There must be continued investments in basic 
research and education in math and science.
     We need to pay attention to what sort of curricula 
are being offered to children and how effective it is in the 
long run.
     Long term benefits of a tax-incentive have been 
beneficial on the financial side and will be effective for 
education as well.
     Children need to know exactly what his/her grade 
means in comparison to other children from across the United 
States.
    Dr. Buckney discussed the improvements in the Chicago 
Public School system and how those improvements worked and how 
H.R. 4273 would supplement the improvements and noted that:
     Chicago Public Schools have been working for many 
years to improve science and math education, most notably by 
requiring three years of lab science and three years of math.
     The Chicago Public School system has created a 
special program that links high schools with local colleges and 
universities.
     The Chicago Public School system has been 
aggressively recruiting teachers from the best colleges in the 
nation, and providing all teachers with extensive professional 
training.
     The financial incentives would help attract 
college students to the teaching profession.
    Mr. Gardella discussed the math and science programs at the 
Battle Creek Public Schools in Michigan and the benefits of 
H.R. 4273 for his, and other, school districts and pointed out 
that:
     Battle Creek Public Schools have engaged in 
creative hiring by bringing in candidates with content 
knowledge who may not have taken the traditional route to 
teaching.
     The science and math teachers who experienced the 
high quality institutes developed in the post-Sputnik era is 
diminishing rapidly through retirement.
     The long term nature of the tax credits will allow 
teachers to keep teaching and that will help professional 
development programs have maximum effect.
     Working in the business, industrial, and other 
scientific settings allow teachers to gain powerful insights 
for getting real-world connections, which they can bring into 
the classroom.

       4.1(n)--Computer Security Lapses: Should FAA Be Grounded?


                           September 27, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-101


Background

    The purpose of the hearing is to review whether the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken adequate actions to 
correct computer security problems at the agency. FAA has a 
policy that requires the FAA to conduct background checks on 
contractor employees based upon the level of risk associated 
with the project or task. FAA has not complied with its own 
policy. In December 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
issued a report entitled Computer Security: FAA Needs to 
Improve Controls Over Use of Foreign Nationals to Remediate and 
Review Software for the Committee. GAO found that FAA failed to 
adhere to its requirements for personnel security. FAA did not 
perform risk assessments and did not even know at that time 
whether it or the contractor had performed the required 
background searches on all of the FAA contractor employees, 
including those who are the foreign nationals.
    The Committee heard from The Honorable Jane Garvey, 
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; The Honorable 
Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Transportation; and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil 
Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Garvey testified that the FAA is taking action based 
upon the GAO's recommendations and noted that:
     FAA has moved to identify all contracts associated 
with mission critical systems.
     FAA recognizes that it must have effective 
leadership to establish the policies.
     FAA has five layers of security: personnel 
security, physical security, system security, site specific 
adaptation and redundancy.
     FAA has set up a Chief Information Officer, who is 
the lead officer for information security. The CIO establishes 
annual performance plan to achieve goals of computer security.
    Mr. Mead discussed personnel security for government and 
contractor personnel at FAA and pointed out that:
     FAA is too reactive with lots of room to be 
proactive.
     There were significant vulnerabilities that were 
low cost to fix.
     FAA needs to work with OPM to set milestones and 
then prioritize.
     Many of the FAA computers are vulnerable to attack 
by insiders.
    Mr. Willemssen discussed FAA's computer security problems, 
which leave the systems at risk and noted that:
     Significant weaknesses were found in each of the 
major areas GAO reviewed.
     FAA has numerous facilities that have not been 
assessed and accredited as secure.
     FAA's own system penetration testing and 
vulnerability assessments demonstrate significant weaknesses 
potentially exposing the systems to unauthorized access.
     FAA has restructured the CIO position, but more 
needs to be done to establish specific procedures to be 
followed by staff.
     FAA's own system penetration testing and 
vulnerability assessments demonstrate significant weaknesses 
potentially exposing the systems to unauthorized access.
     FAA has restructured the CIO position, but more 
needs to be done to establish specific procedures to be 
followed by staff.

      4.1(o)--Intolerance at EPA: Harming People, Harming Science?


                            October 4, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-103


Background

    Accordingly, this hearing will examine allegations that EPA 
has discriminated against scientists and employees based on 
their race and gender; and has retaliated against those who 
have made these allegations. Open discourse is required for 
credible science and open discourse and tolerance for dissent 
are key for EPA to successfully complete its mission. 
Intolerance inhibits, if not prevents, thorough scientific 
investigation. Additionally, assigning EPA employees to conduct 
science when those employees are not qualified in the field 
further harms science at EPA. The integrity of EPA science is 
at risk if these allegations are true. This hearing is a 
continuation of the Committee's investigation into evidence 
that EPA ignores and harasses scientists and employees who have 
disagreed with EPA's policy conclusions or questioned EPA's 
science. The Committee has already held one hearing on this 
issue on March 22, 2000. Learning of the Committee's 
investigation into possible intolerance at EPA, several 
African-American and disabled EPA employees came forward with 
new allegations last fall.
    Witnesses included: Carol Browner, Administrator of the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Marsha Coleman-
Adebayo, Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA; Ron Harris, Chief 
Union Steward, Non-Professional, Vice President; and Leroy W. 
Warren, Jr., Chairman of the NAACP Federal Sector Task Force.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo discussed the intolerant 
atmosphere at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 
noted that:
     She believed her background as an African affairs 
specialist would be an asset to the EPA, instead she has 
endured a decade of racial, sexual, and retaliatory abuse.
     The EPA suffers from a racial bias in which people 
with significantly less experience are given a job on the basis 
of skin color.
     Even after she brought suit against the EPA, she 
still suffered from civil rights violations.
     The EPA has refused to police itself and address 
injustices that occur.
    Mr. Ron Harris discussed how retaliation and discrimination 
cases were dealt with at the EPA and pointed out that:
     These cases manipulate scientific disciplines and 
they usually encompass many violations ranging from conspiracy 
to environmental racism.
     When he was investigating a case, he claims he was 
subject to unnecessary delays by the EPA, cancellations of 
meetings, and denial of basic discovery rights.
     If an employee speaks out about alleged 
retaliation and discrimination, he/she may be denied training 
or may not be given positions that they are the most qualified 
for.
     If an employee speaks out, his or her position may 
be given to someone who is grossly unqualified.
    Mr. Leroy Warren discussed the lack of accountability and 
integrity within the EPA and noted that:
     There is an integrated work force on paper, and a 
segregated work force off paper.
     There is no integrity within the internal 
structure of the EPA to ``do the right thing'', nor is there 
any accountability when someone does not do the right thing.
     If an employee speaks out, he or she is facing a 
death sentence within the EPA; he or she will have a job, but 
no future.
     The EEO program is in place, but its rules are not 
enforced; and EEO management needs to be investigated by 
outside counsel.
    Administrator Browner discussed the EPA's commitment to 
diversification and pointed out that:
     Minority representation in the Senior Executive 
Service has more than tripled and minority representation as a 
whole has increased by 116%.
     77% of EPA employees are satisfied with their 
jobs, which is higher than the government average of 60%.
     In 1997, EPA launched a Diversity Action Plan, 
which set up a way for employees to comment on their managers.
     The EPA is committed to restructuring the EEO 
complaint process to make it timelier.

                  4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research


       4.2(a)--The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
                            Reauthorization


                           February 23, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-17


Background

    On February 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program (NEHRP). This hearing examined the Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for this program as well as 
programmatic issues. The purpose of this hearing was to assess 
the current status of the Federal government's earthquake 
research and earthquake hazard mitigation efforts and to give 
the agencies and stakeholders an opportunity to provide input 
needed for a two-year reauthorization of the Program. In 
addition, the Subcommittee explored the Program's future goals 
and objectives as well as plans for achieving these goals and 
objectives.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Mr. Michael J. 
Armstrong, Associate Director for Mitigation, FEMA; Dr. P. 
Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS; Dr. Joseph Bordogna, 
Acting Deputy Director, NSF; Raymond Kammer, Director, NIST; 
Dr. Daniel Abrams, Director, Mid-America Earthquake Center; and 
Mr. Christopher Arnold, President, Earthquake Engineering 
Research Center.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Armstrong testified by describing the two roles FEMA 
plays within NEHRP: (1) Lead Agency--FEMA serves as Program 
coordinator; and (2) Emergency Management Agency--FEMA works to 
reduce losses resulting from earthquakes. He announced the 
creation of a strategic plan for the Program and announced its 
goals: (1) accelerate implementation of earthquake loss 
reduction practices; (2) improve techniques to reduce seismic 
vulnerability; (3) improve quality and use of seismic hazard 
and risk identification; and (4) improve the understanding of 
earthquakes. Mr. Armstrong concluded his testimony by 
highlighting several of the successes resulting from NEHRP, 
which range from the development of building guidelines and 
hazard maps to progress made through research activities.
    Dr. Leahy described the three roles of the Survey in NEHRP: 
(1) producing earthquake loss products; (2) providing 
earthquake notifications; and (3) supporting earthquake 
research. He testified earthquake loss products include hazard 
assessments that give the expected severity of shaking at a 
given location in a given time frame. These were used, in 
conjunction with state and professional organizations, to 
develop national seismic hazard maps, which in turn will be 
used to create the new international building codes. To carry 
out the Survey's second role, USGS operates the National 
Earthquake Information Center, the National Seismograph Network 
and supports 13 regional seismic networks. Dr. Leahy closed his 
testimony by pointing out two areas of need: a comprehensive 
upgrade of the seismic monitoring system and an external 
advisory committee for the USGS within NEHRP.
    Dr. Bordogna reviewed two of the initiatives being 
undertaken by NSF. The first, the Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation (NEES) will be an integrated system of 
new and upgraded research facilities. The second, the 
Incorporated Research Institutes in Seismology (IRSIS), which 
is a consortium that provides seismographic monitoring 
facilities, including the Global Seismographic Network (GSN). 
He closed his testimony by stating NEES, IRIS and other NSF-
sponsored activities will continue to make long-term 
contributions to the safety and welfare of the country.
    Mr. Kammer testified NIST's role in NEHRP is to conduct 
research that will improve building and lifeline codes, 
practices and standards, which supports other earthquake 
research. He used video to demonstrate examples of research 
techniques. He closed his testimony by adding NIST has been 
working with other government entities and professional 
organizations both to develop such standards and to solve 
earthquake-related problems, such as post-earthquake fires.
    Dr. Abrams explained his organization conducts earthquake 
engineering research aimed at reducing the losses associated 
with earthquakes. He explained the need for continued research 
by citing current examples of the application of research 
findings: provisions for the seismic design of new buildings, 
recently published guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of 
buildings, and the loss estimate methodology known as HAZUS. 
The future of earthquake engineering research, he said, should 
include progress propelled by advanced technologies, maturity 
of NEHRP, continued earthquake reconnaissance, the new NEES 
program, continuation of the three earthquake centers, and 
research that takes into consideration other hazards.
    Mr. Arnold commented on the performance-based engineering 
research undertaken by EERI members which is resulting in new 
design and construction methodology. Research supported by NSF 
and a study commissioned by FEMA are two examples of EERI's 
involvement in NEHRP. He testified EERI supports the NEES 
initiative proposed by NSF. Finally, he closed his testimony by 
commenting that social science research is also an important 
area in which research should be conducted to provide guidance 
on how to apply technical solutions.

          4.2(b)--Information Technology for the 21st Century


                             March 16, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-20


Background

    On Tuesday, March 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on the Administration's ``Information 
Technology for the 21st Century'' initiative, better known as 
IT \2\. The hearing focused on the three research areas 
highlighted in the proposal--(1) fundamental, long-term 
research in computer science; (2) advanced computational 
activities; and, (3) the economic and social implications of 
information technology--and how these would complement, build 
upon, or duplicate current federal activities conducted through 
the High-Performance Computing and Communications, Next 
Generation Internet, and other federal programs.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and 
Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; 
Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair, President's Information Technology 
Advisory Committee and Director, Center for Research on 
Parallel Computation, Rice University; Dr. Erich Bloch, 
President, Washington Advisory Group and Distinguished Fellow, 
Council on Competitiveness; Dr. Stephen Wolff, Executive 
Director, Advanced Internet Initiatives Division, Cisco 
Systems; Dr. Fred Hausheer, Chairman and CEO, BioNumerick 
Pharmaceuticals; and Dr. Hal R. Varian, Dean, School of 
Information Management, University of California, Berkeley.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Lane testified the Administration focused on 
information technology (IT) research in the fiscal year 2000 
R&D budget for three central reasons: (1) IT has become a key 
driver of the economy; (2) IT is essential for achieving some 
of our most overarching public goals; and (3) Federal 
investment in fundamental IT research is essential to provide 
the reservoir of ideas that will lead to IT innovations in the 
generations to come. The President's IT \2\ initiative, which 
would provide $366 million in new funding, is a direct response 
to the PITAC's recommendation for increased Federal support of 
fundamental, long-term IT research in three areas: (1) long-
term fundamental research aimed at fundamental advances in 
computing and communications; (2) advanced computing 
infrastructure as a tool to facilitate important scientific and 
engineering discoveries of national interest; and (3) expanded 
research into social, economic, and workforce impacts of 
information technology, including transformation of social 
institutions, impact of legislation and regulation, electronic 
commerce, barriers to information technology diffusion, and 
effective use of technology in education. Six agencies will 
participate in the program: the Department of Defense, 
Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Science 
Foundation.
    Dr. Kennedy summarized PITAC's principal finding, i.e., 
there has been a pronounced shift in Federal IT programs away 
from long-term high-risk projects toward short-term, applied 
research linked to mission agencies. PITAC believes unless this 
shift away from fundamental high-risk research is reversed, it 
will threaten the Nation's economic leadership, along with the 
continued beneficial effects on the health and welfare of its 
citizens. PITAC recommended four areas requiring greater 
research: (1) software; (2) scalable information 
infrastructure; (3) high-end computing; and (4) social, 
economic, and workforce implications. In addition, PITAC 
recommended developing strategic initiatives for long-term R&D, 
funding projects for longer periods, establishing an effective 
structure for managing and co-ordinating R&D, and increasing 
spending by $1.4 billion by Fiscal Year 2004.
    Dr. Erich Bloc noted the history of Federal investment in 
information technology research is studded with examples of 
research that would never have been done--and discoveries that 
could never have been made--if it had been left to the private 
sector alone. These innovations have spawned new industries and 
created tens of thousands of high paying jobs. Dr. Bloc agreed 
with PITAC there is an increased need for research to address 
the challenges of an evolving information infrastructure 
supported the government's continuing role to support basic 
research in IT. The budget Congress will consider for research 
on information technology for the coming fiscal year should 
include sustained support for research aimed at setting and 
achieving difficult goals over the next five to ten years.
    Dr. Wolff testified Cisco supports the principal findings 
of PITAC and the Administration's responsiveness to its 
recommendations via the IT\2\ program. The proposed long-term 
research in ``deeply networked systems'' will support and 
complement nascent industry initiatives in Electronic 
Persistent Presence--ubiquitous, very large-scale, and 
permanent Internet connectivity. The IT\2\ thrust in modeling 
and simulation will also support this massive growth. Within 
both the software and the socio-economic areas, a research 
thrust related to cryptography is required. The sub-programs on 
economic and social implications on workforce development 
complement and support industry activities. There are 
management issues concerning the relation of IT\2\ to existing 
programs.
    Dr. Hausheer discussed the importance of IT to biomedical 
research. The success of the NIH component of the IT\2\ 
initiative is critical to using the vast amount of genomic and 
biological information generated by the human genome project to 
benefit patients. NIH's IT goals should include: (1) on-site 
supercomputing capability advanced in the near term to multi-
teraflops, and ultimately petaflop capability; (2) dedicated 
biomedical IT training and research program for physicians and 
scientists; (3) dedicated NIH software development on-site with 
laboratory validation of simulations; (4) avoid ``off-the-
shelf, just as fast, but cheaper'' computing research projects; 
and (5) greater IT-biomedical research representation on PITAC.
    Dr. Varian spoke to the socio-economic aspects of the IT\2\ 
proposal. IT also will have a significant impact on law, 
education, commerce, organizations, and communities. Policy 
choices made now, such as definition of technological and legal 
standards, will be with us for a long time, and attention must 
be paid not only to their technological merit, but also their 
social and economic impact. Understanding the social and 
economic consequences of our technological choices is vitally 
important in achieving the full potential of advances in IT.

4.2(c)--The United States Fire Administration (USFA) Authorization for 
                       Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001


                             March 23, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-19


Background

    On Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on the United States Fire 
Administration (USFA) and its National Fire Academy (NFA). This 
hearing examined the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget 
request for this program as well as programmatic issues. The 
purpose of this hearing was to assess the current status of the 
NFA and the programs offered through the USFA and consider 
issues related to a two-year authorization of the U.S. Fire 
Administration.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: The Honorable 
James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, on behalf of the Honorable 
Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology; Mr. Stephen Austin, Chair, Blue Ribbon Panel and 
External Affairs Representative, International Association of 
Arson Investigators, Inc.; Chief Luther Fincher, First Vice 
President, International Association of Fire Chiefs; Dr. John 
R. Hall, Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and Research, 
National Fire Protection Association; and Salvador Morales, 
Member, Blue Ribbon Panel and Driver Engineer, Dallas Fire 
Department.

Summary of hearing

    Director Witt began by discussing the recommendations for 
reform of the U.S. Fire Administration made by the Blue Ribbon 
Panel. He then reviewed FEMA's blueprint for change within the 
Fire Administration, including increased funding requests for 
the data collection system, public education materials, and 
firefighter training activities. He added FEMA also is going to 
be working with national fire organizations on prevention and 
protection efforts. Director Witt added that FEMA is going to 
be re-commissioning America Burning so the current state of 
fire dangers in the Nation can be determined. He closed his 
testimony by acknowledging challenges facing the agency, such 
as reaching those most vulnerable to fire losses.
    Dr. Brown testified by reviewing NIST's responsibilities 
under the Fire Prevention and Control Act: serving as the 
Nation's leading fire research laboratory and having 
responsibility for national fire safety policy and programs. 
She explained NIST's strategy for meeting these obligations has 
been both to identify the most common situations that result in 
fire death and develop intervention strategies and technologies 
and to conduct fundamental fire research and develop fire 
safety materials, products, systems and facilities. These 
activities, along with cooperative efforts with other Federal 
agencies, private sector organizations and the fire services 
have led to decreased fire death rates; new practices, 
standards, code provisions; and new technologies, such as 
residential smoke detectors. She concluded her testimony by 
emphasizing the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel report 
that called for increasing fire research.
    Mr. Austin testified by highlighting the recommendations of 
the Blue Ribbon Panel report. He explained the Panel does not 
want the USFA to assume added responsibilities, but to improve 
upon current responsibilities. He explained funding increases 
are necessary in order to maintain the responsibilities the 
USFA has successfully fulfilled. Mr. Austin pointed out the 
development of residential smoke detectors and sprinkler 
systems as proof for continued investment in research. He also 
stressed the importance of improving the fire data collection 
system, as this information is necessary to developing 
strategies for fire protection and public safety education. 
Finally, he noted a lack of resources is inhibiting the 
National Fire Academy from reaching its capability, which is 
both needed and requested by the fire services community. He 
concluded his testimony by stating support for the Fire 
Administration.
    Chief Fincher relayed the support of the Fire Service 
Leadership Summit participants for the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel and the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
request. He highlighted four areas of particular importance. He 
stated two of these areas, organizational structure and 
management and leadership issues, must be addressed before 
other problems can be addressed. The final two priorities for 
which he testified increased funding should be allocated are 
the National Fire Incident Reporting System and research and 
development. He concluded by adding appreciation for the 
attention being paid to the Fire Administration by the Congress 
and by FEMA.
    Dr. Hall testified about the importance of the National 
Fire Incident Reporting System as the core of the Nation's 
basis for fire data. Continuous underfunding has inhibited 
NFIRS from fully being successful. Next, he spoke of the 
progress gained by fire research, especially that done by NIST, 
in developing fire protection technology. He suggested the USFA 
partner with other fire researchers through long-term 
partnerships in order to increase the volume of fire research 
conducted. Finally, he recommended the USFA leverage resources 
by partnering with national organizations in fire safety and 
prevention efforts. He concluded his testimony by offering 
support for the reauthorization of the USFA.
    Mr. Morales highlighted some of the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel. Specifically, he advocated increasing 
funding for educational materials to be used in conjunction 
with Federal, state and local organizations in order to meet 
the USFA goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property 
from fire-related hazards by five percent by the year 2000. 
Next, he reiterated the Panel's support for upgrading the NFIRS 
system and for increasing investment in fire research, arson 
research and prevention, and anti-terrorism training. He 
concluded his testimony by supporting the Panel's 
recommendation for increased funding to the National Fire 
Academy.

             4.2(d)--H.R. 749, The Home Page Tax Repeal Act


                             March 24, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-38


Background

    On Wednesday, March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to examine the ``Home Page Tax Repeal 
Act'' (H.R. 749), introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). The bill 
would repeal section 8003 of the 1998 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations and Rescissions Act (P.L. 105-174), which 
granted authority retroactively to the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) to collect a fee for use to support Internet 
development. Rep. Terry's bill also would allow NSF to use 
funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 1999 to meet any obligation 
arising from the repeal of section 8003.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: The 
Honorable Lee Terry, Member of Congress (R-NE); Mr. Lawrence 
Rudolph, General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 
Arlington, Virginia; Mr. David McClure, Executive Director, 
Association of Online Professionals, Alexandria, Virginia; and 
Mr. Dan Troy, Partner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding and Associate 
Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.

Summary of hearing

    Congressman Terry stated his bill, by eliminating this fee/
tax, would keep the Internet free of taxes as proposed by the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act that was passed in the 105th Congress. 
He further stated Congress had not authorized this tax and 
therefore the NSF had exceeded its authority and allowing a 
retroactive tax to continue would harm the future growth of the 
Internet.
    Mr. Rudolph testified the NSF did have the authority to 
create the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund (IIF) 
under well-known government rules governing cooperative 
agreements. Mr. Rudolph stated under OMB Circular A-110, the 
charge was legal and would be treated as ``program income.'' He 
stated the NSF has used this fee-structure on several other NSF 
projects. He noted NSF's disagreement with the district court's 
decision and the appeal process was still under way. He was 
concerned the bill did not outline how the money collected by 
the fee would be sent back to the payers, if the bill was 
enacted. He also stated the NSF took great offense at the 
charge that it was a ``renegade'' agency.
    Mr. McClure stated that allowing retroactive taxation of 
the Internet would establish a dangerous precedent. Mr. McClure 
praised the Internet Tax Freedom Act and noted that there is 
increasing pressure to tax the World Wide Web. He concluded his 
testimony by stating that keeping the Internet tax-free is in 
the long-term a benefit to the country.
    Mr. Troy stressed three points in his testimony. First, the 
Constitution vests the Congress with the exclusive power to 
tax. Allowing agencies to establish their own, unauthorized 
taxes is dangerous and lacks democratic legitimacy. Second, 
allowing this retroactive authorization of an unconstitutional 
tax would encourage other agencies to do the same. Third, 
eliminating this tax will emphasize the principles written into 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

  4.2(e)--National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request


                             April 28, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-12


Background

    On Wednesday, April 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to review the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) budget request for FY 2000. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from the National Science Foundation and the 
National Science Board.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation, and Dr. 
Eamon Kelly, Member, National Science Board.

Summary of the hearing

    Dr. Kelly testified more research is done by the private 
sector than by government. His concern is that only the 
government supports true fundamental science, while corporate 
funded research is usually short-term projects. In addition, he 
stated as a percentage of the money spent by the government for 
R&D, a lower amount now goes to basic research than has in the 
past. His argument is basic research will pay-off in the long 
term. As an example, he noted four of the top ten companies 
listed on the Fortune 500 list were not even on the list at all 
ten years ago.
    Dr. Colwell testified by discussing the IT \2\ Initiative. 
She stated information technology is responsible for close to 
one-third of the economic growth in the 1990s and it is a 
national imperative to continue to support funding basic 
research in the field of information technology. She then 
discussed the issue of biocomplexity and its importance to 
multi-disciplinary projects at the NSF. Like Dr. Kelly, Dr. 
Colwell was concerned that a lower percentage of government R&D 
funding now goes into engineering, while a larger percentage is 
going into the life sciences and other applied sciences.

              4.2(f)--The U.S. Antarctic Research Program


                              June 9, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-57


Background

    On Wednesday, June 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing addressing issues related to the U.S. 
Antarctic Research Program. The hearing examined a number of 
issues, including modernization of the South Pole Station, the 
transfer of logistical support from the Navy to the New York 
Air National Guard, long-term plans for McMurdo Station, 
recompetition of the Antarctic support contract, the impact of 
growing tourism, weather forecasting and air traffic control, 
and satellite communications.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, National Science 
Foundation; Brigadier General Archie J. Berberian II, Chief of 
Staff, New York Air National Guard; and Dr. Donal Manahan, 
Chairman, Polar Studies Board, National Research Council, 
National Academy of Sciences.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Erb emphasized the vital research being conducted in 
Antarctica and stressed the importance of maintaining an active 
presence in the region. His testimony covered a number of 
important issues, including: South Pole Station modernization 
and safety/environment upgrade; the impact of these programs on 
U.S. Antarctic Program science projects; the transition of air 
logistics support from the Navy and the New York Air National 
Guard; support-contract recompetition; research vessel contract 
recompetition; facilities improvements; weather forecasting; 
air traffic control and landing systems; energy conservation, 
satellite communications; and the effects of tourism.
    General Berberian testified on the status of the transition 
of the ski-equipped LC-130 airlift mission in support of the 
U.S. Antarctic Program from the Navy to the Air National Guard. 
His testimony covered background on the transition and 
operational issues the Guard has encountered during the three-
year inter-service hand-off process. General Berberian stated 
the transition was successful and the cost savings approached, 
if not surpassed, projections. He supported NSF's budget 
request, which included funds for upgrading three LC-130 
aircraft, and advocated acquisition of classified imagery of 
Antarctic field sites from the National Reconnaissance Office. 
Gen. Berberian also addressed weather forecasting and air 
traffic control.
    Dr. Manahan's testimony dealt with the impact of the South 
Pole modernization on the science being conducted in and around 
Antarctica. Dr. Manahan reported, for the most part, the 
science has been unaffected by the modernization. The one area 
where there has been a noticeable impact has been in deep field 
operations, especially those in the geological sciences. Dr. 
Manahan also testified the scientific community is in agreement 
that the modernized South Pole Station will greatly improve the 
opportunities for scientific research.

 4.2(g)--Tornadoes: Understanding, Modeling, and Forecasting Supercell 
                                 Storms


                             June 16, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-11


Background

    On Wednesday, June 16, 1999, the Subcommittees on Energy 
and Environment and Basic Research held a joint hearing 
examining federally funded tornado research and how research is 
used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to improve warning 
times.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittees included: Mr. 
Dennis McCarthy, Meteorologist in Charge, Norman Weather 
Forecast Office; Dr. Morris Weisman, Mesoscale and Microscale 
Meteorology Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research; 
Dr. Roger Wakimoto, Professor and Chair, Department of 
Atmospheric Science, University of California Los Angeles; and 
Dr. Howard Bluestein, Professor of Meteorology, University of 
Oklahoma.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. McCarthy testified by noting the May 3, 1999 tornado 
outbreak that killed 42 people and injured 795 in Oklahoma. He 
stated the outbreak, while tragic, demonstrated how much 
progress has been made in issuing accurate and timely weather 
warnings. He testified that on that day, outlooks, watches and 
warnings were issued well in advance and they were communicated 
rapidly. He said the media, emergency managers, local 
officials, volunteer spotter groups and state agencies worked 
in partnership to keep people informed. He pointed to 
technological developments such as NEXRAD Doppler radar and the 
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) have 
assisted the National Weather Service in improving its warning 
capabilities. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of 
continued tornadic storm research in improving the accuracy and 
timeliness of severe weather warnings.
    Dr. Weisman testified by emphasizing how, over the past two 
decades, much progress has been made in understanding and 
forecasting tornado outbreaks that devastated Oklahoma and 
Kansas on May 3, 1999. He stated this progress has come about 
through a strong connection between the research and forecast 
communities. Dr. Weisman used radar images of the May 3rd 
tornadoes, along with training materials developed for the 
National Weather Service, to illustrate the local conditions 
that form such storms, detailed the physical aspects of the 
storms, and reviewed new forecasting theories and applications. 
He also presented results from experimental forecast models 
which were run on May 3rd which offer hope that such events 
could some day be forecast hours in advance, rather than the 
10-30 minute warning times currently available.
    Dr. Wakimoto noted the science of forecasting the 
atmospheric conditions that will lead to the development of a 
supercell storm is rather effective; whereas, the science 
surrounding the development of a tornado within a supercell is 
not nearly so well-understood. He testified some important 
questions remain unanswered: what triggers the genesis of a 
tornado in a supercell? What is the origin of rotation within 
supercell tornadoes? He also stated more research is necessary 
in understanding tornadoes that form in non-supercell storms, 
such as those that form in so-called ``bow'' echo storms.
    Dr. Blustein testified on federally funded research aimed 
at understanding the formation and behavior of tornadoes. He 
highlighted the success of new radar technologies including the 
NEXRAD and mobile Doppler systems, noting these technologies 
give researchers a much higher-resolution look at the structure 
of tornadoes. He stated new radar technology, and faster and 
larger computers, researchers can make great progress in the 
next five to ten years in determining how and why tornadoes 
form, and in developing the best ways to protect the citizenry.

4.2(h)--Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-Science and Its Prospects for 
                            the Next Decade


                             June 22, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-40


Background

    On Tuesday, June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on the state of nanotechnology. The 
purpose of the hearing was to review federal funding of 
nanotechnology research, to discuss the role of the federal 
government in supporting nano-science research, and to discuss 
the economic implications of scientific advances made in the 
field of nanotechnology.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Eugene Wong, the Assistant Director of NSF's Engineering 
Directorate, National Science Foundation; Professor Richard 
Smalley, Ph.D., Rice University; Dr. Ralph C. Merkle, XEROX; 
and Mr. Paul McWhorter, Deputy Director, Sandia National 
Laboratories' Microsystems Science, Technology and Components 
Center.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Wong testified by defining the word ``nanoscale''. A 
nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. The diameter of an atom 
is about \1/4\ of 1 nanometer. Over the last twenty years a 
series of instruments have been developed that allow 
researchers to control objects at the nanoscale level. The 
ability to control and manipulate objects at the molecular 
level will allow researchers and manufacturers to produce 
revolutionary products. One example, the ``nanochip'' allows a 
single researcher to complete gene-characterizations in a few 
hours rather than over a few years as has been the case.
    Dr. Smalley testified our society is already seeing the 
initial uses of nanotechnology. Dr. Smalley used his own 
experience with chemotherapy as an example of how today's 
biotech industry is, in fact, a crude version of the 
nanotechnology that will exist in the next few decades. He also 
testified a national initiative, ``Nanotechnology for the 
Twenty-First Century: Leading to a New Industrial Revolution'', 
will be recommended as part of the Administration's Fiscal Year 
2001 budget. The initiative will support long-term 
nanotechnology research and development. The proposed level of 
additional annual funding approximately doubles (by $260 M) the 
current level of effort, incrementally increased over three 
years. This initiative will focus on fundamental research on 
novel phenomena, processes and tools; synthesis and processing 
by design; nanostructured devices, materials and systems that 
are high risk, broadly enabling and are designed to have major 
impact; as well as education and training of future 
nanotechnology workers; and rapid technology transfer.
    Mr. McWhorter discussed the progress made over the past 
fifty years in the field of micro-electronics and how that 
progress will lead to a ``second silicon revolution'' involving 
micro-machines made using nanotechnology. One benefit of 
establishing a national initiative on nanotechnology is it will 
generate a sense of unity among the many individual researchers 
working in this field. Mr. McWhorter argued nanotechnology is 
unlike attempting to send someone to the moon because that 
initiative had one well-known and well-defined goal--
nanotechnology is an example of ``small science'' in which many 
individual researchers work separately on non-related projects.
    Dr. Merkle testified by giving a few examples of the uses 
of nanotechnology. We will be able to manufacture metals fifty 
times lighter than steel but with the same strength, amazingly 
small yet powerful molecular computers, and surgical devices so 
small that they could be injected into the blood-stream and 
guided by non-invasive computers. Dr. Merkle testified 
nanotechnology will reshape our entire manufacturing process 
and will impact every aspect of our lives. One of the more 
controversial issues in nanotechnology is the issue of self-
replication. In biology, cells are continuously self-
replicating. Dr. Merkle argued to unlock the true potential of 
nanotechnology researchers will need to discover a way to 
produce self-replicating man-made molecules. He also stated it 
will take 20 to 30 years to produce the nanotechnological 
advances discussed at this hearing.

 4.2(i)--H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research 
                          and Development Act


                             July 14, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-39


Background

    On Wednesday, July 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on H.R. 2086, the Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD 
Act). This hearing focused on the authorizations for 
appropriations for the six agencies participating in the 
program, including the various grants programs for long-term IT 
research, the Next Generation Internet program, and the 
terascale computing competition.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and 
Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; 
Dr. Roberta Katz, President and CEO, Technology Network; Dr. 
Edward D. Lazowska, Professor and Chair, Department of Computer 
Science & Engineering, University of Washington and Chair, 
Computing Research Association; and Mr. Alan Blatecky, Vice 
President for Information Technology, MCNC.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Lane testified the Administration strongly supports the 
aims of H.R. 2086 but believes there are areas where the bill 
could be improved. These include: including the Department of 
Defense and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the 
proposed legislation; providing funding for DOE's Scientific 
Simulation Initiative, including terascale computing 
infrastructure; providing increased funding for DOE's base 
advanced mathematics and computation programs; funding the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology at the 
requested level for fiscal year 2000; and incorporating all of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's IT 
programs in H.R. 2086. In addition, the Administration also is 
concerned about a provision in H.R. 2086 calling for the NSF to 
conduct a study to assess foreign encryption technologies and 
domestic technologies subject to export restriction. The 
Administration supports the bill's provision making the R&D tax 
credit permanent but takes the position that it must be paid 
for per the PAYGO requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act.
    Dr. Katz began by stating TechNet has adopted strengthening 
the Nation's federal investment in basic IT R&D and enacting a 
permanent R&D tax credit as top priorities; H.R. 2086 is an 
important first step in achieving consistent increases in 
federal support for critical IT research programs. She noted 
TechNet appreciates the bill's reliance on the recommendations 
of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee 
(PITAC). In particular, TechNet supports H.R. 2086's emphasis 
on fundamental IT research. She observed that although the 
private sector provides the lion's share of IT research 
funding, most of this is for short-term, applied research. The 
bill's focus on NSF also is appropriate and in keeping with 
PITAC's recommendations. The bill's provisions on large-scale, 
long-term IT grants, completion of the Next Generation Internet 
program, and establishing an IT internship program were also 
supported by TechNet. And the five-year authorizations in the 
bill demonstrate a commitment to a continued strong federal 
investment in basic IT research. Her organization also strongly 
supports the permanent extension of the R&D tax credit.
    Dr. Lazowska voiced strong support for the bill, saying it 
exemplifies a sound approach to making research policy by 
responding to clear national needs with recognizable objectives 
and setting forth a well defined program for meeting them. 
Concerning the legislation, Dr. Lazowska made three main 
points: (1) H.R. 2086 expands fundamental research in targeted 
critical areas and sustains successful interagency programs 
with multi-year funding; (2) H.R. 2086 strengthens the federal 
role in long-term IT research, a role industry cannot be 
expected to assume; and (3) H.R. 2086 appropriately increases 
support for the National Science Foundation, the agency with 
the broadest role in computing research and infrastructure. 
Concerning the current environment, he said: (1) NSF is 
undertaking a thorough planning process to maximize the 
benefits of IT research for all of science and engineering, and 
for all of society; (2) expanding the federal investment in 
information technology research is widely supported by the 
scientific community; and (3) the impact of IT on society and 
the economy clearly demonstrates the need for and timeliness of 
the NITRD Act. Calling IT a ``rising tide that lifts all 
boats,'' Dr. Lazowska urged quick passage of the bill.
    Mr. Blatecky noted the importance of IT to the Nation's 
economy and talked about the impact the North Carolina Research 
and Education Network, North Carolina Supercomputing Center, 
and North Carolina Information Highway have had on the economy 
of that State. He also noted the importance of a national grid 
of communication and computing resources and said the 
technology development cycle does not address the equally 
important issues of scalability, long term basic research in 
networking and computing, software development, human 
interfaces, network security, information or training. H.R. 
2086 directly address these needs through three key provisions: 
(1) long-term basic research grants for high end computing and 
networking; (2) provision of twenty to thirty large focused 
grants by NSF; and (3) establishment of eight to ten IT 
research centers. In addition, he supported the establishment 
of a scientific internship program to encourage and develop an 
effective mechanism to link the private sector with the 
universities and community colleges that will broaden the 
educational experience of students and create a more effective 
way to transfer technology.

 4.2(j)--Attracting a New Generation to Math and Science: The Role of 
Public-Private Partnerships in Education and H.R. 1265, Mathematics and 
              Science Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999


                             July 29, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-62


Background

    On Thursday, July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to examine the role of public-private 
partnerships in encouraging students to pursue math and science 
education and to examine the ``Mathematics and Science 
Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999'' (H.R. 1265), introduced 
by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Subcommittee. The bill would establish a 
demonstration project through the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) to encourage student interest in the fields of 
mathematics, science, and information technology by creating a 
grant program through NSF. The grants would be awarded to 
eligible rural and urban educational agencies for developing or 
expanding mathematics, science or information technology 
programs.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Jane Kahle, 
Director of NSF's Division of Elementary, Secondary and 
Informal Education in the Directorate for Education and Human 
Resources; Mr. Gerald L. Borders, Director of Public Affairs 
for Texas Instruments; Mr. Raymond V. (Buzz) Bartlett, Director 
of Corporate Affairs for Lockheed Martin Corporation; Dr. John 
A. Thorpe, the Executive Director of the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics; and Dr. Manuel Berriozabal, Director 
of the San Antonio Prefreshman Engineering Program and 
Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas at San 
Antonio.

Summary of hearing

    In her testimony, Dr. Kahle described six NSF initiatives 
aimed at improving science and math achievement: (1) the K-12 
Systemic Initiative Programs; (2) instructional materials and 
curriculum development, in which texts and other materials are 
developed with NSF support; (3) professional development, 
including teacher and administrator preparation; (4) the 
Digital Libraries Initiative project, which will create a 
virtual facility to link students, teachers and faculty and 
provide access to educational materials; (5) research on 
learning and education, with a particular emphasis on the 
Interagency Education Research Initiative, a joint project with 
the Department of Education (DoEd) and the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH); and (6) the Graduate Teaching Fellows Program, 
which pairs graduate students with K-12 teachers and brings the 
graduate students into the classroom.
    Mr. Borders began his testimony by describing and showing 
an example of a Texas Instruments semiconductor chip. He went 
on to say that because Texas Instruments relies on a highly 
technologically skilled workforce to make such products, the 
company has made support of educational programs a corporate 
priority. Texas Instruments has already formed a partnership 
with NSF as part of the Urban Systemic Programs and is involved 
in training teachers in order to help them integrate learning 
technologies into their school districts. Furthermore, plans 
are currently underway to create an alliance between NSF and 
more than 3000 member companies of the American Electronics 
Association. Mr. Borders closed by offering support for H.R. 
1265.
    Mr. Bartlett described Lockheed Martin Corporation's 
involvement in education, stating of the $10 million spent by 
the corporation on philanthropy every year, two thirds of that 
sum is spent on education, with $800,000 of that going to 
programs at the K-12 level. Most, if not all, of Lockheed's 50 
operating companies are involved in programs in local schools. 
Mr. Bartlett then described one such programs: an intern 
program at Lockheed Martin Missile Systems in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland. Lockheed Martin has also been involved in the 
movement to introduce standards, assessments and accountability 
in schools, and Mr. Bartlett stressed the need for teacher 
professional development and the introduction of more rigorous 
curricula, and indicated support for H.R. 1265 to the extent it 
supports those goals.
    Dr. Thorpe briefly described the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics, which represents more than 100,000 
mathematics teachers and has been involved in curriculum and 
professional development. He also stressed the importance of 
addressing the needs of students in urban and rural school 
districts. The most important aspect of improving math and 
science education, he said, is the role of teachers, and he 
pointed out currently, approximately 40 percent of the Nation's 
teachers are teaching outside of their area of professional 
competency. Qualified teachers who have access to high quality 
professional development programs, he said, are critical to 
improving math and science education, and he indicated support 
for H.R. 1265, saying the bill recognizes the important role of 
teachers in improving education.
    Dr. Berriozabal described the San Antonio Prefreshman 
Engineering Program, a mathematics-based academic enrichment 
program for middle and high school students interested in 
science, mathematics, and engineering careers. The program 
operates in partnership with private industry and provides 
supplemental mathematics instruction to students, with special 
efforts dedicated to the recruitment of women and minorities. 
Dr. Berriozabal closed by suggesting the public and private 
sectors ought to identify pre-college programs that have a 
proven record of achievement and provide for their support. He 
also indicated support for private-sector underwriting of 
college scholarships for deserving students interested in 
pursuing science, engineering, or information technology 
careers.

4.2(k)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market, 
                                 Part I


                             August 3, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-60


Background

    On August 3, 1999 the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the first of a series of hearings to review federal funding for 
plant genome research; the role of the Federal Government in 
supporting plant genome research; and the potential impact of 
this research on agriculture and the marketing of agricultural 
products.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Mary 
Clutter, the Assistant Director of NSF's Directorate for 
Biological Sciences; Dr. Eileen Kennedy, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Dr. Kenneth Keegstra, Director and 
Professor, Michigan State University Plant Research Laboratory; 
Dr. John Ryals, the Chief Executive Officer of Paradigm 
Genetics; and Dr. Susanne Huttner, Director of the 
Biotechnology Research and Education Program at the University 
of California.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Clutter stressed NSF's role in funding plant biology 
research in the U.S., in part by providing over 50 percent of 
all competitively awarded support for basic plant biology 
research that is conducted in colleges and universities. Dr. 
Clutter stated NSF's Plant Genome Program alone provided $50 
million in FY 1999 for research projects involving 45 separate 
institutions in 23 states. One of the specific projects funded 
by the Plant Genome Project is the Arabidopsis Genome Research 
Project. The first goal of the Arabidopsis project is to 
determine the sequence of the plant's entire DNA complement--a 
project analogous to the Human Genome Project in concept. In 
the second stage of the project, functional analysis will be 
performed. In discussing the benefits of the Arabidopsis 
project, Dr. Clutter stressed the importance of placing all the 
sequencing data into public databases.
    Dr. Kennedy discussed USDA's involvement in plant genome 
research and related areas in her testimony. Besides USDA's 
participation in the Arabidopsis and rice genome projects, USDA 
funds basic research through Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS) laboratories as well as through other mechanisms. Dr. 
Kennedy also described the Biotechnology Risk Assessment 
Research Grant Program, which was funded at $1.5 million in 
FY1999 and is aimed at sponsoring research into the impacts of 
biotechnology on agriculture and the environment. A goal of the 
program is to assist Federal regulatory agencies in making 
science-based decisions regarding the safety of genetically 
modified plants.
    Dr. Keegstra described plant genome research currently 
being pursued at Michigan State University, a recipient of NSF 
Plant Genome funding. Dr. Keegstra described the researchers' 
use of ``DNA microarray analysis,'' a recently developed 
technology aimed at determining the functions of all of the 
genes in an organism simultaneously. Dr. Keegstra closed his 
testimony by emphasizing the potential benefits of plant genome 
research--improved crop yields, enhanced nutritional 
characteristics of plant-based foods, for example--had a 
grounding in basic research such as that funded by NSF.
    Dr. Ryals described the private sector's interest and 
involvement in plant genome research and agricultural 
biotechnology. He described the practice of genetically 
engineering crops as ``a revolution not unlike the advent of 
power and light, aviation or computer technology.'' While 
scientists are able to move genes into new organisms quite 
readily, he stated, the major limiting step in the technology 
today involves the discovery of new genes. The application of 
genome-based techniques, he explained, would facilitate this 
discovery, and thus forms the basis for much of the research at 
agricultural biotechnology companies such as his.
    Dr. Huttner testified to the crucial role of biotechnology 
in agriculture and food production and to the importance of the 
agricultural biotechnology industry. Public investments in 
research activities such as the Plant Genome program, she said, 
are an important step in increasing the level of activity in 
the agricultural biotechnology sector. She described a special 
role for small businesses, saying small firms are often fueled 
by investors ``that take risks big agribusiness won't.'' Dr. 
Huttner warned, however, public controversy over genetically 
engineered crops threatens to distort U.S. regulatory policy, 
potentially stifling future developments. She emphasized the 
consensus of scientists regarding the risks associated with 
genetically modified foods was the new technology posed risks 
no different from those associated with classical agricultural 
techniques. She stressed current regulatory policies aimed at 
protecting consumers are adequate to protect the safety of 
humans and the environment.

  4.2(l)--Overcoming Barriers to the Utilization of Technology in the 
                               Classroom


                           September 22, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-44


Background

    On September 22, 1999, the Subcommittees on Technology and 
Basic Research held a joint hearing, which focused on 
technology in the K-12 classroom. In particular, the hearing 
examined the appropriate role of local, state, and Federal 
programs in helping schools get connected; the barriers that 
prevent schools from implementing successful technology 
programs; and how the private sector can be harnessed to assist 
schools in bringing technology into the classroom.
    Witnesses included: Dr. George O. Strawn, Executive 
Officer, Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
Directorate, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA; Mr. 
Alan Spoon, President, The Washington Post, Washington, DC; Dr. 
Elizabeth Glowa, Director for Instructional Technology Support 
Team, Office of Global Access Technology, Montgomery County 
Public Schools, Rockville, MD; and Mr. James Fallon Jr., 
Superintendent of Schools, East Hartford School District, East 
Hartford, Connecticut.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Strawn provided an overview of the National Science 
Foundation's involvement with the creation of the Internet and 
its use in the classroom. He testified since 1996, NSF has 
supported research and development in novel technologies that 
could lower the cost of and/or lower other barriers to bringing 
the Internet to public schools and libraries. He testified 
there is a need to better understand the costs, capabilities, 
human resource requirements, and potential educational benefits 
of universal high speed Internet access for all schools. 
Finally, he said NSF stands ready to work with Congress and 
other stakeholders in education technology to develop an 
effective mechanism to inform policymakers in the rapidly 
evolving world of networking.
    Mr. Spoon testified on behalf of the CEO Forum on Education 
and Technology. The CEO Forum is a coalition of corporate and 
academic leaders who joined together in 1996 to form a four-
year partnership to access and monitor progress toward 
integrating technology in American schools. He stated the CEO 
Forum has committed to releasing four reports examining 
different areas of education technology and his testimony would 
focus on the Forum's third report dealing with teacher 
training. He stated it is important for schools to invest in 
professional development so teachers can successfully integrate 
technology in the classroom. Otherwise, schools are at a risk 
of wasting scarce resources on technology that will not be 
utilized to its fullest potential. He went on to list a set of 
recommendations put forth by the CEO Forum to help guide 
schools in preparing their teachers.
    Dr. Glowa testified if technology is to realize its 
powerful potential for improving education, it must be used for 
more than just automating the traditional methods and practices 
of teaching. She further stated positive changes in the 
learning environment brought about by technology are more 
evolutionary than revolutionary. She stated these changes occur 
over a period of years, as teachers become more experienced 
with technology and instructional implementation strategies and 
are supported by effective staff development efforts. She 
highlighted in her testimony a list of barriers to effectively 
utilizing technology in the classroom.
    Mr. Fallon testified regarding steps the East Hartford 
School District had undertaken to integrate technology in the 
classroom. He stated funding for technology continues to be a 
major obstacle--especially when schools must weight spending 
money on hardware and infrastructure against spending money on 
staff development and technology support. He stated that new 
technologies that facilitate the sharing of teaching units and 
expertise among teachers and schools districts over the World 
Wide Web promise a much more effective use of resources than 
has been possible by isolated, individual teachers acting 
alone.

  4.2(m)--The Impact of Basic Research on Technological Innovation & 
                          National Prosperity


                           September 28, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-58


Background

    On September 28, 1999 the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing to review federally funded basic research 
programs, to discuss the technological and economic advances 
generated by federally funded basic research, and to discuss 
how policymakers can ensure the government's basic research 
portfolio is designed to maximize the economic results of 
investment in civilian research and development.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Rita 
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; Dr. Fawwaz 
Ulaby, Vice President for Research, University of Michigan; Dr. 
Scott Stern, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management; and Dr. 
Laurence Hirsch, M.D., Vice President, Public Affairs, Merck 
Research Laboratories.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Colwell testified by stating the United States has 
witnessed incredible technological and economic payoffs from 
Federal investments in basic research. As an example, she noted 
this week two of the Nation's most prominent weekly news 
magazines featured cover stories on e-commerce and Internet-
based issues. It was government sponsored research at the 
National Science Foundation and other Federal agencies that 
launched today's information revolution. She also noted NSF's 
role in generating cell-phones, fiber optics and computer-
assisted designs. An additional benefit of government funding 
of basic research is many scientists trained with the support 
of NSF often move on to the private sector and transfer their 
new insights to industry. Director Colwell testified innovation 
predominately comes from publicly supported research and that 
nearly two-thirds of the papers cited on recent U.S. Patents 
were published by organizations primarily supported by public 
funding. Director Colwell's last point was that through NSF's 
partnerships with more than 1,500 companies, the knowledge 
gained by publicly funded basic research is disseminated 
throughout our economy. To close her testimony she stated that 
with Congress' continued support of basic research, the next 50 
years promise to bring even more innovations and prosperity to 
all Americans.
    Dr. Ulaby testified the basic research performed two 
decades ago is at the very core of the intellectual and 
technological creativity responsible for the economic boom of 
the 1990s. He stated the University of Michigan responded to 
the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act by creating formal 
mechanisms for commercializing technologies developed by the 
University's faculty. The University now spends over $500 
million dollars per year on research, 65 percent of which is 
from federal sponsors. He noted, however, the goal of their 
tech transfer program is to get new knowledge to the private 
sector so experts can apply the knowledge in business. One of 
the most important features of federal funded research 
programs, he said, is the ``talent transfer'' of educated 
scientists from universities to the private sector. He closed 
his statement by stating that resolute federal support for 
basic research should be a fundamental principle of the 
government-university partnership.
    Professor Stern discussed the findings of a study he 
conducted with Michael Porter of Harvard Business School. 
According to the findings of this study the United States risks 
losing its competitive advantage if it continues to under-fund 
programs that lead to innovation and prosperity. The findings 
of this study were published by the American Enterprise 
Institute in a publication entitled ``The New Challenge to 
America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index.'' The 
index is based on a statistical model incorporating distinct 
drivers of innovation capacity, including such factors as 
research and development personnel and investment, the 
composition of research and development funding and 
performance, and policy instruments, such as the strength of 
intellectual property and openness to international 
competition. Historically the United States has ranked high on 
the Index and as a result has had a high level of technological 
innovation. However, Professor Stern is concerned the United 
States may be living off historical assets. He recommended the 
Federal Government support higher levels of research and 
development funding, improve and increase the country's 
dwindling pool of scientists and engineers, and help create new 
intellectual property tools which address new forms of 
innovative output.
    Dr. Hirsch, testified the U.S. pharmaceutical industry 
leads the world due to the Federal Government's long-term 
support for basic research. Funding basic research is a win-win 
situation because not only does the research generate new 
medicines for patients, but also creates a broad range of jobs 
for Americans. The success of the industry is due to federal 
support of research, our free and competitive markets, 
effective intellectual property protection, and an efficient 
regulatory system. Dr. Hircsh closed his testimony by stating 
that it takes a pharmaceutical company approximately 15 years 
and 500 million dollars to bring new medicine to the 
marketplace. Government funding of basic research provides 
important seeds from which innovative new health care advances 
ultimately grow to the benefit of all.

4.2(n)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market, 
                                Part II


                            October 5, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-60


Background

    On October 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the second in a series of hearings to review federal funding 
for plant genome research, the role of the Federal Government 
in supporting plant genome research, and the potential impact 
of this research on agriculture and the marketing of 
agricultural products.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Michael 
Thomashow, Professor of Plant and Soil Science, Michigan State 
University; Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, Director of Biotechnology 
Programs, Environmental Defense Fund; Dr. Abigail A. Salyers, 
Professor of Microbiology, University of Illinois; Dr. Anthony 
M. Shelton, Professor of Entomology, Cornell University; Dr. R. 
James Cook, Professor of Plant Pathology, Washington State 
University.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Thomashow's testimony highlighted a number of current 
and expected applications of agricultural biotechnology. All of 
the applications were based on, applications he listed under 
the following three categories: (1) improved crop production 
and quality; (2) improved health; and (3) alternative non-food 
uses. He described a few of these advancements in detail, 
starting with herbicide resistance, which he explained was 
aiding farmers and allowing safer and more environmentally 
friendly herbicide usage.
    Dr. Goldburg made two major points in her testimony: (1) 
she expressed her view that there are legitimate concerns about 
risks of transgenic crops and (2) the benefits of the 
technology for the current generation of genetically engineered 
crops were often overstated. She then listed and described a 
number of specific concerns, including: (1) the potential for 
allergenic proteins to be introduced into genetically 
engineered food; (2) the evolution of pests that are resistant 
to pesticides produced by genetically modified plants; (3) harm 
to non-target species, such as the Monarch butterfly, by these 
pesticides; and (4) antibiotic resistance generated by the 
``marker'' genes used in the creation of genetically engineered 
plants.
    In her testimony, Dr. Salyers dismissed the risk of 
antibiotic resistance genes moving into human or animal 
intestinal bacteria from ingested biotech foods as extremely 
small and of questionable medical significance. She commented, 
however, that the focus on the incredibly small possibility of 
this type of transfer had distracted officials in Europe, 
causing them to make an extremely ill-advised decision 
regarding the use of a specific antibiotic in agriculture. She 
also discussed her perspective on the real reasons behind the 
anti-biotech sentiment of activists, saying their main aim 
``seems to be to destroy the biotech industry and return to 
organic farming.'' She pointed out the irony of their position 
in that organically grown plants have a number of potential 
safety problems yet are virtually unregulated. In contrast, she 
said, genetically engineered plants are safer because the 
process involves making specific, targeted, and well-understood 
changes to a plant and the plants must then pass rigorous 
testing for safety.
    Dr. Shelton's testimony focused on concerns raised by data 
published recently in scientific journals that suggested 
biotech crops pose a danger to the Monarch butterfly and these 
crops would speed up the development of pesticide resistance. 
He said anti-biotechnology activists have used preliminary 
results for political purposes.
    Dr. Cook's testimony focused on environmental issues 
surrounding the use of genetically modified crops, and he made 
four main points: (1) genetic modification of plants for food, 
agriculture and the environment is nothing new; (2) use of 
plants as crops for the production of food, fiber and other 
products has an amazing record of environmental safety; (3) 
environmental risks that have been associated with crop plants 
are all consequences of management practices that can be 
alleviated through the use of biotech plants; and (4) extensive 
performance trials and institutional reviews conducted by the 
developers of biotech crops adequately assure their safety.

4.2(o)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market, 
                                Part III


                            October 19, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-60


Background

    On October 19, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held the third in a series of hearings to review federal 
funding for plant genome research, the role of the Federal 
Government in supporting plant genome research, and the 
potential impact of this research on agriculture and the 
marketing of agricultural products.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Sally L. 
McCammon, a Science Advisor at the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr. 
Janet Anderson, Director of the Bio-Pesticide and Pollution 
Prevention Division of the Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. 
James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator for the Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug 
Administration; Mr. Mark Silbergeld, Co-Director of the 
Washington Office of Consumers Union; and Dr. Stephen Taylor, 
Professor of Food Technology at the University of Nebraska.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. McCammon described USDA's role in regulating 
genetically modified plants, which she described as being 
rooted in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of 
Biotechnology. The Framework forms the foundation for Federal 
regulatory policy regarding agricultural biotechnology and is 
based on the premise that the risks associated with organisms 
created using biotechnology are not fundamentally different 
than those associated with organisms modified by other genetic 
techniques, such as traditional breeding programs. Dr. McCammon 
stressed the importance of science in informing the regulatory 
process, and identified the success of the current regulatory 
system for biotechnology as being that the agencies involved 
have established credibility and scientific expertise.
    Dr. Andersen explained in her testimony EPA's jurisdiction 
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA) is limited to pesticidal substances. According to a 
1994 EPA document, the substances plants produce for protection 
against pests and disease are pesticides. EPA will begin the 
process of establishing data requirements and testing 
guidelines for plant pesticides when it completes the 
rulemaking process. Dr. Andersen also discussed the potential 
threat of plant pesticides to non-target species and insect 
resistance management programs.
    Dr. Maryanski described FDA's legal authority over 
genetically engineered foods as falling under the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and said bio-engineered foods must 
adhere to the same standards of safety as conventionally 
derived ones. Dr. Maryanski stressed FDA's policies in 
regulating biotech foods are science-based and were developed 
through careful consideration of new developments in 
biotechnology.
    Mr. Silbergeld described a number of food safety concerns 
in his testimony, including: (1) the potential for new 
allergenic foods; (2) the potential for toxic new foods; (3) 
the possibility of lower-nutrient foods; (4) environmental 
concerns; and (5) risks associated with antibiotic marker 
genes. Mr. Silbergeld asserted that FDA's guidelines for 
assuring the safety of biotech foods are inadequate and foods 
created using biotechnology should be labeled as such.
    In his testimony, Dr. Taylor endorsed the concept of 
substantial equivalence as a part of the safety evaluation of 
foods derived through genetic modification, pointing out it has 
been recognized as an integral component of the safety 
assessment of biotech foods by scientific and regulatory 
experts from the U.S. and abroad. In addition, he said, biotech 
foods are subjected to extensive testing. This testing focuses 
most closely on the novel components in these foods, and as 
such is much more likely to yield helpful results.

  4.2(p)--The Turkey, Taiwan, and Mexico Earthquakes: Lessons Learned


                            October 20, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-67


Background

    On October 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program's (NEHRP) post-earthquake research and evaluation 
activities. The purpose of this hearing was to assess the 
current status of the Federal Government's post-earthquake 
research efforts and to discuss what has been learned through 
this program over the past several years. Among other topics, 
the Subcommittee explored NEHRP's recent post-earthquake 
research in Turkey, Mexico and Taiwan.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Mr. Waverly 
Person, Director, National Earthquake Information Center 
(NEIC), United States Geological Survey, United States 
Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado; Professor Thomas 
O'Rourke, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Professor 
of Engineering, Department of Civil & Environmental 
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca. New York; Professor 
Terry Wallace, Ph.D., President, Seismological Society of 
America, Professor of Geosciences, Department of Geosciences, 
University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona; Battalion Chief Michael 
Tamillow, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Service, Fairfax 
County, Virginia.

Summary of hearing

    Director Person testified by describing the functions of 
the NEIC. Mr. Person gave examples of the Center's work during 
and after the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes and noted in terms 
of reacting to earthquake disasters, time is of the essence. In 
terms of the need for improved earthquake monitoring 
technology, Mr. Person compared and contrasted the information 
generated after the Turkey and Taiwan earthquake. In Turkey it 
took almost two full days to calculate the extent and intensity 
of the earthquake. By contrast, in Taiwan, the location, depth, 
and magnitude of the earthquake were computed with 102 seconds. 
As a result, rescue activities after the Taiwan earthquake 
could commence quickly after the earthquake. Mr. Person 
testified the USGS is now in the process of installing similar 
technology in California so if and when an earthquake strikes 
California, the NEIC will be able to process information as 
quickly as was done in Taiwan.
    Professor O'Rourke testified the two most pervasive images 
and lessons from the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes are the 
thousands of failures of non-ductile concrete buildings and the 
extensive surface faulting that ruptured and destroyed critical 
infrastructure. He noted the United States' inventory of 
buildings includes a significant percentage of similarly 
constructed ``non-ductile concrete buildings.'' He also stated 
in the United States a large number of public schools and other 
public institutions are located directly on fault lines and 
therefore are at heightened risk if an earthquake were to cause 
serious surface rupture. He stated the two most important 
lessons learned over the last few years are to support federal 
projects, such as FEMA's Project Impact that deal with 
mitigation, and to continue to research issues such as those 
that will lead to improved technologies for retrofitting 
existing structures.
    Professor Wallace testified although the recent earthquakes 
have made the newspapers due to the fact they have been located 
in densely populated areas, the recent period has not been 
extremely unusual in terms of worldwide earthquake activity. On 
average, he stated, there are 15-18 earthquakes of magnitude 
7.0 or larger each year. On average earthquakes kill 
approximately 20,000 people each year. In fact in 1990 one 
earthquake killed 50,000 people in Iran. As for the recent 
earthquakes, Professor Wallace was quick to point out the fault 
located in Turkey is similar to the San Andreas Fault in 
California. He also discussed a few of the new findings based 
on recent studies concerning the size of the area effected by a 
given earthquake. Based on those findings, he stated the United 
States would see similar problems if a major earthquake were to 
strike California. Professor Wallace closed his testimony by 
stating basic research as funded through the NEHRP program has 
been vital to understanding earthquakes. He said seismology is 
a data-driven science and therefore there is a real need for 
the kind of basic research performed during post-earthquake 
research.
    Chief Tamillow testified responding to a catastrophic 
earthquake is a daunting undertaking. He stated the research 
conducted by FEMA over the last ten years has generated 
significant improvements in his organization's ability to 
complete its tasks. He stated post-earthquake research is 
important because most people will be saved during the first 
few hours after an earthquake and that the information gained 
during post-earthquake research translates into more saved 
earthquake victims. In addition, he stated research is 
important in terms of logistics and in determining the extent 
of the disaster caused by an earthquake.

4.2(q)--Education Research: Is What We Don't Know Hurting Our Children?


                            October 26, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-65


Background

    On October 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research 
held a hearing to examine the current state of education 
research, including the impact of recent developments in fields 
such as neuroscience, cognition, and developmental psychology 
on education policy and classroom practices. The Subcommittee 
also examined the Interagency Education Research Initiative 
(IERI), a new program developed by the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Education (DOEd), and the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). The IERI was established 
to coordinate education research efforts, and a recent National 
Resource Council report on education research entitled 
Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education 
Research and Its Utilization.
    Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Judith S. 
Sunley, the Assistant Director for the Directorate for 
Education and Human Resources at the National Science 
Foundation; Dr. C. Kent McGuire, Assistant Secretary for the 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) at the 
U.S. Department of Education; Dr. G. Reid Lyon, the Chief of 
the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National 
Institutes of Health's National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development (NICHD); Dr. Alexandra K. Wigdor, the 
Associate Executive Director for the Commission of Behavioral 
and Social Sciences and Education at the National Research 
Council; and Dr. Maris Vinovskis, a Professor of History and 
Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Sunley addressed the overall state of education 
research, calling it ``mixed but improving.'' She described the 
various programs at NSF that are focused on education research 
or have a research component. These include: (1) the Research 
in Education Policy and Practice, which funds research across a 
spectrum of science, mathematics, engineering and technology 
education; (2) special and targeted awards; (3) the Learning 
and Intelligent Systems (LIS) and Knowledge and Distributed 
Intelligence (KDI) programs; and (4) the Interagency Education 
Research Initiative (IERI), which NSF participates in with DoEd 
and NIH. The IERI program provides grants to researchers in 
order to perform education-related research. NSF provided 
approximately two-thirds of IERI's support in FY 1999.
    Dr. McGuire's testimony focused on OERI's education 
research programs, which he said fell into three broad 
categories: (1) Promoting school reform and improvement; (2) 
assisting teachers and administrators; and (3) helping 
policymakers reach informed decisions. In discussing some of 
the crosscutting themes associated with education research at 
DoEd, Dr. McGuire pointed to research into early childhood 
development and education, children who are at risk of 
educational failure, and achievement in literacy, mathematics, 
and science.
    Dr. Lyon began his testimony by providing an overview of 
education research efforts at NICHD, describing the research 
there as being multidisciplinary and focused on identifying: 
(1) the critical environmental, experiential, cognitive, 
genetic, neurobiological, and instructional conditions that 
enable students to learn; (2) the risk factors that predispose 
some children to learning difficulties; and (3) instructional 
practices that foster optimal reading development. Dr. Lyon 
stressed that these initiatives, which have been underway for 
34 years, were developed and designed in close collaboration 
with the scientific community.
    Dr. Wigdor's testimony focused on a proposal by the 
National Research Council for a Strategic Education Research 
Plan (SERP). This plan is undergirded by three major 
propositions: (1) there is an emerging science of learning that 
has important implications for curricula design, instruction, 
assessment, and learning; (2) researchers, educators, and 
policymakers can work together in a partnership that can 
improve the effectiveness of all; and (3) the time is right for 
the initiative.
    Like most of the other panelists, Dr. Vinovskis expressed 
the view that most education research has not been of high 
quality, saying academics in the other behavioral and social 
science disciplines ``frequently regard educational research 
and evaluation as second-rate methodologically and 
conceptually.'' He listed a number of shortcomings and 
limitations in the current educational research efforts at 
DoEd, including a lack of intellectual leadership. In 
suggesting improvements, Dr. Vinoskis cited the need for OERI 
to be politically independent, and to work more closely with 
scientific agencies such as NSF and NIH on education research 
initiatives.

   4.2(r)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization 
  Request, Part I: Research and Related Activities and Major Research 
                               Equipment


                           February 16, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-80


Background

    On Wednesday, February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to review a portion of the National 
Science Foundation's (NSF) budget request for FY 2001. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the National Science 
Foundation and the National Science Board (NSB).
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; and Dr. 
Eamon Kelly, Member, National Science Board.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Kelly raised the concern that only 2.8 percent of GDP 
was spent on research and development. He stated although NSF 
funding only supports four percent of annual R&D funding, the 
NSF is a silent partner in our Nation's economy due to the 
relationship between long-term basic research and economic 
progress.
    Dr. Colwell noted, if enacted, this year's increase in the 
NSF budget would double the largest increase in the 
Foundation's history. Dr. Colwell discussed the foundation's 
major initiatives: the Information Research Initiative, 
Biocomplexity, the 21st century Workforce and the Nanoscale 
Science and Engineering Initiative. She also discussed two new 
Major Research Equipment accounts, the NEON Project and the 
EarthScope project. In closing she stated the best way to start 
NSF's next fifty years would be to enact this year's budget 
request.

   4.2(s)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization 
            Request, Part II: Education and Human Resources


                           February 29, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-80


Background

    On Wednesday, February 29, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to review the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) FY 2001 budget request for the Foundation's 
Education and Human Resources directorate. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from representatives from the National Science 
Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and the University of 
Chicago.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Judith Sunley, Acting Assistant Director for the Directorate 
for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation; 
Dr. James E. K. Hildreth, Professor and Associate Dean, Johns 
Hopkins School of Medicine; and Dr. Bennett Bertenthal, 
Professor, University of Chicago.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Sunley stated the budget request for NSF's Education 
and Human Resources directorate is $729 million for FY 2001, 
with an additional $31 million coming from H-1B visas. She 
stated the directorate's work with NSF's 21st Century Workforce 
initiative assigns high priority to advancing research on 
learning and education and linking it to the development of 
information technologies as well as to educational models for 
our schools. She stated the Centers for Learning and Teaching 
will begin on a prototype basis this year with the intent of 
establishing five to seven centers in 2001. Associate Director 
Sunley noted the importance of the Graduate Teaching Fellows in 
K-12 Education and stated that the Distinguished Teaching 
Scholars Program is true intellectual seed-corn. In closing, 
she stated the EHR directorate and its programs reach 120,000 
people every year, who in turn influence millions of people.
    Dr. Bertenthal made three major points in his testimony: 
(1) More funding is needed for education research activities; 
(2) more fundamental research on child development is 
necessary; and (3) NSF is uniquely positioned to facilitate 
this research. Dr. Bertenthal suggested that unlike hospital 
emergency rooms that have been transformed over the past one 
hundred years, little has changed in the classroom. He stated 
NSF's interdisciplinary activities are perfect for bringing 
together the various researchers who deal with child research 
so that progress can be made on this important issue.
    Dr. Hildreth opened his testimony by discussing Johns 
Hopkins University's success in attracting outstanding 
minorities to their MD and Ph.D programs. He also discussed the 
relationship between Johns Hopkins and Dunbar High School and 
the importance of NSF's funding of graduate students as 
teaching fellows in K-12 settings. He stated this relationship 
will help both the young students at Dunbar and also the 
teaching fellows. He stated that the teaching fellows, who are 
wonderful content resources, are a terrific addition to high 
school classrooms in which most teachers are overburdened. In 
closing he stated NSF's funding of programs, such as the one at 
Dunbar High School will have lasting effects on the progress of 
science and education in the country.

   4.2(t)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization 
               Request, Part III: A View From Outside NSF


                             March 15, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-80


Background

    On Wednesday, March 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing to get an outsider's view of the 
National Science Foundation's (NSF) FY 2001 budget request and 
to consider issues related to a two-year authorization. NSF's 
current authorization expires at the end of FY 2000. This 
hearing was part of a series of hearings and meetings held by 
the Subcommittee regarding the NSF Budget Authorization 
Request.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Cornelius Sullivan, Vice Provost for Research, University of 
Southern California; Dr. Neil Evans, Director of the NorthWest 
Center for Emerging Technologies at Bellevue Community College, 
Bellevue, Washington; Dr. Ruben G. Carbonell, Co-Director, NSF 
Science and Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible 
Solvents and Processes, North Carolina State University; and 
Dr. Paula Stephan, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Georgia 
State University.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Sullivan stated NSF funding is a true investment in our 
Nation's future because it contributes to greater 
understanding, innovation, discovery, and the ability to solve 
complex problems. Collectively, these assets contribute 
substantially to our economic strength and to the defense of 
our Nation in the broadest of terms. Further, he stated 
continued investments such as this are essential to build and 
maintain a leadership role for the United States in the ever 
more globalized environment we face in the new century. He 
noted NSF accounts for only 4 percent of the federal R&D 
budget, but it supports 50 percent of the non-medical basic 
research housed at our colleges and universities. Dr. Sullivan 
acknowledged he was a bit concerned about several aspects of 
the initiatives, including the IT program, as currently 
structured. He recommended Congress and the NSF should consider 
at least doubling the average award allocated per investigator 
under this program.
    Dr. Evans opened his testimony by stating technology is 
transforming the U.S. economy, creating a ``New Economy,'' 
based on innovation and brainpower. He stated the overall 
demand for information technology (IT) workers far outstrips 
the supply. More than half of these IT jobs can be staffed by 
technicians and technologists, with only a 2-year community 
college Associate degree. To meet the demand for greater 
supply, quality and diversity of the IT workforce, the 
NorthWest Center for Emerging Technologies (NWCET) was created 
in September 1995. Major funding for this center was provided 
by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advanced Technology 
Education (ATE) Program and several corporate partners 
(Microsoft Corporation, The Boeing Company, and other regional 
businesses). He stated the center is an excellent example of 
the work funded by NSF. In closing, he stated the Nation's 
community colleges support NSF's budget request.
    Dr. Carbonell testified that NSF finds itself in a crucial 
position to influence the future economic growth and 
competitiveness of the United States in the global markets of 
the 21st century. He also stated only the Federal Government is 
in a position to fund basic research programs. The private 
sector has a much narrower focus for its research objectives. 
Corporate support for academic research tends to be aimed at 
two or three-year development plans for a particular existing 
product line or business unit. Even though there is a constant 
demand from the corporate world for a well-trained and diverse 
work force and novel research equipment, it is not likely that 
significant funds will ever be forthcoming from industrial 
sources for these purposes. Dr. Carbonell concluded by stating 
NSF's goals are at the heart of the Nation's needs for basic 
scientific research to provide for economic growth and national 
defense, and they certainly are worthy of additional support.
    Dr. Stephan stated a key component of the FY 2001 NSF 
proposed budget is funding to extend the average duration of an 
award from three to four years. She strongly supported this 
proposal and sees it as a way by which the quality and quantity 
of research output per dollar invested can be increased, thus 
contributing to even greater economic growth. She noted that 
there are three mechanisms by which graduate students in the 
United States are generally supported: (1) Graduate Research 
Assistantships; (2) Fellowships; and (3) Training Grants. She 
stated these mechanisms are key components of principal 
investigator-initiated research projects. She stated these 
mechanisms are excellent methods of supporting graduate 
education and they send signals that reflect the interests and 
career goals of the next generation of scientists--not the 
generation training them. This in turn provides the opportunity 
for reforming the educational system, as programs work to 
attract fellowship holders and strive to develop training 
grants that pass the muster of peer review.

4.2(u)--The Internet, Distance Learning and the Future of the Research 
                               University


                              May 9, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-81


Background

    This hearing examined the potential impact that the growth 
of Internet-based distance learning may have on our Nation's 
education system, particularly its impact on the country's 
research universities. The hearing also addressed the pros and 
cons of Internet-based education, how universities are reacting 
to the growth of distance learning, whether widespread use of 
Internet-based education will lead to fundamental changes in 
our nation's research universities, and what should be the 
response of science funding agencies (particularly the National 
Science Foundation).
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr. 
Nils Hasselmo, President, American Association of Universities; 
Professor Richard Larson, Director, Center for Advanced 
Educational Services, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
Carol Vallone, Chief Executive Office & President, WebCT, Inc.; 
and Dr. James Duderstadt, Director, Millenium Project, 
University of Michigan.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hasselmo opened his testimony by noting the advent of 
digital distance education allows education to be delivered at 
any time, permitting the instructor to post educational content 
on a web site which the student may access at a time optimal 
for the student. But a great deal of Internet-based education 
is not ``distant'' at all, but involves the intermingling of 
digital content with other orally delivered or paper-based 
content in traditional residential educational settings. He 
also noted that although there has been a great deal of 
speculation about the potential cost reductions that might 
occur from the use of information technology in education, the 
initial experience has been the opposite: the costs to develop, 
deliver, and receive digital distance education are quite high. 
The high cost of developing comprehensive, high-quality digital 
course packages is one of the principal factors driving the 
creation of consortia of institutions brought together to 
develop joint digital distance education programs. He stated 
there were four things the Congress could do to improve 
distance learning: (1) fund research for high-performance 
networks and applications; (2) support pilot programs for 
distance learning; (3) modify and update the Copyright Law; and 
(4) support database protection legislation.
    Professor Larson noted we are at the start of a transition 
that will provide students and faculty with new networked 
opportunities for collaborative learning and research. He 
stated the transition may be analogous to that experienced over 
the 20th Century in the electric power industry and in the 
telephone industry. Where once these services were very local, 
they now encompass huge national networks. He noted there is 
some confusion between the terms ``distance learning'' and 
``technology-enabled education.'' Technology-enabled education 
(TEE) is education that is enhanced and improved as a result of 
technology. The technology does not drive the education, rather 
students' learning needs. TEE allows educational environments 
and opportunities not possible before the technology was in 
place. Intellectually, TEE is more important than distance 
learning. In fact, many teaching/learning environments first 
developed as TEE projects for on-campus use can be relatively 
easily exported in a distance learning mode. In that sense, 
distance learning is almost a ``subset'' of TEE. He stated 
there are many potential federal roles in this exciting new 
field. He offered the following for suggestions for 
consideration: (1) Support more research on technology-enabled 
education, focusing on what works and what doesn't work; (2) 
Encourage and support novel and compelling learning networks 
between cooperating institutions of higher education; (3) 
Examine the federal role in the support of life-long learning, 
leading to actions that would encourage the creation of a 
learning society; and (4) Support efforts to narrow or 
eradicate the ``digital divide.''
    Ms. Vallone stated demand for online teaching and learning 
resources would not be booming if Internet-based education and 
distance learning did not offer dramatic benefits. They can 
widen access to higher education, improve the quality of 
teaching, and leverage an institution's existing 
infrastructure. She also stated the National Science Foundation 
is responding well to these rapidly changing times. She 
concluded her prepared remarks with a quotation from John 
Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems. He told The New York Times 
last November, ``The next big killer application for the 
Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet 
is going to be so big it is going to make e-mail usage look 
like a rounding error.''
    Dr. Duderstadt's testimony concerned exploring the 
implications of rapidly evolving information technology for the 
future of the American research university. He stated that 
today our society and our social institutions are being 
reshaped by the rapid advances in information technology-
computers, telecommunications, and networks. These rapidly 
evolving technologies are dramatically changing the way we 
collect, manipulate, and transmit information. They change the 
relationship between people and knowledge, and they are likely 
to reshape in profound ways knowledge-based institutions such 
as the research university. While this technology has the 
capacity to enhance and enrich teaching and scholarship, it 
also poses certain threats to the university. We can now use 
powerful computers and networks to deliver educational services 
to anyone, anyplace, anytime, no longer confined to the campus 
or the academic schedule. Technology is creating an open 
learning environment in which the student has evolved into an 
active learner and consumer of educational services, 
stimulating the growth of powerful market forces that could 
dramatically reshape the higher education enterprise.

             4.2(v)--The State of Ocean and Marine Science


                             July 27, 2000


                     Hearing Volume Number 106-100


Background

    The purpose of this joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment was to review federal support for the 
Ocean Sciences. Topics of the hearing included: ocean research 
activities supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
the Academic Fleet and the University-National Oceanographic 
Laboratory System (UNOLS), and other issues of concern to the 
ocean research community.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Admiral James 
Watkins, President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and 
Education (CORE); Dr. Robert Knox, Associate Director, Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography and Chair, University-National 
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Council; Dr. James 
Delaney, Professor of Oceanography, University of Washington; 
and Dr. Jack Sobel, Center for Marine Conversation.

Summary of hearing

    Admiral Watkins opened his testimony by noting the 
importance of ocean research given that more than half of the 
world's population lives in the 2 percent of the Earth's 
surface that is coastal zone. He noted there are increasing 
concerns about the biological health of the oceans. Watkins 
also explained the importance of ocean research in 
understanding the development and effects of natural disasters, 
including hurricanes, monsoons, typhoons and tsunamis. In 
addition, Watkins noted the important role the oceans play in 
the realm of national defense. He suggested that a system of 
sustained integrated ocean observations would address 
fundamental scientific questions regarding the interacting 
physical, biological, chemical and geological processes in the 
oceans, and their relationship to the human population that 
relies on them. Watkins testified that building on the existing 
infrastructure, a multi-sector commitment involving the Federal 
Government, State governments, the private sector and academia, 
lead to a national capability within 10 years.
    Dr. Knox testified on the current status of UNOLS. He noted 
UNOLS is a successful system yielding highly cost-effective 
seagoing capability for the U.S. ocean science community. In 
addition, he explained that the question of how to renew the 
UNOLS fleet in concert with a long-range view of scientific 
requirements--including a realistic view of funded future uses 
for the fleet--confronts agencies, UNOLS institutions, and 
several Committees of Congress. With intelligent cooperation, 
he noted, we can plan this future well, enhancing the UNOLS 
fleet. He believes the Federal Oceanographic Facilities 
Committee (FOFC) with its new reporting relationship to the 
National Ocean Research Leadership Council bodes well for a new 
round of fleet renewal planning. He urged Congress to resist 
altering the ``roadmap'' FOFC and UNOLS have created in funding 
research in oceanography.
    Dr. Delaney made three points in his testimony: (1) the 
tide is rising in the world of oceanographic research; (2) life 
exists deep within our planet and perhaps within others; and 
(3) we are on the threshold of a new type of Interactive 
Oceanography. Delaney provided a view of his research of 
volcanically supported biospheres on the ocean floor. He 
proposed further research projects similar to his NEPTUNE 
project, an undersea observatory based on electro-optical 
networking that connects through the Internet to many remote, 
interactive natural laboratory nodes. These labs would be 
designed for real-time, four-dimensional experiments on, above, 
and below the sea floor. He noted this type of research 
represents the shift, in his view, of ocean research from an 
exploratory-based model to an understanding-based model.
    Dr. Sobel testified on the current state of coral reef 
science. He explained our current knowledge of coral reefs is 
sufficient to state unequivocally they are among the most 
biologically diverse biosystems on earth, they possess high 
value to human beings if properly preserved, they face a number 
of serious stresses that have the potential to cause greater 
impacts over the next several decades, they face a number of 
well-documented threats, and the application of existing 
management tools can limit the impacts of these threats and 
stresses. He noted the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and its 
National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs represent the best 
opportunity to protect coral reefs, and urged further funding 
of these projects.

4.2(w)--Beyond Silicon-Based Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing


                           September 12, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-91


Background

    The purpose of the hearing was to review federally funded 
research of quantum and molecular computing, to discuss the 
role of the Federal Government in supporting further research, 
and to discuss the economic implications of advances made in 
the field of non-silicon-based computing.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy, 
Assistant Director, Computer, Information Science, and 
Engineering (CISE) Directorate, National Science Foundation; 
Dr. Charles H. Bennett, IBM Research Fellow; Dr. Laura 
Landweber, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary 
Biology, Princeton University; Dr. Timothy Havel, Lecturer, 
Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard 
Medical School, Affiliate, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Bajcsy stated today's research into non-silicon based 
computing has the potential to revolutionize every facet of our 
lives. The NSF is particularly well suited to support research 
in these areas. NSF's Initiatives in Information Technology 
Research and in Nanoscale Science and Engineering provide 
mechanisms to address the interdisciplinary research that these 
ideas require. In her comments, she addressed five general 
points. First she gave a brief overview of the science and 
engineering challenges and accomplishments to date. Then she 
spoke about four aspects of the federal role in these exciting 
new areas: how the NSF is supporting and coordinating this 
research, multi-agency activities and coordination, the 
relationship of federally supported research with industry, and 
lastly, international activities in these areas. In closing she 
noted this is a high-risk, high-payoff field, and many years of 
basic research into new hardware and software technologies will 
be needed to unlock the potential of this science and 
technology. Quantum, chemical and DNA computing are all 
radically different approaches to information science and 
technology. They offers the possibility of new paradigms in 
computation and data processing, data storage and transmission, 
cryptography and information security, as well as new quantum-
based technologies.
    Dr. Bennett noted quantum information science draws on the 
disciplines of physical science, mathematics, computer science, 
and engineering. Its aim is to understand how certain 
fundamental laws of physics can be harnessed to improve 
dramatically how we transmit and process information. This is 
not research that will get done in the private sector. 
Industrial R&D cannot replace government investment in long-
term fundamental research. Federal and private research are 
largely complementary, not overlapping, activities. If there is 
a lesson about technology that the twentieth century has taught 
us, it is that technology leadership has a huge and beneficial 
impact on the welfare of our society and national security. One 
need only look at our current economic prosperity or at how few 
lives were lost in the Desert Storm campaign to have ample 
evidence of this truth. Stepping up our national investment in 
quantum information science will do much to help insure our 
technological preeminence in the century that lies ahead of us.
    Dr. Havel testified today's computers are the enabling 
technology that could provide a breakthrough in our ability to 
deal with complex systems, ranging from the quantum to the 
biological. At the present rate computer circuitry will reach 
atomic dimensions within the next 10 to 15 years, at which 
point dealing with, and taking advantage of, quantum complexity 
becomes inevitable. In particular, researchers have shown a 
quantum computer could simulate other quantum systems in 
subexponential time, thereby ensuring current progress will 
continue far into the foreseeable future. It should be 
understood that molecular and quantum computing are about more 
than just getting the silicon out of computers. They are about 
entirely new architectures and even paradigms for computation, 
which will lead to machines that differ from today's computers 
not merely in degree, but fundamentally in kind.
    Dr. Landweber opened her testimony by stating ever since 
scientists discovered conventional silicon-based computers have 
an upper limit in terms of speed, they have been searching for 
alternate media with which to solve computational problems. 
That search has led us, among other places, to DNA. The 
advantage of DNA is that it is tiny, cheap, and can react 
faster than silicon. Since this fledgling field is only six 
years old, it is difficult to guess at this stage what 
applications it may ultimately have. For now it is a terrific 
example of basic research, bringing together researchers from 
two traditionally disparate fields--computer science and 
biology--to find new approaches to doing creative science. 
Developing this field will require basic research on all fronts 
to expand its impact on both computer science and molecular 
biology, with particular attention to training and educating 
individuals in more than a single discipline of science. 
Because this field is still so new, nourishing it at this stage 
could indeed alter its course as well as shape its next leaders 
that will build upon the current level of progress in the 
future.

        4.2(x)--Benchmarking U.S. Science: What Can It Tell Us?


                            October 4, 2000


                     Hearing Volume Number 106-102


Background

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the use of 
international benchmarking to determine the standing of U.S. 
efforts in various research fields. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chairman of the National 
Science Board; Dr. Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor, North Carolina 
State University; and Dr. Robert M. White, Professor and 
Director of the Data Storage Systems Center at Carnegie Mellon 
University.

Summary of hearing

    In her testimony, Dr. Fox explained how the Committee on 
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a committee 
of the National Academies, embarked on its experiments in 
benchmarking as a result of their 1993 report, Science, 
Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a 
New Era. That study, she said, set two goals: (1) ``the United 
States should be among the world leaders in all major areas of 
science,'' and (2) ``the United States should maintain clear 
leadership in some major areas of science.'' Dr. Fox explained 
that COSEPUP decided to experiment with benchmarking as means 
of assessing progress towards those goals. COSEPUP charged each 
benchmarking panel with answering three questions, she said: 
What is the position of U.S. research in the field, relative to 
that in other regions or countries? On the basis of current 
trends, what will be our relative position in the near and 
longer-term future? What are the key factors influencing 
relative U.S. performance in the field? Fox testified the 
experiments concluded benchmarking could effectively answer 
those questions for the fields chosen, but it might not be an 
appropriate technique for all fields.
    Dr. White spelled out the methodology employed by the 
benchmarking panels. He noted each panel of experts in the 
field used a variety of different measures to arrive at a 
conclusion, including: a nominating ``virtual congress'' of 
experts in the chosen field; performing a citation analysis; 
examining journal publications; a quantitative data analysis; a 
look at prize winners in the chosen field; and an analysis of 
speakers at international conferences. From this data, he said, 
it was possible to get an assessment of the standing of U.S. 
research in the chosen field.
    In his remarks, Dr. Kelly addressed the broader policy 
implications of benchmarking. He noted international 
comparisons are valuable for understanding the strengths and 
weaknesses of the U.S. science and technology, and for helping 
to shape the appropriate role of the Federal Government in 
national S&T enterprise. However, he noted there is no simple 
solution in the form of a single methodology to guide federal 
decisions on research allocations. The strength of U.S. science 
and technology in the international context should be an 
important consideration in federal allocations to fields of 
research, he said, but they should also be weighed against the 
potential public benefits from investments, the health of our 
infrastructure for science and engineering research and 
education, and the opportunities and readiness for rapid 
advancement in specific research fields.

              4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment


4.3(a)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
                   Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps


                           February 24, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-30


Background

    On February 24, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration [NOAA] and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps,'' to hear testimony on the 
justification of NOAA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 budget request.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable D. James Baker, Under 
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, and Administrator, NOAA; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, 
Director, Civil Agencies Information Sytems, Accounting and 
Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO), accompanied by Mr. L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal 
Management and Workforce Issues, General Government Division, 
GAO; and Dr. Richard A. Anthes, Chair, National Research 
Council (NRC) National Weather Service Modernization Committee, 
and President, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 
Boulder, Colorado.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Baker testified NOAA's FY 2000 request is for $2.6 
billion in total budget authority, which includes $2.5 billion 
in discretionary budget authority. This request collectively 
represents a 12.9% increase over the total budget authority 
appropriated for FY 1999, and Dr. Baker highlighted the 
following:
     Funding to address NOAA's data acquisition needs 
by providing for the first of four new Fisheries Research 
Vessels (FRVs) and to increase the number of days-at-sea for 
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) 
ship time for critical data collection needs.
     Funding to maintain NOAA's supercomputing capacity 
at the National Weather Service (NWS) Central Computing 
Facility in Suitland, Maryland, and the Forecast Systems Lab 
(FSL) in Boulder, Colorado, while acquiring a massively 
parallel, scaleable computer to be located at the OAR's 
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL), in Princeton, New 
Jersey.
     Recurring lease and/or operations costs at a 
number of NOAA facilities coming on-line in FY 1999 and FY 
2000, including the David Skaggs Research Center in Boulder, 
Colorado. At the same time funds are requested to complete the 
planning and design of a new state-of-the-art National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) research facility near Juneau, Alaska.
     Adjustments-to-base for pay related and 
inflationary cost increases to the NWS, as well as for the FY 
2000 pay raise for the remaining Line Offices.
     Funding to begin to replace outdated climate/
weather observing equipment in order to maintain continuity of 
core data and services and provides funds for continuing 
technology infusion for systems developed under the Weather 
Service Modernization.
     The Administration's intent to restructure and 
maintain the NOAA Corps and includes payments of retirement 
benefits for Commissioned Officers as mandatory funding.
     $1 million to establish educational training 
relationships through a joint partnership with a consortium of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).
     Funding to accelerate the implementation of the 
Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS), which is 
critical to meeting NOAA's financial management requirements.
    Mr. Willemssen's testimony discussed the status of the NWS 
systems modernization, and then addressed the most cost-
effective alternatives for acquiring NOAA's marine data. GAO 
findings included the following:
     Although the NWS is nearing completion of its 
systems modernization effort, two significant challenges face 
it this year--deploying the Advanced Weather Interactive 
Processing System (AWIPS), the final system of the 
modernization, and ensuring that all of its mission-critical 
systems are Year 2000 compliant. NWS has made progress on the 
development and operational testing of the forecaster 
workstations and its Year 2000 testing and contingency 
planning. However, cost, schedule, and technical risks 
associated with the workstations continue to be concerns. 
Further, the results of NWS' Year 2000 end-to-end testing and 
business continuity and contingency plans are expected to be 
delivered soon.
     In the NOAA fleet area, NOAA now out-sources for 
more of its research and data needs, but plans to spend $185 
million over the next 5 years to acquire four new replacement 
NOAA fisheries research vessels. Continued Congressional 
oversight of this area, as well as NOAA's budget requests for 
replacement or upgraded ships, is needed to ensure that NOAA is 
pursuing the most cost-effective alternatives for acquiring 
marine data.
    Dr. Anthes' testimony summarized the work to date of the 
NRC's National Weather Service Modernization Committee (NWSMC), 
and focused on the ongoing modernization and restructuring of 
the NWS. The NWSMC was established under a NOAA contract 
executed with the NRC on December 29, 1989 to monitor the 
technical aspects of the modernization and restructuring of the 
NWS. To date, the NWSMC has completed 15 reports, three of 
which were letter reports--representing a total of more than 
10,000 hours of volunteered time by 37 professionals from a 
range of science, engineering, weather and information 
technologies, and organizational management specialties, who 
provided oversight and independent advice to NOAA and the NWS 
during the past nine years.
    At this time, the NWSMC finds the following:
     Three of the five major technical components of 
the modernization--the Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler 
(WSR-88D), more commonly referred to as the Next Generation 
Weather Radar (NEXRAD); the Automated Surface Observing System 
(ASOS); and the Next Generation Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellites (GOES-NEXT)--are in place, 
operational, and contributing to improved weather forecasts 
nationwide.
     The fourth component--the Advanced Weather 
Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)--has experienced delays 
caused by a mixture of technical and management problems, and 
is now being deployed in a configuration that is somewhat less 
capable than originally specified. However, even with its 
somewhat reduced capability, it provides a data integration and 
communications tool to the forecasters that is far superior to 
the old technology in use at weather offices.
     The fifth component of the modernization, 
supercomputers at the National Centers for Environmental 
Prediction, are clearly deficient to meet current and climate 
modeling needs. A program to buy class 8 supercomputers is in 
place, but there needs to be a long-term commitment to 
periodically and regularly upgrade computers at the National 
Centers.
    Dr. Anthes concluded his testimony by summarizing the 
latest NWSMC report, ``A New Vision for the National Weather 
Service: Roadmap for the Future.''

 4.3(b)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
    Energy--Offices of Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and 
                        Environmental Management


                             March 3, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-69


Background

    On March 3, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of 
Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and Environmental 
Management.'' This was the first in a series of hearings to 
examine the Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2000 budget request. 
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from the GAO on the 
status of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project.
    DOE's total FY 2000 request for new budget authority for 
its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.99 billion, 
an increase of 4.2 percent over FY 1999 levels. Regarding 
programs solely under the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee, DOE has requested $4.5 billion, an increase of 7.0 
percent over the previous year.
    The DOE Office of Science is the largest single entity 
under the Science Committee's jurisdiction and its $2.85 
billion request is a 5.1 percent (or $138 million) increase 
over FY 1999 levels. Two items--the SNS ($84 million) and the 
new Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) ($70)--account for 
$154 million in increases. The DOE Office of Environment, 
Safety and Health (EH) Non-Defense request is $50.8 million, an 
increase of 7 percent. Lastly, DOE's Non-Defense Environmental 
Management (EM) Program $330 million request is a decrease of 
23 percent, mostly due to the transfer of two Oak Ridge cleanup 
projects to the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management appropriation account.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Martha A. Krebs, 
Director, DOE Office of Science; The Honorable David M. 
Michaels, DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and 
Health (EH); Mr. Dan M. Berkovitz, DOE Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Planning, Policy and Budget, Office of 
Environmental Management (EM); and Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, 
Director, Energy, Natural Resources, and Science Issues, 
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Krebs testified on the $2.85 billion request from the 
Office of Science. Her testimony included the following:
     DOE ranks second behind the Department of Defense 
in terms of the investment made in science by the Federal 
Government.
     Background and status of the SNS, including some 
recent reviews of the project DOE has taken into account when 
planning the project.
     DOE hopes to use the Scientific Simulation 
Initiative to build computer and information technology for the 
second decade of the new century with the hope that the 
terascale computers developed will be used for numerous 
projects within DOE and the science community in general.
    Dr. Michael's testimony on the $50.8 million EH non-defense 
budget request discussed the following:
     In 1997 DOE decided to run pilot programs to 
determine the costs and benefits of external regulation, and 
subsequently intended to submit legislation to Congress that 
would externally regulate certain single-purpose energy 
research laboratories.
     The FY 1999 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Conference Report directed DOE not to begin any 
pilot projects that did not include the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
and other state and local bodies.
     These pilots have raised unexpected and as yet 
unresolved issues. With such issues outstanding, DOE does not 
feel comfortable in submitting single-purpose laboratory 
external-regulation legislation at this time. DOE, however, is 
still continuing with external regulation activities.
     Secretary of Energy Richardson designated the 
Integrated Safety Management (ISM) as the Department's safety 
policy and is continuing to take steps towards implementing 
ISM.
     EH is currently soliciting input from outside 
experts with the hope of addressing concerns by workers who 
claim that their health was put in jeopardy.
    Mr. Berkovitz discussed the $330 million non-defense 
request for EM and said the following:
     EM is responsible for cleaning up government-
related nuclear energy research facilities that have 
accumulated over the past 50 years. In addition, EM is tasked 
with maintaining the safety and security of weapons-usable 
plutonium and radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
     EM has set a goal of cleaning up as many sites as 
possible by the year 2006. There are 48 sites left (down from 
53 the previous year) and EM hopes to reduce that number to 42 
by the end of FY 2000.
     EM uses technological innovations to contribute to 
clean-up and continues to research and develop new technologies 
to aid in the future.
    Mr. Rezendes testified on GAO review of the status of the 
SNS project and noted the following findings:
     DOE has not assembled a complete team with the 
necessary technical skills and experience to manage the 
project.
     The project is underspending its appropriations 
and has currently spent 60 percent of the planned budget.
     The project's cost and schedule estimates are not 
fully developed and thus do not represent a reliable estimate 
baseline. There is also an inadequate allowance for 
contingencies.
     DOE's complex management structure also creates 
problems for the SNS project.
     GAO reviewed 80 DOE projects from a 15-year period 
and found that only 15 were completed and 31 were terminated 
after spending $10 billion.

 4.3(c)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
   Energy--Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil 
           Energy; and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology


                             March 10, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-69


Background

    On March 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear 
Energy, Science and Technology.'' This was the second in a 
series of hearings to hear testimony on the justification of 
the DOE's FY 2000 budget request.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Dan Reicher, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
(EERE); Mr. Robert Kripowicz, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Fossil Energy (FE); and Mr. William Magwood IV, Director, 
DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE).
    DOE's total FY 2000 request for new budget authority for 
its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.99 billion, 
an increase of 4.2 percent over FY 1999 levels. Regarding 
programs solely under the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee, DOE has requested $4.5 billion, an increase of 7 
percent over the previous year.
    The FY 2000 EERE request is $1.014 billion, an increase of 
$175.7 million--or 21.0 percent--above the FY 1999 
appropriation of $837.9 million. The FY 2000 request for FE R&D 
is $364.4 million, a decrease of $20.1 million--or 5.2 
percent--below the FY 1999 appropriation of $384.1 million. The 
major decreases are $9.9 million for gas and $11.0 million for 
the use of prior year balances. The FY 2000 budget request for 
the NE under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $269.3 
million, an increase of $5.9 million--or 2.2 percent--over FY 
1999

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Reicher discussed the EERE budget request of just over 
$1 billion and claimed the following:
     Consumer savings have totaled more than $33 
billion since 1978 as a result of several DOE-supported 
technologies, and energy-intensive industries such as steel, 
glass, aluminum, and paper have saved $2.1 billion because of 
energy-saving technologies.
     Renewable energy costs are down 80 percent since 
1980.
     DOE wants to reduce energy use 50 percent in new 
homes and 30 percent in commercial buildings.
     The EERE budget request hopes to keep up this pace 
as well as reach the following goals: complete work on advanced 
industrial turbine; accelerate R&D for high efficiency 
vehicles; increase grants to states for energy work, increase 
weatherization funding; improve R&D on highly efficient and 
affordable buildings; and increase the use of coal mixed with 
biomass.
     Eleven percent of the Office of Power Technologies 
budget is earmarked, and 93 percent of the remaining funds are 
distributed on a competitive basis. The Office of 
Transportation Technologies is in the 70 to 80 percent 
competitive awards range and the Office of Industrial 
Technologies is near 100 percent.
     The next generation of turbines will allow for 
wind energy in the two to three cents per kilowatt hour range--
down from 30 to 40 cents in 1980.
    Mr. Kripowicz gave testimony justifying the $364 million 
budget request by the FE, which includes the following:
     FE has set as a priority the development of a 
virtually pollution-free power plant (named the Vision 21 Power 
Plant) in the 2015 timeframe. A key aspect of this project is 
higher efficiency resulting in lower costs and fewer emissions 
of greenhouse gases.
     Another priority of FE is research into carbon 
sequestration.
     Diversifying the future domestic supplies, 
including assuring adequate supplies of natural gas at 
reasonable prices and conducting more research into the 
potential of methane hydrates, is important.
     FE is also working to provide the technical 
assistance, including demonstrating improvements in both tools 
and techniques, as well as developing new technologies to keep 
oil flowing from the most threatened reserves, as it often 
costs more to pump out of the ground than it brings on the 
market. In most fields, only one-third or so of the oil has 
been produced.
     FE offered the deferral of $246 million from the 
Clean Coal Technology Program because only two of the 40 
projects in the program still require funding.
     Approximately 10 percent of the FE budget is 
earmarked; the remainder is awarded competitively.
    Mr. Magwood discussed the NE civilian budget request of 
$269.3 million, and gave the following justifications for the 
request:
     The U.S. remains a key international participant 
in the discussion over future application of nuclear 
technology. However, this position is in jeopardy as momentum 
from past accomplishments fades and the nuclear R&D 
infrastructure decays.
     NE's requested increase of $25 million, as well as 
increases requested in their university programs are geared 
toward keeping the U.S. in a leadership role of nuclear 
technology.
     NE also is proposing several new projects, 
including the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to 
ensure nuclear plants are safe and efficient over the next 
three decades and the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, 
part of the isotope program, to fight against cancer, 
arthritis, and other illnesses.
     NE is relying more than ever on outside advice in 
conducting nuclear R&D activity.
     DOE remains confident that the 
Electrometallurgical Treatment (EMT) project will continue 
after an independent review by the National Research Council 
even though the Administration has proposed cutting $20 
million, or one-fourth, of the project's funding.

 4.3(d)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Environmental 
               Protection Agency Research and Development


                             March 18, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-25


Background

    On March 18, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency Research 
and Development,'' to hear testimony on the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) FY 2000 budget request for Science and 
Technology (S&T).
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Norine E. Noonan, EPA 
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development; Dr. 
William Randall Seeker, Chair, Research Strategies Advisory 
Committee (RSAC), EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr. 
David G. Wood, Associate Director, Environmental Protection 
Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development 
Division, GAO.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Noonan testified that EPA's total FY 2000 request in 
the S&T appropriation account--which was created in 1996 and 
funds the operating programs of the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD), the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR's) 
Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program Office laboratories--
is $642.5 million and 2,456 total work years--a decrease of 
$17.5 million and 97 work years from FY 1999. ORD's total FY 
2000 request is $534.8 million and 2,004 work years. Of this 
total, ORD's FY 2000 request in the S&T account is $495.9 
million and 1,876 work years; the remaining $38.9 million and 
128 work years are in accounts other than the S&T account to 
support the Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and 
Oil Spills research programs.
    Dr. Seeker noted that the SAB's RSAC had conducted a formal 
review of the entire FY 2000 EPA S&T budget request for the 
first time, and as part of the review process, had responded to 
six charge questions:
    1. Can the objectives of the research and development 
program in ORD and the broader science and technology programs 
in EPA be achieved at the resource levels requested?--RSAC 
found the funding request priorities to be appropriate based on 
the environmental goals established in the Agency Strategic 
Plan, but continues to have reservations about the adequacy of 
the funding level given the increasing complexity and cost of 
environmental problems.
    2. Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in 
the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?--RSAC found that the ORD and 
Program Office S&T budgets do set priorities aligned with the 
Agency and ORD strategic plans and Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA) goals, but had some reservations about the 
decreases and some omissions in the overall priorities and 
concluded that the budgets proposed in several areas were not 
likely to be sufficient to meet the goals established by the 
Agency and ORD in their Strategic Plans.
    3. Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD 
and the Program Offices?--RSAC commended the Agency for 
significant improvements in the coordination between ORD 
projects and the needs of the program offices and found that 
the Agency needs to continue to build on its strategic planning 
process for science across the Agency and across environmental 
goals.
    4. Does the budget request support a reasonable balance in 
terms of attention to core research on multimedia capabilities 
and issues and to media-specific problem-driven topics?--RSAC 
found that the ORD budget request does appear to provide a 
balance between core research and media-specific, problem-
driven science needs, but noted that the overall S&T budget 
request is more weighted to media-specific problem driven 
activities.
    5. Does the budget request balance attention to near-term 
and to long-term research and science and technology issues?--
RSAC found that, in general, the Agency has given serious 
consideration to both long-term and short-term research and 
science and technology issues, but that there is still no 
overall explicit approach to incorporate the requirements of 
longer-term research programs within the short-term budgetary 
process.
    6. How can EPA use or improve upon the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate 
research plans, priorities, research requirements, and planned 
outcomes?--RSAC found that the EPA had used the GPRA goals 
structure to organize its FY 2000 budget request, and welcomed 
such a structure as an organizing principle. However, RSAC also 
found that most of the science milestones were process (or 
``output'') oriented rather than results (or ``outcome'') 
oriented; and that the ORD and Agency process for prioritizing 
potential research programs is not completely transparent.
    Mr. Wood discussed the findings from GAO's recent report on 
EPA's S&T funds requested for FY 1999 \1\ and on its limited 
review of EPA's FY 2000 budget justification, including: (1) 
difficulties experienced in comparing EPA's S&T budget 
justification for FY 1999 with those of previous years; and (2) 
actions that EPA planned and implemented in order to improve 
the clarity and comparability of the FY 2000 justification, and 
items that need further clarification. In summary, GAO found 
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Environmental Protection: EPA's Science and Technology Funds 
(GAO/RCED-99-12, Oct. 30, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     EPA's budget justification for FY 1999 could not 
be readily compared to amounts requested or enacted for FY 1998 
and prior years because the justification did not show how the 
budget would be distributed among program offices or program 
components--information needed to link to the prior years' 
justifications.
     EPA implemented several changes to its FY 2000 
justification to solve problems experienced in comparing the 
1998 and 1999 budget justifications. While the budget 
justification followed the basic format reflecting the agency's 
strategic goals and objectives, EPA made changes to the 
objectives without explanations or documentation to link the 
changes to the FY 1999 budget justification. As a result, the 
FY 2000 budget justification cannot be completely compared with 
the FY 1999 justification without supplemental information.

 4.3(e)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
                   Energy--Results Act Implementation


                             March 24, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-24


Background

    On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Results Act 
Implementation.'' This hearing--the third in a set of hearings 
on DOE's FY 2000 budget request--examined whether or not the 
DOE is incorporating the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 in its budget 
request.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, DOE 
Inspector General; Ms. Susan D. Kladiva, Associate Director, 
Energy Resources, and Science Resources, Community, and 
Economic Development Division, GAO; Mr. John R. Sullivan, 
Director of Strategic Planning, Budget and Program Evaluation, 
DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs; and Ms. 
Gwendolyn Cowan, Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance 
Policy, DOE Office of Management and Administration.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Friedman testified on reviews conducted by the Office 
of Inspector General regarding DOE's implementation of GPRA and 
discussed the following findings and recommendations:
     The Offices of Science, NE, and EERE have not 
integrated their planning, budgeting, and performance measures 
into a unified strategy. On the other hand, the Offices of 
Defense Programs and of Environmental Management (EM) have 
performed such an integration.
     The Office of Science, NE, and EERE also had 
limited success in developing results-oriented performance 
standards while the Office of Defense Programs and EM 
demonstrated significant progress in this area.
     None of the aforementioned offices adequately 
validated the estimated and actual costs used to measure 
performance, which is also a requirement of the Results Act.
     The Office of Inspector General has offered the 
following recommendations to DOE: (1) enhance the links between 
the overall strategic plan and its individual program office 
budget request; (2) require program offices to develop 
performance standards that are results-oriented, clear, 
measurable, and tied to projected resources; and (3) require 
program managers to collect and validate both estimated and 
actual costs used in performance measures.
     DOE made significant use of the peer-review 
process to offset problems in defining results and performance 
goals in areas such as basic research.
    Ms. Kladiva discussed GAO's observations concerning DOE's 
ability to implement GPRA, and noted the following:
     DOE's annual performance plan could be more useful 
if it better identified planned outcomes, presented information 
on individual offices' planned performance and requested funds, 
and described its verification and validation in more detail.
     While many of DOE's goals and measures clearly 
quantify planned performance, no baseline information is given, 
and, therefore, it is impossible to judge how much progress has 
been made.
     Some of DOE's annual goals and measures are vague 
and ambiguous and make it difficult to judge performance.
     DOE's measuring system is flawed because it allows 
DOE to rate incomplete work as successful.
     It is often difficult to associate an office's 
total planned performance with funds requested because of a 
complex matrix used by the Department.
    Mr. Sullivan testified on DOE's efforts to comply with and 
implement the Results Act and discussed the following:
     The Department initiated its strategic management 
system in 1996 that allows it to perform the functions of 
planning, budgeting, program execution, and evaluation.
     The first performance agreement between the 
President and the Secretary was published for FY 1995 and the 
first annual performance report was released later in 1995; 
1996 brought about the release of the first annual performance 
plan from the Department.
     The two main challenges remaining for DOE are 
refining and perfecting measures so that they represent 
outcomes, not outputs, and ensuring that all Departmental 
activities, budgets, contracts, and plans clearly link to the 
strategic plan.
     DOE is planning on using the National Academy of 
Sciences report to learn how to shape and build their next 
strategic plan.
    Ms. Cowan talked about the progress DOE had made regarding 
GPRA and also discussed DOE's procurement and financial 
assistance award activities. She noted that in 1994 the 
Department eliminated its unique competition policy and that 
competition for major contracts has been greater in the 
subsequent four years than in any time in the Department's 
history.

  4.3(f)--Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Authorization Request


                             April 14, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-15


Background

    On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Climate 
Change Budget Authorization Request.'' This hearing examined 
the Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget proposals 
related to the Kyoto Protocol and the Protocol's requirement 
that the U.S. reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by 7 
percent below 1990 levels in the 2008-2012 timeframe--a 
reduction in projected U.S. carbon emissions of about 550 
million metric tons, according to the most recent estimate of 
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) contained in its 
Annual Outlook 1999 (AEO99) report. The hearing also considered 
the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP).
    The Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget request 
totals $4.142 billion, which includes: (1) $200 million for an 
EPA ``Clean Air Partnership Fund''; (2) $1.368 billion for 
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) spending programs; 
(3) $387 million for CCTI tax incentives; (4) $400 million in 
other climate-related programs (DOE clean coal and natural gas, 
weatherization, and state energy grants); and (5) $1.787 
billion for the USGCRP.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Neal F. Lane, Assistant 
to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, 
Office of Science and Technology Policy; The Honorable Dan 
Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; The Honorable David M. Gardiner, Assistant 
Administrator for Policy, EPA; and The Honorable Jay E. Hakes, 
Administrator, EIA, DOE.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Lane testified on the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
requests for CCTI and USGCRP, and noted the following:
     CCTI is the Administration's response to a report 
issued from the President's Committee of Advisors on Science 
and Technology (PCAST), which concluded that the federal energy 
R&D programs were not commensurate in scope and scale with the 
energy challenges and opportunities for the 21st century. PCAST 
also warned that this shortfall could translate into higher 
dependence on imported oil, higher energy costs, smaller U.S. 
energy technology exports, worse air quality than would 
otherwise be the case, and the diminished capacity to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively.
     U.S. climate change science is largely supported 
by the $1.8 billion FY 2000 budget request of the USGCRP. This 
request includes a new Carbon Cycle Science Initiative and the 
U.S. climate modeling effort.
     The climate change issue requires two issues to be 
addressed: (1) a sustained and enhanced commitment to energy 
research, development, and deployment; and (2) continued 
research into the science of climate change.
    Mr. Reicher testified on the DOE's FY 2000 climate change 
budget request of approximately $1.1 billion, and Mr. Gardiner 
discussed EPA's role in CCTI and its FY 2000 budget requests of 
$216 million for CCTI and $200 million for a Clean Air 
Partnership Fund.
    Dr. Hakes gave testimony on the EIA report, Analysis of The 
Climate Change Technology Initiative, which was conducted at 
the request of Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Ranking Minority Member George Brown, Jr. The EIA analysis 
predicts that the CCTI tax incentives would only reduce 
projected U.S. carbon emissions in 2010 by 3.1 million metric 
tons, or 0.17 percent. The EIA also found that while research, 
development, and deployment programs also have benefits in 
reducing carbon emissions, it is not possible to link program 
expenditures directly to program results or to separate the 
impacts of incremental funding requested for FY 2000 from 
ongoing program expenditures. In addition, Dr. Hakes testified 
that the current EIA AEO99 estimates already include the 
impacts of ongoing research and development.

4.3(g)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
                   Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps


                             April 15, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-30


Background

    On April 15, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, 
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps'' to hear testimony on the 
justification of NOAA's FY 2000 budget request. The hearing 
also reviewed the prospects of privatizing some aspects of the 
NOAA fleet in order to save money and ensure a more efficient 
use of the fleet.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Bob J. Taylor, Acting Deputy 
Director, Office of NOAA Corps Operations; accompanied by Dr. 
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Dr. 
Michael P. Sissenwine, Science and Research Director, NOAA 
Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 
Massachusetts; Mr. George E. Ross, Assistant Inspector General 
for Auditing, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Craig E. Dorman, 
Senior Scientist, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania 
State University and Special Assistant to the Executive 
Director and Technical Director, Office of Naval Research; and 
Dr. Robert A. Knox, Chair, University-National Laboratory 
Oceanographic System, and Research Oceanographer and Associate 
Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of 
California, San Diego.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Taylor's testimony addressed NOAA's FY 2000 budget 
request for Fleet Maintenance and Planning, Aircraft Services, 
NOAA Corps, and included the following:
     Many of NOAA's ships, while serviceable, are well 
over 30 years of age and must be replaced.
     In addition to the $51.6 million, NOAA hopes to 
spend a total of $184.6 million for four new replacement ships 
over the 5-year period ending in FY 2004--$51.6 million in 
2000, $51.0 million in 2001, $39.8 million in 2002, $40.2 
million in 2003, and $2.1 million in 2004.
     NOAA is requesting $350,000 for aircraft services 
to support a second flight crew on NOAA's Gulfstream-IV high 
altitude hurricane reconnaissance jet.
     NOAA Corps had been downsized from 400 officers in 
1995 to about 240 officers presently and has made strides in 
increasing the amount of outsourcing.
     The Administration has changed its position on the 
need to downsize the Corps in response to Public Law 105-384.
     NOAA is currently beginning to work on a national 
plan for conducting marine fisheries research, which includes 
academic and private sector input.
     Any new ships built would simply be for 
replacement purposes, there will still be an increased need for 
chartering.
    Mr. Ross discussed NOAA's need to expand private sector 
participation in order to more efficiently and cost-effectively 
utilize its resources. Mr. Ross also discussed the following 
findings and recommendations by the Inspector General's (IG) 
office:
     NOAA must identify and thoroughly assess 
alternative approaches to relying on its own vessels.
     NOAA could outsource many areas of fishery 
research to academia, the private sector, and other government 
ship operators. This would allow NOAA to change its focus from 
designing, owning, and operating ships to a more research-
oriented direction.
     The aircraft services cost 42 percent more than 
similarly chartered aircraft from the private sector and, 
therefore, NOAA must privatize this operation. Factors 
contributing to this cost include: (1) NOAA's overhead 
structure; (2) low level of aircraft utilization; (3) rising 
operation costs due to the age of the aircraft; and (4) high 
training costs due to the periodic rotation of pilots.
     NOAA Corps needs to be downsized in order to 
achieve significant cost savings and management efficiencies. 
As such, the IG recommends no more than 70 officer positions 
should be allocated to ship- and aircraft-related activities.
    Dr. Dorman presented reports he had submitted in 1998 to 
the NOAA Administrator, Dr. D. James Baker, and to the Office 
of Management and Budget that included many observations and 
recommendations concerning the fisheries research programs:
     A national plan must be devised in order to 
achieve maximum efficiency out of any new fisheries research 
vessel (FRV) that may be constructed.
     Two actions are required to justify the cost of 
any new vessel built, including: (1) the use of advanced 
acoustics technology; and (2) an attitude change by NOAA to 
consider the FRVs as a national asset and not a replacement 
vehicle solely dedicated to the National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
     Any such plan, and subsequent FRV, must be done in 
conjunction with other federal agencies, private interests, and 
academic communities.
     There is a need to reintegrate fisheries 
oceanography mandates operated as part of the national research 
fleet, preferably at the university level. NOAA Corps is not 
needed for this task.
     In a very few years, virtually all hydrographic 
survey in U.S. waters can be done by industries, and as such, 
Dr. Dorman recommends that NOAA's fleet of the future should 
number half a dozen ships or less.
     A new FRV should be expected to operate for over 
300 days a year.
    Dr. Knox testified on the status of UNOLS operations and 
their ability to work with NOAA on a wide range of projects:
     The UNOLS fleet is very modern and highly capable 
of taking on many of the tasks required by NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in addition to its academic 
research support function.
     A closer cooperation between UNOLS and NMFS would 
benefit both the academic community and the taxpayers by 
ensuring efficient use of resources for research projects and 
decreasing risk of using federal funds for repairs and 
replacements that are not warranted.
     There is a need for a long-range ship renewal plan 
that treats UNOLS, NOAA, and other U.S. research vessel fleets 
comprehensively.

4.3(h)--S. 330 and H.R. 1753: Methane Hydrate Research and Development 
                              Act of 1999


                              May 12, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-14


Background

    On May 12, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``S. 330 and H.R. 1753: Methane 
Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Robert S. Kripowicz, DOE Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; Dr. William P. 
Dillon, Research Geologist, Geologic Division, U.S. Department 
of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and Dr. Gerald D. 
Holder, USX Dean of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kripowicz presented DOE's views on the potential for 
methane hydrates as a future source of natural gas, to review 
the progress the Department is making in preparing a multi-
agency coordinated research plan for this potentially vast 
energy resource, and DOE's position on S. 330, the Methane 
Hydrate Research and Development Act, as follows:
     Worldwide, estimates of the natural gas potential 
of methane hydrates approach 400 million trillion cubic feet--a 
staggering figure compared to the 5,000 trillion cubic feet 
that make up the world's currently known gas reserves.
     From 1982-1992, DOE's methane hydrate program 
spent $8 million in developing a foundation of basic knowledge 
about the location and thermodynamic properties of gas 
hydrates.
     In FY 1997 and FY 1998, DOE provided a small 
amount of funding from its Natural Gas Supply Program to 
support activities in preparation for a more definitive program 
proposed for FY 1999.
     In its 1997 report, the Energy Research and 
Development Panel of the President's Committee of Advisors on 
Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended ``a major initiative 
for DOE to work with USGS, the Naval Research Lab, Mineral 
Management Service, and the industry to evaluate the production 
potential of methane hydrates in U.S. coastal waters and world 
wide.'' PCAST also called attention to the possibility that 
studies of methane hydrates could lead to possible sequestering 
of carbon dioxide (CO2) in CO2 hydrates.
     On January 21-22, 1998, DOE hosted a workshop in 
Denver on the ``Future of Methane Hydrate Research and Resource 
Development,'' and held a second workshop in Washington, DC, on 
May 12, 1998, to review a ``strawman'' Methane Hydrates Program 
Plan. From these workshops and other planning, activities 
carried out cooperatively with the USGS, the Naval Research 
Laboratory, the NSF, the Minerals Management Service and 
industrial and academic experts, DOE published a ``Strategy for 
Methane Hydrates Research & Development'' in August 1998, which 
outlines a multidisciplinary 10-year national program that will 
begin in FY 2000 with the aim of producing the knowledge and 
products necessary for the private sector to begin 
commercially-viable production of methane from hydrates by 
2015.
     Because future program activities were still in 
the formative stage, DOE requested only a minimal level of R&D 
funding ($500,000) in its FY 1999 budget submission to 
Congress. In FY 2000, the Department has requested an increase 
in funding to $2.0 million to initiate the multidisciplinary 
program strategy.
     S. 330 would promote the research, identification, 
assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate 
resources. The legislation is consistent with the goals DOE has 
established for the Federal hydrates R&D program; therefore, 
the Department can support this measure.
    Dr. Dillon discussed the USGS assessment of natural gas 
hydrate resources and examined the technology that would be 
necessary to safely and economically produce gas hydrates, as 
follows:
     The primary objectives of USGS gas hydrate 
research are to: (1) document the geologic parameters that 
control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates; (2) 
assess the volume of natural gas stored within gas hydrate 
accumulations; (3) identify and predict natural sediment 
destabilization caused by gas hydrate; and (4) analyze the 
effects of gas hydrate on drilling safety. The USGS in 1995 
made the first systematic assessment of the in-place natural 
gas hydrate resources of the United States, which showed that 
the amount of gas in the hydrate accumulations of the United 
States greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional 
domestic gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a 
scientific and technologic frontier, and much remains to be 
learned about their characteristics and possible economic 
recovery.
     The amount of methane contained in the world's gas 
hydrate accumulations is enormous, but estimates of the amounts 
are speculative and range over three orders-of-magnitude from 
about 100,000 to 270,000,000 trillion cubic feet of gas. 
Despite the enormous range of these estimates, gas hydrates 
seem to be a much greater resource of natural gas than 
conventional accumulations.
     Even though gas hydrates are known to occur in 
numerous marine and Arctic settings, little is known about the 
geologic controls on their distribution. Gas hydrates have been 
recovered by scientific drilling along the Atlantic, Gulf of 
Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the United States, as well as at 
many international locations.
     To date, onshore gas hydrates have been found in 
Arctic regions of permafrost and in deep lakes such as Lake 
Baikal in Russia. Gas hydrates associated with permafrost have 
been documented on the North Slope of Alaska and Canada and in 
northern Russia. Combined information from Arctic gas-hydrate 
studies shows that, in permafrost regions, gas hydrates may 
exist at subsurface depths ranging from about 130 to 2,000 
meters.
     The USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States 
Oil and Gas Resources focused on assessing the undiscovered 
conventional and unconventional resources of crude oil and 
natural gas in the United States, and included for the first 
time a systematic appraisal of the in-place natural gas hydrate 
resources of the United States, both onshore and offshore. The 
mean (expected value) in-place gas hydrate resource for the 
entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 trillion cubic 
feet of gas. However, this assessment does not address the 
problem of gas hydrate recoverability.
     Gas recovery from hydrates is hindered because the 
gas is in a solid form and because hydrates are usually widely 
dispersed in hostile Arctic and deep marine environments.
     Seafloor stability and safety are two important 
issues related to gas hydrates. Seafloor stability refers to 
the susceptibility of the seafloor to collapse and slide as the 
result of gas hydrate disassociation. The safety issue refers 
to petroleum drilling and production hazards that may occur in 
association with gas hydrates in both offshore and onshore 
environments.
    Dr. Holder testified in support of the legislation, and 
made the following observations:
     S. 330 will not only provide an opportunity for 
outstanding scientific inquiry into the very frontiers of 
geophysics, oceanography and chemical engineering, but will 
also have important consequences for the future of the world's 
energy supply and for the potential impact of fossil fuels on 
global climate change.
     The amount of gas in gas hydrate form is 
sufficient to replace all other forms of fossil fuel. The USGS 
estimates that hydrates contain 320,000 trillion cubic feet of 
gas, which currently sells for about $2.30 per 1000 cubic feet, 
wholesale, so that the market value of this gas is about $700 
trillion dollars. From another point of view, the amount of 
energy in hydrate gas is more than twice that in all other 
forms of fossil fuel combined.
     Methane from hydrates (or other sources) produces 
much less carbon dioxide per unit energy than other forms of 
fossil fuel. Wide production of methane from hydrates could 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 20% on a global 
basis without any reduction in energy consumption. No other 
technology can compete with methane hydrate fuel in its 
potential short-term impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
     S. 330 will allow two important areas to be 
addressed: (1) developing maps of the locations and nature of 
the hydrate resource; and (2) technology for gas recovery. In 
addition to these important developments, S. 330 will make 
important contributions to our scientific knowledge of gas 
hydrates, their physical properties, and the molecular 
mechanisms by which hydrates grow and decompose.

 4.3(i)--Tornadoes: Understanding, Modeling, and Forecasting Supercell 
                                 Storms


                             June 16, 1999


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-11


Background

    On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittees on Energy and 
Environment and Basic Research held a joint hearing examining 
federally-funded tornado research and how that research is used 
by the National Weather Service (NWS) to improve warning times.
    NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) also support 
jointly the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in 
Boulder, Colorado. (For FY 1999, NSF provided $66 million to 
NCAR for atmospheric research.) NSF also supports university-
based research in tornadoes. One of the original NSF Science & 
Technologies Centers is the Center for Analysis and Prediction 
of Storms (CAPS) at the University of Oklahoma, which over the 
years has received $15 million in funding.
    NWS has set a goal of increasing the average lead time for 
tornadoes from the current 11 minutes to about 13 minutes by 
2001. In addition, it has set a target of 70 percent accuracy. 
NWS hopes to achieve these goals through application of new 
technology (e.g., NEXRAD and AWIPS), new satellites, improved 
weather forecasting models, observing systems, and research.
    Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittees included: Mr. 
Dennis McCarthy, Meteorologist in Charge, Norman Weather 
Forecast Office; Dr. Morris Weisman, Mesoscale and Microscale 
Meteorology Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research; 
Dr. Roger M. Wakimoto, Professor and Chair, Department of 
Atmospheric Science, University of California Los Angeles; and 
Dr. Howard Bluestein, Professor of Meteorology, University of 
Oklahoma.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Dennis McCarthy opened his testimony by noting the May 
3, 1999 tornado outbreak that killed 42 people and injured 795 
in Oklahoma. He stated that the outbreak, while tragic, 
demonstrated how much progress has been made in issuing 
accurate and timely weather warnings. He testified that on that 
day, outlooks, watches and warnings were issued well in advance 
and they were communicated rapidly. He said the media, 
emergency managers, local officials, volunteer spotter groups 
and state agencies worked in partnership to keep people 
informed. He pointed to technological developments such as 
NEXRAD Doppler radar and the Advanced Weather Interactive 
Processing System (AWIPS) that have assisted the National 
Weather Service in improving its warning capabilities. He 
concluded by emphasizing the importance of continued tornadic 
storm research in improving the accuracy and timeliness of 
severe weather warnings.
    Dr. Morris Weisman opened his testimony by emphasizing how, 
over the past two decades, much progress has been made in 
understanding and forecasting tornado outbreaks of the kind 
that devastated Oklahoma and Kansas on May 3, 1999. He stated 
that this progress has come about through a strong connection 
between the research and forecast communities. Dr. Weisman used 
radar images of the May 3rd tornadoes, along with training 
materials developed for the National Weather Service, to 
illustrate the local conditions that form such storms, detailed 
the physical aspects of the storms, and reviewed new 
forecasting theories and applications. He also presented 
results from experimental forecast models which were run on May 
3rd that offer hope such events could some day be forecast 
hours in advance, rather than 10-30 minute warning currently 
available.
    Dr. Roger Wakimoto noted the science of forecasting the 
atmospheric conditions that will lead to the development of a 
supercell storm is rather effective; whereas, the science 
surrounding the development of a tornado within a supercell is 
not nearly so well-understood. He testified that some important 
questions remain unanswered: what triggers the genesis of a 
tornado in a supercell? What is the origin of rotation within 
supercell tornadoes? He also stated that more research is 
necessary in understanding tornadoes that form in non-supercell 
storms, such as those that form in so-called ``bow'' echo 
storms.
    Dr. Howard Bluestein testified on federally-funded research 
aimed at understanding the formation and behavior of tornadoes. 
He highlighted the success of new radar technologies including 
the NEXRAD and mobile Doppler systems, noting that these 
technologies give researchers a much higher-resolution look at 
the structure of tornadoes. He stated that with new radar 
technology, and faster and larger computers, researchers can 
make great progress in the next five to ten years in 
determining how and why tornadoes form, and in developing the 
best ways to protect the citizenry.

  4.3(j)--EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Testing Program


                             June 17, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-18


Background

    On June 17, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``EPA's High Production 
Volume (HPV) Chemical Testing Program.'' This hearing examined 
the HPV testing program which will test toxicity of chemicals 
produced in quantities exceeding 1 million pounds per year 
using, in many cases, the LD-50 (lethal dose in 50% of test 
animals) animal test protocol. The purpose of the hearing was 
to clarify the program's aims, the status of changes that have 
been made since the program was announced, and EPA's future 
plans for this, and other related testing programs.
    Witnesses included: Dr. William Sanders, Director of the 
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Dr. Neal 
Barnard, President of the Physician's Committee for Responsible 
Medicine; and Jessica Sandler, an Industrial Hygienist 
Consultant with the Doris Day Animal League and People for the 
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Sanders testified on the origins, implementation and 
current status of the EPA's HPV Challenge, a voluntary 
chemical-testing program, and of the mandatory test rule, due 
in December 1999. He discussed EPA's efforts to eliminate 
duplicative testing, reduce the use of animal testing, and the 
search for alternative test methods within the HPV program. He 
defended the implementation of the program and the voluntary 
nature of the HPV challenge. He indicated that a draft of the 
test rule would be available sometime in July or August 1999.
    Dr. Barnard testified the program is flawed--there is a 
great deal of duplication in the testing and adequate testing 
is available for many of the chemicals included on the test 
schedule. He indicated many of the items on the list have years 
of in-use data and therefore do not need to be tested. He said 
many of the chemicals are in fact food additives that have 
significant bodies of test data already from other federal 
agencies such as the FDA.
    Ms. Sandler spoke of the unnecessary nature of much of the 
LD-50 testing mandated by the program since much of the data 
already exists, or is duplicative. She said testing of low-
toxicity chemicals is extremely cruel to animals because they 
are more likely to die from stomach or esophageal rupture than 
from toxic effects. She also objected to the lack of openness 
in the design of the HPV challenge program; the parties to the 
agreement did not invite all interested parties to comment on 
the program before it was announced. She noted many 
alternatives exist to the animal testing under both the 
voluntary and proposed mandatory test program, and said EPA has 
impeded the progress toward acceptance of these alternatives in 
international fora.

             4.3(k)--Restructuring the Department of Energy


                             July 13, 1999


                         Hearing Volume 106-33


Background

    On July 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Restructuring the 
Department of Energy.'' This hearing focused on the problems in 
the existing DOE organization, current proposals to restructure 
the national security functions in response to the security 
lapses identified in the Cox and Rudman Reports, the effect of 
such proposals on non-defense research, and on environment, 
safety, and health protection.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director, 
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, GAO; Major General 
George McFadden (U.S. Army, Retired) former Director of the DOE 
Office of Security Affair; Dr. William Happer, Professor of 
Physics, Princeton University and former Director of the DOE 
Office of Research; Dr. Donald Kettl, Professor of Public 
Affairs and Political Affairs, Mr. Robert M. LaFollette 
Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 
and Ms. Maureen Eldredge, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rezendes testified on DOE's accountability, 
organizational structure, and reorganization options:
     Achieving accountability in DOE is made difficult 
by its complex and ever-changing organizational structure. Past 
advisory groups and internal DOE studies have often reported on 
the Department's dysfunctional structure--with unclear chains-
of-command among headquarters, field offices, and contractors.
     To solve recent national security problems, 
several organizational reorganization options have been 
proposed. Historically, DOE has made piecemeal changes in 
response to contemporary problems without undertaking a more 
fundamental assessment of its mission. None of these efforts 
have had long-term success.
     A majority of the experts consulted by GAO in 1994 
emphasized that DOE should focus on its core missions and 
favored moving many of the remaining missions from DOE to other 
entities.
    Major General McFadden testified on security operations 
within DOE, and specifically the history of organizational 
placement of security offices:
     Secretary Richardson has established the Office of 
Security and Emergency Operations that reports directly to him.
     Intelligence and counter-intelligence are 
important to security and should be included and coordinated in 
the same organization.
    Dr. Happer testified on current proposals to restructure 
DOE and noted the following:
     The DOE has many missions, but none more important 
than nuclear stewardship: ensuring the safety, security, and 
reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
     DOE's missions--including the nuclear weapons 
mission--are often poorly managed. The DOE weapons program is 
so challenging that it needs the most capable technical, 
scientific, and managerial talents available.
     The DOE has become a bureaucratic morass, with 
many paper-pushing, regulatory offices competing to take credit 
for successes of increasingly harried, front-line scientists, 
engineers, and technicians, and to avoid responsibility for 
anything that may go wrong.
     The proposed Agency for Nuclear Stewardship will 
need to control all of the key functions, among them 
manufacturing, security, research, and safety.
    Dr. Kettl testified on the DOE's organizational structure 
as it affects national security and discussed the following:
     DOE's problems clearly result in part from a 
dysfunctional organizational structure that is the legacy of 
previous reorganizations, from the Manhattan Project to the 
present. The Department would benefit from an organizational 
housecleaning. Any restructuring should meet six criteria: (1) 
enhance DOE's capacity to perform its mission; (2) improve 
coordination within DOE; (3) create clear lines of 
accountability; (4) promote national security; (5) redefine 
DOE's culture; and (6) create a high-performing organization.
     The core DOE problem is changing the culture of 
field operations. If we seek to solve problems simply by 
restructuring headquarters, we will fail to solve the problem 
and will only encourage the dysfunctional culture to continue.
     A single-minded focus on national security could 
weaken the Department's environmental, safety, and health 
protection missions.
    Ms. Eldredge testified that one of the major problems at 
DOE is an entrenched bureaucracy with little incentive to 
change, and the ability to wait out any major reform efforts. 
She believed that the reform proposal to establish a semi-
autonomous agency is not an appropriate approach to addressing 
DOE's problems. She recommended that the Office of Environment, 
Safety, and Health be made a separate, independent office that 
has enforcement over all other parts of DOE.

          4.3(l)--Reducing Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel


                             July 21, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-28


Background

    On July 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Reducing Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.'' This hearing 
examined EPA's proposed rule to reduce sulfur in gasoline and 
its separate rule to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony on the benefits to be derived from 
the reduction of sulfur in fuels; the issue of reversibility of 
catalytic converter ``poisoning'' by sulfur in gasoline; the 
potential problems from a regional approach to sulfur 
regulations; the possible effects on small and regional 
refineries from costs of installing new technologies; and the 
potential for supply disruptions under the rule.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Margo T. Oge, Director, EPA Office 
of Mobile Sources of the Office of Air and Radiation; Dr. Loren 
K. Beard, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers & Senior 
Manager, Material Engineering, Fuels, Daimler Chrysler; Mr. 
Jerry Thompson, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association & 
Sr. Vice President Technical Development, CITGO Petroleum; Mr. 
S. William Becker, Executive Director, State & Territorial Air 
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air 
Pollution Control Officials; and Mr. Clint W. Ensign, Vice 
President Government Relations, Sinclair Oil Corporation.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Oge testified on the benefits to be derived from 
reductions of gasoline and diesel sulfur. She indicated that 
the EPA had worked with both the auto and petroleum industries 
and had arrived at sulfur reductions that are in line with 
those in place in California. She said that these reductions in 
sulfur will bring about large reductions in several criteria 
air pollutants, including NOX and particulate 
matter, and that they will also enable the auto manufacturers 
to move toward new, highly efficient and low emission 
technologies. The EPA, she said, is satisfied with the auto 
industry's assertion that reversibility is sufficiently low on 
next generation catalysts to justify their national rule over a 
regional standard.
    Dr. Beard testified that reductions of sulfur will allow 
the auto industry to introduce lean-burn, direct-injection 
engines and advanced catalysts which will both increase fuel 
economy and reduce emissions sufficiently to meet Tier II 
standards. He said that the auto industry seeks a further 
reduction from 30 parts per million (PPM) of sulfur under the 
rule to 5 PPM to avoid catalyst ``poisoning.'' He stated that 
reversibility is low in current catalysts, and would be much 
lower in next generation emissions control systems. He argued 
vigorously for a national standard based on the mobility of 
automobiles and on low reversibility.
    Mr. Thompson testified that the proposed EPA rule is 
unnecessary and a regional rule with phased sulfur reduction 
would suffice. He stated reversibility is higher than either 
the EPA or the auto manufacturers stated. He also tied the 
tough gasoline specifications in California to the decline in 
active refineries in the state and to recent price spikes, 
which sent the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $2 in 
California. He appealed to the Committee to ask EPA to delay 
the rule or allow greater flexibility than the barter and trade 
proposal that EPA has forwarded as part of the rule.
    Mr. Becker testified that his associations had passed a 
resolution that was in-line with the EPA's national standard, 
and said that this approach will allow the states to achieve 
goals mandated under State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Without 
the sulfur reductions, he said, achieving and maintaining goals 
will be close to impossible in most parts of the country. He 
also stated that since they believe that reversibility is low, 
a national rule is required.
    Mr. Ensign spoke of the plight of small and independent 
refiners, both in California and in the rest of the country. He 
indicated that his company would have to close one of three 
regional refineries that they currently operate if EPA imposes 
the proposed rule as it stands. He claimed that refiners, 
particularly the smaller, independent refiners, will have a 
difficult time raising capital and implementing technology 
upgrades under the 2004 deadline. He asked that the EPA provide 
greater flexibility for refineries or the rest of the country 
could be faced with the same problems that occurred in 
California; closing refineries and greater market volatility.

  4.3(m)--External Regulation of DOE Facilities: Pilot Project Results


                             July 22, 1999


                         Hearing Volume 106-29


Background

    On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``External Regulations of 
DOE Facilities: Pilot Project Results.'' This hearing examined 
the results of external regulation Pilot Projects at Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Receiving Basin for 
Offsite Fuel at Savannah River, the Radiochemical Engineering 
Development Center (REDC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
(ORNL), and at the East Tennessee Technology Park that have 
been jointly conducted by DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC), and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA).
    Witnesses included: The Honorable David M. Michaels, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health; The 
Honorable Greta Joy Dicus, NRC Chairman; Mr. Jerold R. Mande, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, U.S. Department of Labor; and Ms. Gary L. Jones, 
Associate Director of Energy, Natural Resources, and Science 
Issues, GAO.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Michaels testified on the results of pilot projects 
conducted by DOE with OSHA and the NRC and noted the following:
     The goal of the pilots with the NRC was to get a 
factual assessment of the costs and benefits of external 
regulation that was based on actual experience at DOE sites. 
DOE and NRC pilots were conducted at three sites: Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Receiving Basin for 
Offsite Fuel (RBOF) at Savannah River, and the Radiochemical 
Engineering Development Center (REDC) at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory.
     NRC requirements were designed largely for the 
commercial nuclear sector. DOE's facilities are diverse, 
unique, and often aging.
     The OSHA pilots were designed to assess 
implementation and feasibility issues, not costs and benefits 
of external regulation. DOE and OSHA pilots were conducted at 
ORNL and the East Tennessee Technology Park. DOE and OSHA 
previously conducted a pilot at Argonne National Laboratory in 
1996. OSHA participated in the LBNL pilot as well. OSHA 
indicated that an enhanced oversight program would be required, 
based on the uniqueness of DOE facilities.
     DOE is working on a memorandum of understanding 
that will have OSHA assume jurisdiction overall at facilities 
that DOE leases to private enterprise.
     Each of the pilots demonstrated that safety at DOE 
facilities is sound, much better than average industrial 
facilities.
    Ms. Dicus testified on the results of the external 
regulation pilot projects conducted jointly by DOE and the NRC 
and discussed the following:
     Though the pilot sites selected were not 
representative of the entire DOE nuclear complex and did not 
include any defense facilities, the NRC found no significant 
issues during the pilot project that would impede NRC 
regulation of similar DOE non-defense nuclear facilities.
     The majority of the technical, policy, and 
regulatory issues identified during the pilot program can be 
adequately resolved within the existing NRC regulatory 
framework.
     The NRC is fully capable of regulating DOE 
facilities to the benefit of the American public, if Congress 
were to assign the NRC this mission and provide requisite 
fiscal and staffing requirements and legislation.
    Mr. Mande testified on the issue of external regulation of 
worker safety and health for private-sector employees at 
national research laboratories and other worksites owned by 
DOE. He noted the following:
     OSHA is concerned that under external regulation, 
contractors could use site-specific training issues and the 
need for security clearances to hinder OSHA access to the site. 
DOE's active involvement in assisting OSHA with these matters 
would be essential to ensure this does not occur under external 
regulation.
     At Oak Ridge and Berkeley, OSHA utilized simulated 
inspections to study potential impacts of external regulation. 
These simulated inspections included opening and closing 
conferences with employers and employees, physical walk-
throughs of sites to identify hazards, and the preparation of 
simulated citations and proposed penalties.
     OSHA's regulation of occupational safety and 
health at DOE sites should be authorized only if such action 
would lead to better protection for workers.
    Ms. Jones testified on the status of DOE's progress toward 
the external regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its 
facilities and discussed three points: (1) DOE's changing 
positions on the desirability of external regulation for its 
facilities, (2) the disagreement between DOE and NRC on the 
potential costs and value added of external regulation, and (3) 
the uncertainties for the future of external regulation in DOE. 
She noted that each of the last three DOE Secretaries has 
changed the Department's position on external regulation, but 
that the current Secretary believes it is no longer a 
worthwhile pursuit because the costs would likely outweigh the 
value of external regulation. She said that the current 
Secretary's position sharply contrasts with DOE's previously 
held positions supporting external regulation and also 
conflicts with the Department's own pilot program results as 
well as the conclusions reached by NRC and OSHA. The results of 
the pilot program and the extensive practical experience gained 
with NRC and OSHA, she said, show that external regulation 
improves safety and accountability and is not likely to be 
prohibitively expensive.

                 4.3(n)--Reformulated Gasoline--Part I


                           September 14, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-48


Background

    On September 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held part one of a hearing entitled, ``Reformulated 
Gasoline (RFG)--Part I.'' This hearing examined clean air 
benefits from RFG as well as concerns that have surfaced about 
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and the contamination of 
both surface and underground drinking water supplies. A recent 
National Research Council (NRC) study found that the use of 
reformulated gas is less effective in reducing ozone and smog 
than previously thought. The EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel on 
Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the mandate for MTBE be 
lifted and that localities be allowed to choose how much, if 
any, MTBE or ethanol be used in gasoline.
    Most RFG is gasoline blended with oxygenates\2\. These 
oxygenates, including MTBE, ethanol and MMT, are used to reduce 
emissions of air pollutants from mobile sources (i.e., 
vehicles). Recently, California and Maine have decided to ban 
MTBE in RFG. California is currently studying alternatives that 
will allow them to achieve clean air goals without MTBE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Several manufacturers, including Chevron, produce reformulated 
gasoline without using oxygenates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critics of the RFG program contend that reformulated fuel 
reduces engine performance and gas mileage. They also point to 
evidence that MTBE has been released into groundwater supplies 
from underground storage tanks and is evident in surface waters 
from two-stroke engines and spills. Proponents argue that RFG 
has helped achieve many of the clean air goals required under 
the Clean Air Act. Removing oxygenates from gasoline will have 
a negative affect on air quality.
    The Subcommittee hoped to determine whether the oxygenate 
mandate is based on sound science. In particular, MTBE 
contamination of drinking water reported by the EPA's Blue 
Ribbon Panel combined with the less-than-expected clean air 
benefits of oxygenates reported in the NRC study have called 
into question the science behind the oxygenate mandate.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Margo T. Oge, Director of the EPA 
Office of Mobile Sources of the Office of Air and Radiation; 
Dr. William L. Chameides, Chairman of the National Research 
Council Panel on Ozone Forming Potential of Reformulated 
Gasoline and Regents Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric 
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; Mr. Daniel S. 
Greenbaum, Chairman, EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in 
Gasoline and President, Health Effects Institute; Mr. Thomas V. 
Skinner, Director of the Illinois EPA; and Mr. Mark D. Beuhler, 
Affiliated Water Districts of California and Water Quality 
Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on 
behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Oge testified:
     The benefits that have been derived from the 
Federal RFG program while acknowledging the problems associated 
with MTBE in drinking water supplies.
     EPA has made no decision about granting waivers 
from the oxygenate mandate in the RFG program under the Clean 
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.
     Ethanol will have to be examined as an alternative 
for MTBE to help maintain clean air standards.
     Under the CAAA of 1990 EPA has not expressed any 
preference between MTBE and ethanol--they have only required 
that they achieve emissions standards mandated under the CAAA.
     Much of the problem with MTBE can be addressed 
through upgrading underground storage tanks.
    Dr. Chameides testified:
     Clean air benefits derived from oxygenates may be 
overstated, especially when reactivity of emissions is measured 
rather than mass of emissions.
     Many of the clean air benefits attributed to RFG 
might in fact be related to improved emissions control and 
fleet turnover.
    Mr. Greenbaum testified:
     The EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that MTBE 
had been detected in an increasing number of drinking water 
supplies.
     The Panel concluded that the oxygenate mandate 
should be lifted as long as there is no ``backsliding'' on air 
quality.
     There are significant sources of MTBE 
contamination other than leaking underground storage tanks and 
that these sources may be more difficult to contain.
    Mr. Skinner testified on the success of the ethanol RFG 
program in the Chicago non-attainment area. He stated he would 
not be advocating the increased use of ethanol if it did not 
produce significant clean-air benefits. He also requested EPA 
relax rules regarding the summertime use of ethanol, and noted 
the Wisconsin RFG program had not reported any problems since 
the switch from MTBE to ethanol.
    Mr. Buehler testified on the difficulties created in his 
water district and throughout California from the use of MTBE. 
He also discussed the costs and technical impediments to 
removing MTBE from drinking water supplies. He also addressed 
customer concerns related to odor and taste as well as 
potential health effects from MTBE in drinking water.

              4.3(o)--Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)--Part II


                           September 30, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-48


Background

    On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee held Part II of a 
two-part hearing entitled, ``Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), Part 
II.'' This hearing, which examined clean air benefits from RFG 
as well as concerns that have surfaced about MTBE and the 
contamination of both surface and underground drinking water 
supplies, allowed stakeholders to comment on testimony heard in 
the September 14, 1999, hearing on RFG.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Edward Murphy, Director Downstream, 
American Petroleum Institute (API); Dr, Alfred J. Jessel, 
Principal Consultant, Fuels Regulation and Emissions 
Technology, Chevron Products Company; Mr. Jason S. Grumet, 
Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
Management (NESCAUM); Mr. Nicholas L. Economides, Director of 
Technical Programs, Oxygenated Fuels Association; and Mr. W.H. 
Eric Vaughn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Renewable 
Fuels Association.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Murphy testified on the state of the RFG program 
nationwide and the difficulty of creating a de facto ethanol 
mandate by maintaining the oxygenate requirement and banning 
MTBE in certain markets. He expressed confidence that API 
members can meet stringent air quality requirements without an 
oxygenate mandate and that the mandate could be lifted without 
``backsliding'' on air quality.
    Dr. Jessel testified on Chevron's ability to supply large 
quantities of non-oxygenated RFG to the California market. He 
spoke of the inflexibility in the current law and the effects 
such regulatory inflexibility has on supply and pricing. He 
indicated that while their clean-burning gasoline meets all EPA 
emissions requirements, Chevron is unable to sell this fuel in 
Southern California because it doesn't contain the EPA 
oxygenate minimum. He also indicated that Chevron conducted an 
internal risk analysis of MTBE and found that there was no way 
of guaranteeing against MTBE contamination of groundwater.
    Mr. Grumet testified on the difficulties caused by MTBE, 
but cautioned against phasing it, and other oxygenates, out too 
rapidly. He noted that MTBE replaces other carcinogens and 
toxic gasoline components, which will be added back to gasoline 
formulations in the Northeast, if MTBE is banned. He stated his 
belief that the states should be given broad latitude to 
establish their own programs to address clean air and clean 
water issues.
    Mr. Economides testified that MTBE has played a large part 
in the emissions reductions that have been observed across the 
country. He indicated that ethanol is not a good replacement 
for MTBE because of supply problems and higher volatility. He 
stated that the health risks posed by MTBE are not significant 
at the levels detected in water supplies around the country and 
that even these risks could be addressed by upgraded storage 
tanks. He also noted that MTBE is used to make up temporary 
shortfalls in gasoline supply and that the California ban will 
cause supply disruptions and price increases.
    Mr. Vaughn advocated the increased use of ethanol. He 
dismissed concerns that ethanol could not be manufactured in 
sufficient quantities to supply the entire country. He also 
sought flexibility in the EPA's summer RFG program, which 
currently limits the use of ethanol in summer due to its higher 
volatility. The Renewable Fuels Association believes that the 
oxygenate mandate should be kept in place while MTBE is phased 
out in California, which will create a de facto monopoly for 
ethanol.

                      4.3(p)--Fuels for the Future


                            October 5, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-59


Background

    On October 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fuels for the Future.'' 
This hearing examined potential new sources of transportation 
fuels, especially as supplies of traditional hydrocarbon fuels 
such as diesel and gasoline begin to decline in the next 
century.
    The range of fuels that will be required in the future is 
dependent upon future automotive developments. The likely range 
of options includes improved gasoline/diesel engines; electric/
gasoline hybrids; electric cars; and hydrogen fuel cell powered 
cars. Each of these alternative technologies may require new 
fuels or modifications of existing fuels as well as potential 
new fuel distribution systems.
    As the supply of readily recoverable petroleum begins to 
decline, the world will need to find new sources of energy to 
fuel our mobile lifestyles. These fuels will require 
improvements in existing designs, or entirely new technologies 
before they come into widespread use. It will be important to 
know how changing demographics and demand in the marketplace 
will be addressed by technology and by new fuel supplies and 
vice-versa.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Jay E. Hakes, 
Administrator, EIA, DOE; Dr. John W. Holmes, Energy Manager, 
Corporate Planning, Exxon, representing the American Petroleum 
Institute; and Dr. James A. Spearot, Director of the Chemical 
and Environmental Sciences Laboratory at General Motors, 
representing United States Council for Automotive Research 
(USCAR).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Hakes testified on the EIA's projections for the energy 
market for the next 20 years, which call for a stable petroleum 
supply. He cited new technologies that are being used to 
extract petroleum previously thought to be inaccessible, and 
said that these will enable petroleum supply to increase to the 
expected 110 million barrels a day that will be needed by 2020. 
He also spoke of conversion of natural gas to methanol or 
diesel and cellulosic biomass as potential new sources of 
energy.
    Dr. Holmes testified regarding API programs to develop 
fuels for fuel cells. He discussed the pros and cons of each 
fuel choice and how fuel choice and technologies drive each 
other. He also spoke of the need for each emerging technology 
to compete on both performance and price. He called for any 
economic analysis to be done on a ``well to wheels basis,'' 
meaning that all energy costs be factored into the production 
of alternative fuels, such as ethanol. Finally, he spoke of the 
infrastructure questions revolving around the choice of fuels 
in the future, and noted that gasoline has a well-developed 
infrastructure that might be adaptable to other fuels such as 
methanol.
    Dr. Spearot testified on the research efforts at the USCAR, 
a consortium of automobile manufacturers. He said that 
improvements in engine design would increase efficiency and 
reduce emissions, but that these improvements will require 
improved fuels, which include reductions in sulfur and other 
catalyst ``poisons.'' While petroleum will likely be the 
preeminent source of transportation fuels for the near future, 
he suggested there should be a serious examination of other 
sources, including natural gas, biomass and solar energy. The 
fuel that is ``chosen,'' he said, will need to have a high 
energy density, good combustion characteristics and a low 
tendency to form deposits. He also said that the ideal fuel for 
fuels cells would have a high hydrogen-to-carbon ratio and zero 
sulfur content.

 4.3(q)--Is CO2 a Pollutant and Does EPA Have the Power to 
                              Regulate It?


                            October 6, 1999


                         Hearing Volume 106-66


Background

    On October 6, 1999, the Science Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment and the Government Reform Subcommittee on National 
Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs held 
a joint hearing entitled, ``Is CO2 a Pollutant and 
Does EPA Have the Power to Regulate It?''
    Four issues were addressed at the hearing: (1) Does the 
plain language, structure, and legislative history of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) support or contradict EPA's claim to possess 
legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as 
a pollutant? (2) If EPA were to regulate CO2 
emissions, what new costs and burdens might be imposed on U.S. 
businesses, farms, and households? (3) Do man-made emissions of 
CO2 endanger public health, welfare, or the 
environment, or are such emissions enhancing global food 
security and biodiversity? (4) Is the term ``pollutant'' a 
scientific term?
    Panel I witnesses included: The Honorable Gary S. Guzy, EPA 
General Counsel; Mr. Peter S. Glaser, Attorney at Law, Shook, 
Hardy, & Bacon, L.L.P.; Mr. James Huffman, Dean and Professor 
of Law, Lewis and Clark College Law School; and Mr. Jeffrey G. 
Miller, Professor of Law, Pace University Law School.
    Panel II witnesses included: Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, 
Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, CATO Institute, and 
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of 
Virginia; Dr. Christopher B. Field, Carnegie Institute of 
Washington and Department of Plant Biology, Stanford 
University; and Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President, Center for 
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Guzy testified on EPA's views as to the legal authority 
provided by the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of 
CO2, and stated the following:
     The Clean Air Act (CAA) includes a definition of 
the term ``air pollutant,'' which is the touchstone of EPA's 
regulatory authority over emissions. Section 302(g) of the CAA 
defines ``air pollutant'' as ``any air pollution agent or 
combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, 
biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is 
emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term 
includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, 
to the extent that the Administrator has identified such 
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which 
the term `air pollutant' is used.''
     CO2, as an air pollutant, is within 
EPA's scope of authority to regulate, but the Administrator has 
not yet determined that CO2 meets the criteria for 
regulation under one or more provisions of the CAA.
    Mr. Glaser testified on the EPA's authority to regulate 
CO2 under the CAA or other statute and discussed the 
following:
     After analyzing rules of statutory construction 
established by the Supreme Court for discerning the scope of 
agency authority under Congressional enactments, the language 
of the relevant statutory text in context of the overall 
purpose of the statute, legislative history, and related 
Congressional activity, Congress did not delegate authority to 
EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
     Congress did not give EPA the power to regulate 
CO2 emissions in the CAA or other enactment. 
Congress reserved the power to itself to determine in the 
future whether or not to authorize restrictions on 
CO2 emissions.
     The text and structure of the CAA reveals 
Congress' deliberate choice to confine EPA's CAA endeavors on 
carbon dioxide to non-regulatory activities.
    Mr. Miller testified that traditional methods of statutory 
interpretation support EPA's position. He said that the statute 
is unambiguous and the legislative history should not be a 
factor.
    Mr. Huffman testified on the EPA's authority to regulate 
CO2 emissions in terms of constitutional law. He 
noted that there are important and fundamental reasons that EPA 
does not have the authority to regulate CO2. He said 
that EPA seeks to appropriate for itself a decision that our 
constitutional democracy requires Congress to make.
    In Panel II, Mr. Michaels testified on the nature of carbon 
dioxide as a pollutant with regard to global climate change. He 
discussed climate change computer models and how those models 
led to conclusions that inaccurately reflect realities in 
atmospheric warming. He noted that observed climate changes 
which have accompanied the enhancement of the natural 
greenhouse effect have been considerably smaller than they were 
originally forecast to be and that they were likely to remain 
similarly small.
    Dr. Field testified on plant physiology and physics of 
CO2 in the atmosphere and emphasized four points: 
(1) atmospheric CO2 is essential for life on Earth: 
(2) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has 
increased dramatically over the last century; (3) increasing 
atmospheric CO2 has a mixture of positive and 
negative effects on plant growth, food security, and natural 
ecosystems; (4) the problem of increasing CO2 will 
almost certainly not be completely solved through increased 
plant growth.
    Dr. Idso testified on CO2 and on the positive 
effects its rising atmospheric concentration has on plant 
growth and ecosystem biodiversity. He made the following 
points:
     CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the 
antithesis of a pollutant; this gas is one of the primary raw 
materials out of which plants construct their tissues. Rather, 
CO2 functions as one of the twin pillars of Earth's 
biosphere.
     The science of atmospheric CO2 
enrichment demonstrates that plants grow better with more 
CO2 in the air.

                         4.3(r)--Superfund RD&D


                            October 21, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-49


Background

    On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Superfund RD&D.'' This 
hearing examined the effectiveness of Superfund Research, 
Development and Demonstration (RD&D) and examined possible 
legislative changes to the EPA's RD&D programs.
    The 106th Congress has considered amendments to Superfund 
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA (P.L 96-510)). The Science 
Committee has jurisdiction over portions of Superfund RD&D 
authorized by Section 209 of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act, or SARA (P.L. 99-499).
    Section 209 of SARA amended CERCLA by adding a section 311, 
which addresses Superfund RD&D. Section 311 directed the 
establishment of: (1) a Superfund basic research and training 
program within the National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences (NIEHS), an institute of the National Institutes of 
Health, under Section 311(a); (2) an alternative or innovative 
treatment technology R&D program under Section 311(b); (3) an 
EPA hazardous substance research program under Section 311(c); 
and (4) university hazardous substance research centers under 
Section 311(d).
    SARA also amended CERCLA by adding a Section 111(n), which 
authorized specific levels of appropriations from the Superfund 
Trust fund to carry out Section 311 RD&D activities. As amended 
by Section 6301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 (P.L. 101-508), these are as follows:
          (1) $3.0 million for FY 1987, $10.0 million for FY 
        1988, $20.0 million for FY 1989, $30.0 million for FY 
        1990, and $35.0 million for each of FY 1991-1994 for 
        activities under Section 311(a), with not more than 10 
        percent allowed for use for training;
          (2) Not more than $20.0 million each of FY 1987-FY 
        1994 for activities under Section 311(b), other than 
        for basic research; and,
          (3) Not more than $5.0 million for each of FY 1987-
        1994 for activities under Section 311(d).
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Norine E. Noonan, EPA 
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development; Dr. Edgar 
Berkey, Committee on Environmental Engineering, EPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB); Dr. Peter B. Lederman, Interim Executive 
Director, Northeast Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC); 
and Mr. Tony Davenport, Co-Chairperson, Victory Heights/Maple 
Park Advisory Council.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Noonan testified that the Superfund RD&D program has 
been an unqualified success in reducing the costs and 
increasing the speed and effectiveness of Superfund site 
cleanups. She cited several examples of how new technologies 
have been used to reduce the cost of a variety of Superfund 
sites. She described the three areas that have been improved 
via Superfund RD&D efforts: (1) better risk assessment methods; 
(2) new site characterization and remediation methods; and (3) 
remediation technology. She indicated that the Administration 
felt that no changes were required in the Superfund 
authorization regarding RD&D.
    Dr. Berkey testified on the SAB's findings and, in 
particular, on the Superfund RD&D programs including the 
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. He 
said that the SAB found that the SITE program has impressive 
accomplishments that are very much in line with recommendations 
made by the SAB 15 years ago. He echoed many of the comments 
made by Dr. Noonan about the reductions of costs and 
improvements seen from Superfund RD&D. However, he cited the 
need for better figures on cost savings from EPA and the need 
for the Agency to disseminate information on successful 
technologies more widely to those that can use it effectively.
    Dr. Lederman testified on the role of the Hazardous 
Substance Research Centers (HSRC), a consortium of universities 
and the federal government, in the Superfund RD&D effort. He 
said that the HSRC's have expanded their efforts beyond 
integrating R&D and technology transfer to include outreach to 
communities. He spoke of the need to maintain a proper balance 
between research and outreach and asked for continued financial 
support from the Committee.
    Mr. Davenport spoke on behalf of the neighborhood advisory 
committee he co-chairs. His community has two Superfund sites, 
and received assistance from the EPA's Technical Outreach for 
Communities (TOSC) program. He felt that while the services 
from TOSC were invaluable, TOSC's outreach program left much to 
be desired. He said that it was left to the community and its 
leaders to find TOSC and ask them for help.

 4.3(s)--Hearing on H.R. 2819, Biomass Research and Development Act of 
  1999 and H.R. 2827, National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 
                                  1999


                            October 28, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-74


Background

    On October 28, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``H.R. 2819, Biomass 
Research and Development Act of 1999 and H.R. 2827, National 
Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999'' to hear testimony 
on the two bills. The primary purposes of these bills are to 
direct the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture to cooperate 
in promoting biomass RD&D through the creation of an 
interagency Board and the establishment of a Technical Advisory 
Committee for the purpose of awarding financial assistance. 
Both bills authorize $49 million per year beginning in FY 2000 
through FY 2005. Representative Mark Udall introduced H.R. 2819 
on September 8, 1999. H.R. 2827, introduced by Mr. Ewing on 
September 9, 1999, is the companion of S. 935, introduced by 
Senator Lugar on April 30, 1999, and reported by the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture on October 8, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-179). 
In addition, H.R. 2827 authorizes $14 million to construct a 
Department of Agriculture corn-based ethanol research pilot 
plant.
    According to the DOE, bioenergy--whose sources include 
agricultural and forestry residues and the organic component of 
municipal and industrial wastes--currently supplies about 3 
percent of U.S. energy requirements. For many years, DOE has 
conducted the Federal Government's largest biomass R&D program. 
The FY 2000 appropriation totals $72.0 million for DOE's 
Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems Program. This includes $32.5 
million for DOE's Biomass Power Systems subprogram, which 
focuses biomass-based power generation; and $39.5 million for 
DOE's Biofuels Energy Systems Transportation subprogram, which 
focuses on the production of biomass-based liquid 
transportation fuels.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Dan W. Reicher, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
The Honorable I. Miley Gonzales, Under Secretary for Research, 
Education and Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); 
Professor Bruce E. Dale, Chairman, Department of Chemical 
Engineering, Michigan State University and Co-Chair, Committee 
on Biobased Industrial Products, National Research Council; and 
Mr. Steve Clemmer, Senior Analyst, Union of Concerned 
Scientists (UCS).

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Reicher testified on the DOE's ongoing commitment to 
achieve the President's goal of tripling U.S. use of biobased 
products and bioenergy by 2010 and on DOE's R&D efforts. 
Regarding the proposed legislation, Mr. Reicher's statement 
recommended the following:
     H.R. 2827 should be less prescriptive with respect 
to specific research categories, and should not earmark funding 
for a corn-based ethanol research pilot plant.
     The composition of the Technical Advisory 
Committee in H.R. 2819 is preferred to that contained in H.R. 
2827.
     H.R. 2819 should be less prescriptive with respect 
to the ``Uses, Grants, Contracts, and Financial Assistance'' 
allowing granting agencies more latitude in financial awards.
    Dr. Gonzales testified on the USDA's biomass research-
including its focus on cost-reduction technologies-and 
collaboration with the DOE. Regarding the proposed legislation, 
Dr. Gonzales recommended the following:
     The Technical Advisory Committees should have 
representation from all sectors involved in biobased products 
and bioenergy.
     The established Board should be co-chaired by USDA 
and DOE.
     Formal rulemaking should be deleted from the bills 
in favor of USDA procedures that ensure fair competition for 
funding based on scientific merit.
    Dr. Dale's comments included the following:
     For cost-effective large-scale production of 
biobased products, the ``resistance'' of cellulosic materials 
to biological conversion must be overcome.
     Fundamental research should focus on applications 
of greatest cost-reduction potential, and not just on 
``interesting scientific problems.''
     Empirical and analytical tools are available to 
evaluate research alternatives to determine which have the most 
significant cost reduction potential.
     Demonstration ``is not ripe'' since more biomass 
conversion RD&D is required.
     H.R. 2827 is preferred over H.R. 2819.
    Mr. Clemmer presented the UCS's supportive policies 
regarding biomass as fuel sources for energy and electricity 
production, and bio-product production, including the 
following:
     Federal RD&D funding is key, along with other 
policies, to lower costs since these technologies have 
commercialization difficulty without guarantee of stable 
markets.
     Positive and negative environmental impacts of 
increased biomass use should be studied, particularly biofuel 
versus other substitutes for RFG and MTBE in California.
     There should be minimum renewable energy content 
or portfolio standards for electricity production and 
transportation fuels and tax credits for biomass and wind 
power.

 4.3(t)--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
    Energy--Offices of Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and 
                        Environmental Management


                             March 1, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-90


Background

    On Wednesday, March 1, 2000 the Subcommittee held a hearing 
titled, ``Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authorization Request: 
Department of Energy--Offices of Science; Environment, Safety 
and Health; and Environmental Management.'' This was the first 
in a series of hearings to examine the Department of Energy's 
(DOE) Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 budget request.
    Witnesses included: Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director, 
DOE Office of Science (SC); The Honorable David M. Michaels, 
DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health 
(EH); and Mr. Dan M. Berkovitz, DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Planning, Policy and Budget, Office of Environmental 
Management (EM).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Decker testified on the $3.151 billion Office of 
Science budget request. His testimony included the following:
     Some 15,000 scientists from research sectors, 
academic, industry and federal laboratories use the Office of 
Science's facilities each year.
     Dr. Decker discussed the status of new facilities 
and significant upgrades to existing facilities including, 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the B Factory, the Fermi Main 
Injector, the Combustion Research Facility Phase II, and the 
National Spherical Tokamak.
     Dr. Decker highlighted several outstanding 
discoveries: evidence the universe's expansion is accelerating; 
neutrinos have mass indicating a new model of physics; genomic 
sequencing of a bacterium can survive 600 times more radiation 
than a human being--possibly leading to discoveries for DNA 
repair.
     FY 2001 budget request highlights include 
nanoscale science, understanding microbial cells, 
bioengineering and high performance computing.
     The request also includes capital equipment, 
instrumentation, and infrastructure investments in facilities 
such as the synchrotron light sources and neutron sources.
    Dr. Michael's testimony on the $50.8 million EH non-defense 
budget request (FY01 total request is $166 million) highlighted 
the following:
     Requested increase reflects two new initiatives--
the investigation of safety and health concerns at the three 
gaseous diffusion plants and the projected costs of a proposed 
workers compensation program.
     Due to budget reductions, EH is no longer 
providing technical assistance to line management programs.
     EH's program to identify victims of chronic 
beryllium disease has resulted in legislation, H.R. 3418, to 
provide compensation. The bill includes some workers at the 
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and at Oak Ridge.
     Continuing support for the Radiation Effects 
Research Foundation's studies of A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki and for study of the population and workers 
exposed to radiation from nuclear weapons production in the 
Russian Federation.
     Medical surveillance and care for the citizens of 
the Republic of the Marshall Islands and environmental 
monitoring from exposure to radioactive fallout from the 1954 
thermonuclear weapons test.
    Mr. Berkovitz discussed the $286 million non-defense 
request for EM (FY01 total request is $6.3 billion) and said 
the following:
     Weldon Springs clean-up completion date is in 
2003.
     Completed clean-up at Ames Laboratory and the 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and clean-up of the Grand 
Junction site will be completed in FY01.
     EM has completed clean-up of seventy-four sites, 
with thirthy-nine remaining, including defense.
     West Valley vitrification of high-level waste 
completed in 2001.
     At Brookhaven National Laboratory treating 
groundwater, excavating on-site soil and developing a design to 
excavating off-site sediments is underway.
     Complete transfer of spent nuclear fuel to safe 
storage at Idaho National Lab.
     Reorganization of headquarters to promote 
accountability of all managers, to resolve cross-site issues, 
and to integrate operations across sites.
     Continue Science R&D investments that have 
resulted in over 500 deployments of new technologies.

  4.3(u)--Fiscal Year 2001 Climate Change Budget Authorization Request


                             March 9, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-94


Background

    On March 9, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2001 Climate Change 
Budget Authorization Request.''
    Witnesses included: The Honorable D. James Baker, Ph.D., 
Chair, National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on 
Global Change Research, and Administrator, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration and Under Secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; The Honorable Dan W. 
Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy (EERE); and Mr. Paul M. Stolpman, Director, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Summary of hearing

    D. James Baker, Ph.D., testified on planned research and 
monitoring programs under the $1.74 billion Global Climate 
Change Research Program. He spoke of new initiatives to better 
understand the water cycle and the carbon cycle. He also spoke 
of the importance of enhanced climate modeling systems and 
better computer systems to run them.
    Mr. Dan W. Reicher testified on the CCTI's role in reducing 
energy consumption and improving U.S. competitiveness and air 
quality. He spoke about the decline in costs per kilowatt-hour 
for renewable energy sources, the increase in use of energy 
efficient technologies in power plants, and the Nuclear 
Electric Plant Optimization program. He also testified on the 
biobased products initiative, which is designed to reduce the 
use of fossil energy and aid the farm economy, and concluded 
with a discussion of weatherization programs funded by the DOE.
    Mr. Paul M. Stolpman testified the CCTI has contributed to 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. 
EPA is involved in programs to develop hybrid vehicles that 
reduce emissions and are expected to deliver eighty miles per 
gallon. EPA is also attempting to reduce energy consumption in 
schools and is claiming that 400 school districts have saved 
$270,000,000 since 1995.

 4.3(v)--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authorization Request: Department of 
   Energy--Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil 
           Energy; and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology


                             March 16, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-90


Background

    On March 16, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear 
Energy, Science and Technology.'' This was the second in a 
series of hearings to hear testimony on the justification of 
the Department of Energy's (DOE) FY 2001 budget request.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Dan W. Reicher, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
(EERE); Mr. Robert Kripowicz, DOE Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy; and Mr. William Magwood, IV, 
Director, DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Reicher discussed the EERE budget request of $1,039.532 
million and noted the following in his testimony:
     Domestic oil production has declined, and demand 
has increased dramatically, particularly for light and heavy 
trucks.
     The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 
has led to developments in hybrid engine systems, fuel cell 
engine systems, decreasing the weight of vehicles, and advanced 
batteries.
     The cost of wind energy in 1979 was 40 cents per 
kilowatt hour. Today, the cost of wind energy has been reduced 
to 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. More megawatts of wind power 
were installed world-wide in 1999 than megawatts of nuclear 
power.
     The Department's Building America Project has 
produced homes that are 30 to 50 percent more efficient than 
standard new homes, at no additional cost.
    Mr. Kripowicz noted the following in his testimony on the 
Office Fossil Energy's FY 2001 R&D Budget Request of $375.57 
million:
     The Fossil Energy budget supports research 
activities such as developing a pollution-free power plant, 
affordably capturing and storing greenhouse gases, drilling for 
hydrocarbons without leaving a footprint, and developing 
contaminant-free gasoline for peak effectiveness.
     The Office of Fossil Energy has increased funding 
for the Vision 21 program, a plan to develop a pollution-free 
power plant fueled by coal, natural gas, or biomass.
     The Fossil Energy budget more than doubles funding 
for exploratory research into carbon sequestration. Industry 
partners and eight National Laboratories are focusing efforts 
on promising carbon sequestration technologies.
     In the area of gas distribution, the Office 
proposes $13 million to begin developing technology that can 
make gas delivery more reliable.
    Mr. Magwood testified to the Office of Nuclear Energy, 
Science, and Technology's FY 2001 budget request of $255.045 
million.
     U.S. nuclear plants have set an all-time record 
for the share of electricity generated by nuclear power--almost 
23 percent. This exceeds the record set in the mid-1970s when 
more plants were in operation.
     For nuclear power to expand in the future, several 
obstacles must be overcome: the cost of constructing new power 
plants, concerns about proliferation, and dealing with nuclear 
waste.
     Seven nations have signed on to an agreement to 
work multilaterally on what is known as Generation IV Nuclear 
Power Systems. These nuclear systems will be competitive with 
natural gas and other energy options and make safe nuclear 
power available to more people world-wide.
     The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and 
Technology is engaged in the development of the use and 
production of many medical isotopes that are important to the 
research needs at hospitals and medical clinics across the 
country. Many of these isotopes will be used to investigate new 
ways to treat breast and prostate cancer.
     The Department of Energy has provided the power 
systems needed for space exploration and ongoing national 
security applications, most recently the Galileo and Cassini 
spacecraft.

 4.3(w)--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authorization Request: Environmental 
      Protection Agency (EPA) Science and Technology (S&T) Budget


                             March 23, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-85


Background

    On March 23, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
Science and Technology (S&T) Budget.''
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Norine E. Noonan, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. W. Randall Seeker, 
Chairman EPA Science Advisory Board's Research Strategies 
Advisory Committee (RSAC); and Mr. David G. Wood Associate 
Director, Environmental Protection Issues Resources, Community, 
and Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Noonan testified primarily on the $530 million request 
for the Office of Research and Development (ORD). She spoke 
about efforts within ORD to more closely align research efforts 
with regulatory needs as well as longer term ``core research 
needs.'' She also testified on the Science to Achieve Results 
(STAR) Program and efforts to use STAR grants to bolster areas 
that have unmet research needs.
    Dr. Seeker addressed major issues in the budget, examined 
in three RSAC formal reviews conducted over the last year. 
These reviews included examination of the FY 2001 EPA Science 
and Technology Budget Request, STAR grant program, and the 
review of the EPA Peer Review Policy and Procedures. All of 
these reviews are related to how EPA plans and executes 
science. He noted the Agency has continued to make marked 
improvements in the budget and planning process and had also 
improved alignment between research and research needs. He also 
spoke about peer review at EPA, stating that ``it is much more 
difficult to question the quality of the Agency's science base 
when scientific products used to support decision-making 
undergo independent scientific peer review.''
    Mr. Wood testified on improvements in the presentation of 
the EPA's budget justification, but said the GAO had identified 
several specific areas that still needed improvement.

4.3(x)--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic 
                     and Atmospheric Administration


                             March 29, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-86


Background

    On March 29, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.''
    Witnesses included: The Honorable D. James Baker, Ph.D., 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department 
of Commerce; Mr. Steven J. Brown, Acting Associate 
Administrator for Air Traffic Services, Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA); and Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, 
Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Baker testified on the need for increased funding for 
weather satellite programs, updated ground-based weather data 
collection, ocean data collection systems and information 
technology upgrades. He also responded to questions regarding 
the state-of-science on global climate change. Dr. Baker 
testified there is still some uncertainty over the scope and 
the causes of global climate change, and the government must 
maintain its climate change research programs.
    Mr. Brown testified on cooperation between the FAA and the 
NWS in the area of aviation weather forecasting. He stated this 
cooperation is critical to leverage resources available to the 
FAA and NWS in order to enhance aviation safety in the U.S.
    Mr. Willemssen testified on GAO's finding that the NWS 
modernization is ``a high-risk information technology 
investment because of its estimated cost, its complexity, its 
criticality to NWS's mission of helping to protect life and 
property through early forecasting and warnings of potentially 
dangerous weather, and its past problems.'' He also testified 
NOAA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) 
launch schedule does not leave much room for a launch or 
orbital failure.

                    4.3(y)--The Human Genome Project


                             April 6, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-89


Background

    On April 6, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``The Human Genome Project.''
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Neal F. Lane, Assistant 
to the President for Science and Technology and Director, 
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Dr. J. Craig Venter, 
President and Chief Scientific Officer, Celera Genomics; Dr. 
Gerald M. Rubin, Howard Hughes Professor of Genetics and 
Development, University of California, Berkeley and Vice 
President for Biomedical Research, Howard Hughes Medical 
Institute; and Dr. Robert H. Waterston, James S. McDonnell 
Professor and Head, Department of Genetics and Director, Genome 
Sequencing Center, Washington University School of Medicine.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Lane testified the Administration was very supportive 
of the Human Genome Project and of the private efforts of 
companies including Celera. He indicated questions remain over 
the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) of human genetics.
    Dr. Venter testified Celera's human genome mapping project 
was almost completed. He discussed the importance of 
competition as well as the fruits of cooperation between the 
public and private sectors. He cited collaboration between 
Celera, UC Berkeley and the Department of Energy in completing 
the Drosophila melanogaster genome as an appropriate model for 
future collaboration. He also indicated Celera had plans to 
apply for a limited number of patents, some in conjunction with 
industry ``partners.''
    Dr. Rubin discussed the successful Drosophila collaboration 
and the potential for further collaboration between the public 
and private sector in the future.
    Dr. Waterston discussed the importance of continued 
emphasis on the public program and alleged that without the 
public project, very little data would be available to genetic 
researchers. He was concerned that Celera's database will be 
restricted to paying customers and that companies with genetic 
patents may restrict not-for-profit research.

 4.3(z)--``Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection 
           Agency''--National Research Council (NRC) Findings


                             July 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-97


Background

    On July 13, 2000 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Science at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency''--National Research Council 
(NRC) Findings.'' The purpose of the hearing was to consider 
the findings of a recently published report by the NRC titled 
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    Witnesses included: Dr. David Morrison, member of the NRC 
Committee on Research and Peer Review in EPA and Adjunct 
Professor at North Carolina State University; and Dr. Robert J. 
Huggett, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, 
Michigan State University, and former Assistant Administrator, 
EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD).

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was called to consider the findings of the 
National Research Council Report (NRC) on science at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report was the 
fourth and final installment of a congressionally-mandated 
inquiry into the quality and performance of the science mission 
within the EPA.
    Dr. Morrison summarized the NRC panel findings in his 
testimony. Among the significant changes called for in the 
report are the creation of a new Deputy Administrator for 
Science and Technology; changing the position of Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development (ORD) to a six-year 
appointment and increasing the ORD's authority over all science 
at the EPA; and improving peer review by removing the 
appearance of conflicts of interest.
    Dr. Huggett added his support to the NRC findings while 
reflecting on some of the changes that were made at EPA while 
he was AA for ORD. These changes included a reorganization of 
ORD, an attempt to better coordinate research with Agency 
regulatory needs and a better balance between regulatory and 
core research programs.

   4.3(aa)--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Reexamining the 
    Scientific Basis for the Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-dose 
                               Radiation


                             July 18, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-98


Background

    On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Reexamining the 
Scientific Basis for the Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-dose 
Radiation.''
    Witnesses included: Ms. Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, 
Energy, Resources and Science Issues, General Accounting Office 
(GAO); Dr. Paul S. Rohwer, President, Health Physics Society 
(HPS); Mr. Charles B. Meinhold, President, National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP); and Dr. Steven B. 
Wing, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public 
Health, University of North Carolina.

Summary of hearing

    The Subcommittee met to receive testimony on 
recommendations by the GAO for legislative action contained in 
a GAO investigation of the scientific basis for the Linear No-
Threshold (LNT) model for low dose radiation and the 
technological requirements and costs to meet existing and 
proposed standards.
    Ms. Jones testified on the GAO report, which concluded: (1) 
``U.S. regulatory standards to protect the public from the 
potential health risks of nuclear radiation lack a conclusively 
verified scientific basis''; (2) the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, the two 
regulatory bodies, are unable to agree on radiation standards 
at Yucca Mountain (nuclear high level waste repository) and for 
decommissioning of the 112 commercial nuclear power plants; (3) 
the lower the standard the greater the escalation of the costs 
for clean-up; and (4) Congressional action is necessary to 
resolve the regulatory agencies' impasse.
    Dr. Rohwer said, ``Health risks of radiation exposure can 
only be estimated with a reasonable degree of scientific 
certainty at radiation levels that are orders of magnitude 
greater than levels established by regulators for protection of 
the public and that there is not scientific certainty below 
these levels.'' He also said ``[q]uantification of risks using 
the LNT model below approximately 10 rem is inappropriate.''
    Mr. Meinhold, said nearly completed reassessment by NCRP of 
the scientific basis for the LNT finds that ``there is no 
conclusive evidence on which to reject the assumption of a 
linear-nonthreshold relationship,'' but ``the exact shape of 
the dose response relationship . . . is not known.'' He 
concluded his testimony by stating since a wide range of 
scientific opinion exists regarding the shape of the dose 
response curve, the NCRP disregards the extremes of the 
distribution of opinion. In this case, the LNT is believed to 
be the most appropriate model in the absence of conclusive 
evidence of any other dose-response curve.
    Dr. Wing stated the LNT model was far too lenient a model 
on which to base standards given the conclusions of his own 
research. He advocated a model that yields much more stringent 
standard regardless of the cost of clean-up.

  4.3(bb)--Nuclear Energy's Role: Improving U.S. Energy Security and 
                   Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions


                             July 25, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-99


Background

    On July 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Energy's Role: 
Improving U.S. Energy Security and Reducing Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions.''
    Witnesses included: Dr. John P. Holdren, Harvard University 
and Chair, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
Technology (PCAST) Panel on International Cooperation in Energy 
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment; Dr. James 
J. Duderstadt, University of Michigan, and Chair, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory 
Committee; Mr. Richard Rhodes, Author and Historian and 1988 
Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction for The Making of the Atomic Bomb; 
and Ms. Maureen Koetz, Director of Environmental Policy, 
Nuclear Energy Institute.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Holdren stated the challenge facing the United States 
and the world to reduce environmental pollutants, including 
greenhouse gases, while producing energy necessary for economic 
growth. He agreed nuclear energy meets both these criteria, but 
expressed his concern that nuclear waste be managed to avoid 
proliferation and stated he is opposed to recycling used 
nuclear fuel.
    Dr. Duderstadt focused his testimony on the need to promote 
science and engineering programs at universities, including 
providing R&D funding to these programs. He cited the declining 
numbers of graduates in these disciplines and projected 
technical worker shortfalls.
    Mr. Rhodes described how he had once been quite skeptical 
of nuclear energy as a young reporter. He related how during 
the course of investigating the industry and researching 
material for his several books on the subjects of nuclear 
weapons, he grew to be a strong supporter of nuclear energy as 
the best way to meet growing demand for clean energy.
    Ms. Koetz described how the use of nuclear energy 
``avoids'' huge volumes of pollutants emitted to the 
environment when nuclear energy is employed rather than fossil 
fuels for the production of electricity.

             4.3(cc)--The State of Ocean and Marine Science


                             July 27, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-100


Background

    The purpose of this joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Basic Research was to review federal support for the Ocean 
Sciences. Topics of the hearing included: ocean research 
activities supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
the Academic Fleet and the University-National Oceanographic 
Laboratory System (UNOLS), and other issues of concern to the 
ocean research community.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Admiral James 
Watkins, President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and 
Education (CORE); Dr. Robert Knox, Associate Director, Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography and Chair, University-National 
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Council; Dr. James 
Delaney, Professor of Oceanography, University of Washington; 
and Dr. Jack Sobel, Center for Marine Conversation.

Summary of hearing

    Admiral Watkins opened his testimony by noting the 
importance of ocean research given more than half of the 
world's population lives in the 2 percent of the Earth's 
surface that is coastal zone and there are increasing concerns 
about the biological health of the oceans. He also explained 
the importance of ocean research in understanding the 
development and effects of natural disasters, including 
hurricanes, monsoons, typhoons and tsunamis. In addition, he 
noted the important role the oceans play in the realm of 
national defense. He suggested a system of sustained integrated 
ocean observations would address fundamental scientific 
questions regarding the interacting physical, biological, 
chemical and geological processes in the oceans, and their 
relationship to the human population that relies on them. He 
said building on the existing infrastructure, a multi-sector 
commitment involving the Federal Government, State governments, 
the private sector and academia, would lead to a national 
capability within 10 years.
    Dr. Knox testified on the current status of UNOLS. He noted 
UNOLS is a successful system yielding highly cost-effective 
seagoing capability for the U.S. ocean science community. In 
addition, he explained the question of how to renew the UNOLS 
fleet in concert with a long-range view of scientific 
requirements-including a realistic view of funded future uses 
for the fleet-confronts agencies, UNOLS institutions, and 
several Committees of Congress. With intelligent cooperation, 
he noted, we can plan this future well, enhancing the UNOLS 
fleet. He said he believed the Federal Oceanographic Facilities 
Committee (FOFC) with its new reporting relationship to the 
National Ocean Research Leadership Council bodes well for a new 
round of fleet renewal planning. He urged Congress to resist 
altering the ``roadmap'' FOFC and UNOLS have created in funding 
research in oceanography.
    Dr. Delaney made three points in his testimony: (1) the 
tide is rising in the world of oceanographic research; (2) life 
exists deep within our planet and perhaps within others; and 
(3) we are on the threshold of a new type of Interactive 
Oceanography. He reviewed his research of volcanically-
supported biospheres on the ocean floor. He proposed further 
research projects similar to his NEPTUNE project, an undersea 
observatory based on electro-optical networking that connects 
through the Internet to many remote, interactive natural 
laboratory nodes. These labs would be designed for real-time, 
four-dimensional experiments on, above, and below the sea 
floor. He noted this type of research represents the shift, in 
his view, of ocean research from an exploratory-based model to 
an understanding-based model.
    Dr. Sobel testified on the current state of coral reef 
science. He explained that our current knowledge of coral reefs 
is sufficient to state unequivocally that they are among the 
most biologically diverse biosystems on earth, they possess 
high value to human beings if properly preserved, they face a 
number of serious stresses that have the potential to cause 
greater impacts over the next several decades, they face a 
number of well-documented threats, and the application of 
existing management tools can limit the impacts of these 
threats and stresses. He noted the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 
and its National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs represent 
the best opportunity to protect coral reefs, and urged further 
funding of these projects.

               4.4--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics


          4.4(a)--FY 2000 Budget Request: The Sciences at NASA


                           February 11, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-8


Background

    On February 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its first authorization hearing entitled, ``FY 
2000 Budget Request: The Sciences at NASA.'' Witnesses 
included: Dr. Edward Weiler, 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 Dr. Claude Canizares, Chairman of the 
National Research Council's Space Studies Board.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was intended to profile NASA's science programs 
in the context of the President's FY 2000 budget request. 
Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) new 
initiatives in the offices of Space Science, Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and Earth Science as 
laid out in the FY 2000 budget; (2) an explanation of problems 
occurring within Space Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences 
and Applications, and Earth Science programs and NASA's plans 
for resolving them; (3) a summary of the manner in which the 
offices of Space Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications, and Earth Science and their priorities have 
changed in response to the Government Performance and Results 
Act; (4) a summary of NASA's accomplishments during the past 
year and those goals it hopes to achieve in FY 2000; (5) a 
summary of the Space Studies Board's report ``Supporting 
Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs;'' and 
finally, (6) recommendations about improving the management of 
research funds within NASA to ensure that each individual 
mission's potential to contribute to our knowledge base is 
fully utilized.
    Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space 
Science, NASA, began his testimony by profiling several recent 
Space Science highlights through the utilization of the 
Committee on Science's multimedia displays in the main hearing 
room. Visual graphics were used to display photographs taken by 
the Hubble Telescope of a collision between an elliptical 
galaxy and a spiral galaxy. This phenomenon is of particular 
interest because of the resulting birth of stars and the 
existence of a super massive black hole at the center of the 
galactic collision. Hubble Telescope pictures were also 
displayed of the faintest and farthest objects ever observed by 
humans. Additional images included a new class of stars 
discovered by the Gamma Ray Observatory, Coronal Mass Ejection 
Events, the Mars Polar Lander, Mars Climate Orbiter, and the 
Mars Global Surveyor. Five new Space Science activities were 
identified in the President's FY 2000 budget. These programs 
included Mars Network communications capabilities, Mars 
Micromissions, Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks, Gossamer 
Spacecraft, and Next Decade Planning.
    Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for 
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, highlighted 
the major accomplishments of 1998: (1) the results of Neurolab 
to be presented in April 1999 at the National Academy of 
Science's Symposium on the Decade of the Brain; (2) the 
findings discovered from the Mir studies regarding bone mass 
loss; (3) research conducted on infectious diseases by the NASA 
ground-based bioreactor at the NASA/NIH Center for Three-
Dimensional Tissue Culture; and (4) work on evaluating distant 
learning, consultation, and surgical training technology for a 
potential virtual hospital. He testified the most important 
challenge facing Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications will be to develop and sustain their research 
community while resources are focused on the International 
Space Station (ISS).
    Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth 
Science, described several examples of science and application 
results within the Earth Science Enterprise's Topical Rainfall 
Measuring Mission (TRMM). For the first time scientists can (1) 
accurately measure precipitation over the global tropical 
ocean; (2) measure lightning strikes on a global scale; (3) 
record algae blooms in the world's oceans; and (4) bring this 
data to users such as farmers, fisheries, and federal agencies 
by utilizing the Internet. Dr. Asrar summarized his testimony 
by stating the Earth Science Enterprise balances funding across 
observation, research and data analyses, applications, and 
advanced satellite technology to ensure the Nation has the 
tools to answer scientific questions about the Earth.
    Dr. Claude Canizares, Chairman of the National Research 
Council's (NRC) Space Studies Board, focused his testimony on 
the Space Studies Board's report entitled, ``Supporting 
Research and Data Analysis (R&DA) in NASA Science Programs.'' 
The R&DA portions of NASA science activities are very important 
to NASA's research and these program's contributions include a 
wide range of NASA science programs. NRC recommends NASA's 
science offices should use various means to improve their 
overview of R&DA activities, periodically evaluate their 
efficiency, and seek a balance among them. Dr. Canizares 
concluded his testimony by stating that the Space Studies Board 
has consistently held the best way to assure high quality 
research at NASA is to: (1) rely heavily on the peer review 
process; and (2) keep the authority for primary science 
allocation decisions at NASA Headquarters.

              4.4(b)--FY 2000 Budget Request: NASA Posture


                           February 24, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-8


Background

    On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its second authorization hearing entitled, 
``FY 2000 Budget Request: NASA Posture.'' NASA Administrator 
Daniel S. Goldin testified regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
Budget request.

Summary of hearing

    The objectives for NASA 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 the preservation of the United 
States' role as a leader in aeronautics, space science, and 
technology. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is 
responsible for overseeing and authorizing appropriations for 
all the activities within NASA. The purpose of this hearing was 
to receive testimony from the Administrator regarding the 
President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget submit for the agency.
    Administrator Goldin testified the President's FY2000 
budget request of $13.5 billion will give America a robust 
space and aeronautics program. Utilizing the Science 
Committee's multimedia displays in the committee's main hearing 
room, Mr. Goldin's testimony focused on: (1) the launch of the 
first two elements of the International Space Station (ISS)--
the Functional Cargo Block (FGB) and the Unity node; (2) Space 
Science highlights included--the Lunar Prospector, Deep Space 
1, the Stardust mission, and the Chandra observatory; (3) Earth 
Science highlights included--Landsat 7, Quikscat, and 
Pathfinder programs; (4) the current status of the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle (RLV) program's flagship the X-33; and (5) 
information on ISS's impact on other programs. Mr. Goldin then 
continued his testimony with NASA's future plans. These plans 
included: (1) an intelligent synthetic environment at NASA for 
research and development; (2) future experiments aboard ISS 
once it is completed; (3) a virtual presence throughout the 
solar system with a fleet of ever-smaller robotic spacecraft; 
(4) the Next-Generation Space Telescope; (5) an Interplanetary 
Internet; (6) future Earth Science programs to help better 
understand our planet; (7) developing aeronautical technology 
to help reduce fatal aircraft accident rates by a factor of 5 
in 10 years and by a factor of 10 in 20 years; (8) the Ultra-
Efficient Engine Technology program to reduce fuel consumption 
and improve performance; and finally (9) the X-34 program to 
test rocket technology at speeds up to Mach 10. The NASA 
Administrator summarized his testimony by explaining that 
because NASA doesn't think small and plans for the long term, 
the agency's budget is an investment in the next millennium.

           4.4(c)--FY 2000 Budget Request: Human Space Flight


                           February 25, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-8


Background

    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its third authorization hearing entitled, ``FY 
2000 Budget Request: Human Space Flight.'' Witnesses included: 
Mr. Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of Space 
Flight, NASA; Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel; Dr. James D. Richardson, Study Director, 
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; and Ms. Marcia Smith, 
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, 
Congressional Research Service.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was intended to profile NASA's Human Space 
Flight Office in the context of the President's FY 2000 budget 
request. Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) 
funding requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) 
in FY 2000 and beyond; (2) management challenges in terms of 
Russia's continuing failures to honor its obligations to the 
ISS partnership; (3) NASA's plans to commercialize ISS; (4) the 
steps NASA is taking to ensure that life and microgravity 
science opportunities are maximized during ISS assembly; (5) 
the development status of ISS; (6) the prospect for additional 
changes to the design of ISS through the end of the program; 
(7) the status and progress of Shuttle upgrade efforts; (8) 
changes in the Shuttle workforce composition, including past 
and anticipated workforce reductions; (9) the impact on the 
Shuttle launch schedule of any additional delays in or changes 
to ISS assembly sequence; and (10) the status of phase 4 
upgrades to the Space Shuttle.
    Mr. Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Space Flight, NASA, testified with the exception of Russia, the 
International Space Station's (ISS) partners are delivering 
their hardware on time. Mr. Rothenberg reported he has taken 
management steps to control the annual costs as well as the 
total cost of ISS. These included: (1) establishment and 
budgeting for a more realistic development and assembly 
complete schedule; and (2) a Headquarters Center Contractor 
Cost Management Team which has weekly insight into prime 
contractor costs. He assured the Subcommittee that rephasing of 
the research facility developments has not cut the research and 
analysis portion of the budget and the higher priority 
facilities, human research, biotechnology, and gravitational 
biology facilities, have been maintained. In order to provide 
more research opportunities during assembly Mr. Rothenberg 
reported he is reviewing the Space Shuttle manifest and they 
have added STS-107 as a dedicated research flight. Mr. 
Rothenberg also reported on the accomplishments and status of 
the Space Shuttle fleet including: (1) five successful Space 
Shuttle flights in 1998; and (2) the super light weight 
external tank and the new SSME Block II engine have increased 
the Space Shuttle's performance.
    Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, Aerospace Safety 
Advisory Panel, summarized the activities of the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel. Mr. Blomberg reported the panel believes 
safety in the short term is well served but raised concerns 
about the future. These concerns included: (1) scheduled staff 
reductions will affect the Space Shuttle and the International 
Space Station (ISS) programs unless retiring experienced 
personnel are replaced with adequately trained staff; (2) the 
Space Shuttle and ISS are hampered by a dearth of physical 
resources with which to meet contingencies; (3) the Extra-
Vehicular Activity (EVA) project lacks sufficient operational 
assets to meet unplanned contingencies (EVA crews should be 
provided with additional radiation and meteoroid shielding, and 
a better understanding of Russian EVA training procedures and 
protocols is needed); (4) Space Shuttle and ISS hardware are 
largely obsolete but not unsafe (newer technology would likely 
significantly reduce safety risks); and (5) new General Purpose 
Computers (GPC) are needed for the Space Shuttle fleet because 
the existing devices are outmoded and not upgradable.
    Dr. James D. Richardson, Study Director, Potomac Institute 
for Policy Studies, summarized the Potomac Institute's study on 
commercialization of the International Space Station which was 
completed in early 1997. The study found commercialization of 
human orbital space could yield significant benefits. He 
reported the benefits of NASA's mission through 
commercialization include: (1) better and more affordable space 
assets; (2) increased utilization of the Space Shuttle, the 
ISS, and any future RLVs; (3) release of NASA's resources for 
applications to new science frontiers; (4) leveraged private 
investment; (5) improved innovation and importation of 
commercial technology to space endeavors; and (6) increased 
public support for space operations. The national benefits of 
commercialization were listed as: (1) enhancement of U.S. 
industry competitiveness; (2) spin-offs of new technologies to 
non-space industries; and finally (3) national prestige. 
Opportunities for space-based commercial ventures involved 
privatization of government functions of the ISS, commercial 
research ventures including biomedicine and materials, and 
near-term commercial opportunities in education, entertainment, 
and advertisement. Major problems with commercialization 
ventures were cited as high launch and operations costs, low 
flight frequency, long launch lead times, and expensive 
indemnification against flight failure. The Potomac Institute's 
study concluded a strategy of privatization to 
commercialization is a logical means of achieving NASA's goals.
    Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and 
Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service, 
testified the Space Station program, as it began in 1984, was 
originally estimated to cost $8 billion. That program was 
terminated in 1993 and replaced with the International Space 
Station (ISS) program at an estimated cost of $17.4 billion. 
However, since 1998, that estimate has risen to between $23.4 
billion and $26 billion depending on whether assembly can be 
completed by June, 2004 or October, 2005. The original 
completion date was June, 2002. The major components of the ISS 
cost increases include: (1) the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) at a 
cost of $1.04 billion; (2) Russian program assurance, for which 
NASA has added $800 million; (3) extra funding to cover U.S. 
cost overruns, an example of which was Boeing's cost overrun of 
$828 million; (4) additional cash payments to Russia, including 
a $200 million transfer to Russia for ISS cooperation; and (5) 
an estimated $3 billion in costs associated with schedule 
slips. Ms. Smith identified two enacted policies that could 
have increased costs. The first was the requirement to build 
the ISS with a flat budget of $2.1 billion per year and second 
came the decision to place the Russians in the critical path of 
the program. Ms. Smith concluded her testimony by suggesting 
that a council on ISS and commercialization be established to 
address three fundamental issues: (1) what is meant by 
commercialization and privatization; (2) what are the goals of 
commercialization or privatization and how will they be 
measured; and (3) do all the international partners need to 
agree on the above or can the answer be different for each one?

         4.4(d)--FY 2000 Budget Request: Aero-Space Technology


                             March 3, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-8


Background

    On March 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held its fourth authorization hearing entitled, ``FY2000 Budget 
Request: Aero-Space Technology.'' Witnesses included: Mr. Sam 
Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of Aero-Space 
Technology, NASA and Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate 
Administrator (Space Transportation Technology), Office of 
Aero-Space Technology, NASA.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was intended to examine NASA's Aero-Space 
Technology Enterprise in the context of the President's FY2000 
budget submission. Testimony before the Subcommittee focused 
on: (1) NASA's role in the Administration's Aviation Safety 
Initiative; (2) progress made on the initiative's goals to 
date; (3) the Administration's termination of NASA's High Speed 
Research program and the Advanced Subsonic Technology program, 
and the implications these cancellations have for the future of 
aeronautical research at NASA; (4) NASA's three new focused 
programs in aeronautics, and the rationale for their 
initiation; (5) the status of, plans, and funding requirements 
for NASA's current space transportation technology programs, 
including X-33 and X-34; (6) the status of, plans, and funding 
requirements for Future-X; (7) the role of the Advanced Space 
Transportation Program as a wellspring of technology for 
government and commercial application; (8) current plans 
regarding NASA support for the commercial space transportation 
industry, including VentureStar; and (9) current plans 
regarding NASA support for the Department of Defense, including 
the Military Space Plane initiative.
    Mr. Sam Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of Aero-
Space Technology, NASA, utilized the Science Committee's 
multimedia displays to highlight the accomplishments of the 
Office of Aero-Space Technology. These accomplishments 
included: (1) the unmanned Pathfinder aircraft's record flight 
to 80,000 feet; (2) highspeed flight research conducted on the 
TU-144 Russian Supersonic Transport; (3) improved airport 
ground handling and taxi instructions for aircraft; (4) 
development of a laser radar used to detect clear air 
turbulence; (5) the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology program; 
(6) synthetic vision; and (7) the X-34 hypersonic test vehicle.
    Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator (Space 
Transportation Technology), Office of Aero-Space Technology, 
NASA, testified that the X-34 hypersonic test vehicle was 
currently undergoing testing at Dryden Flight Research Center. 
The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program's X-33 launch site at 
Edwards AFB has been completed ahead of schedule and below 
cost. The X-33 itself is still in a state of assembly and its 
aerospike engine is running six months behind schedule. 
Problems with the composite liquid hydrogen tank have forced 
the first flight to move to the summer of 2000. Mr. Payton 
further testified that the X-37 has been selected as the first 
of the Future X programs. NASA plans to fly the X-37 in a Space 
Shuttle, deploy the vehicle for 2 to 3 days on orbit, and have 
it return to Earth under its own command. Additionally, recent 
ground tests of the rocket-based combined cycle engine have 
produced results that may lead to a potentially more cost-
effective launch system. Mr. Payton summarized his testimony by 
stating the main objective of the Office of Aero-Space 
Technology is to dramatically decrease the cost of space 
access.

       4.4(e)--FY 2000 Budget Request: Regulations and Operations


                             March 11, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-8


Background

    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its fifth and final authorization hearing 
entitled, ``FY 2000 Budget Request: Regulations and 
Operations.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, 
Office of Space Commercialization, Technology Administration, 
Department of Commerce; Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate 
Administrator, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation; 
Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of Space Policy, 
Aerospace Industries Association and Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, 
Associate Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was intended to examine NASA's Aero-Space 
Technology Enterprise in the context of the President's FY 2000 
budget submission. Testimony before the Subcommittee focused 
on: (1) the Office of Space Commercialization's progress and 
plans for promoting the U.S. commercial space sector; (2) the 
role of the Office of Space Commercialization in dealing with 
commercial remote sensing, communications satellite export 
licenses, and related issues; (3) the problems and challenges 
facing the U.S. commercial space sector which may require 
changes in program funding, policy, legislation, or 
international agreements; (4) an assessment of the U.S. 
commercial launch industry's state of health and share of the 
world market; (5) an assessment of the U.S. commercial 
satellite industry's state of health and share of the world 
market, particularly as it applies to commercial remote 
sensing; (6) the projected trends in the U.S. share of the 
world market for the industries listed above; (7) any suggested 
regulatory or legislative actions to help preserve the U.S. 
share of the world market for these industries; (8) a brief 
overview of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) 
and the Space Operations Management Office (SOMO); (9) 
comparing savings levels anticipated from CSOC prior to the 
contract award with currently predicted levels of savings; (10) 
identifying any barriers to the commercialization of SOMO 
activities which require legislative action to correct; (11) 
highlighting current regulatory activity within the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation; (12) identifying any aspects 
of commercial space launch which are inhibited by the 
existence, or lack of, appropriate regulations; (13) specifying 
required legislative action which would enable such barriers to 
be removed; and (14) a summary of the manner in which the 
different office's programs and priorities have changed in 
response to the Government Performance and Results Act.
    Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, Office of Space 
Commercialization, Technology Administration, Department of 
Commerce, testified the Office of Space Commercialization 
conducts activities in four primary areas: (1) policy 
developments; (2) market analysis; (3) international 
discussions and export promotion; and (4) outreach and 
education. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor further testified the Office of 
Space Commercialization has had a major role in the following 
achievements in the last year: (1) passage of the Commercial 
Space Act of 1998; (2) the Administration's decision to add two 
additional signals to GPS; (3) the establishment of the Remote 
Sensing Interagency Working Group; and (4) progress towards the 
development of new proposals to stimulate private sector 
investment in new space transportation systems. The Office has 
begun a study of space technologies that are likely to have a 
significant impact on the commercial market in the coming 
century. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor reported within the next 10 years, 
1,700 satellites will be launched worldwide, and the space 
industry will experience a growth of at least 20 percent a 
year, adding as many as 70,000 new high-technology jobs.
    Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), Federal Aviation 
Administration, Department of Transportation began her 
testimony by thanking the Committee on Science for passage of 
the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-303). Ms. Smith 
reported the current regulatory activities of the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation included: (1) a rule addressing 
the licensing requirements for launches from federal ranges; 
(2) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding licensing 
requirements for operations of launch sites; and (3) an NPRM 
for licensing Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) and reentry 
vehicles. OCST considers extension of the launch 
indemnification legislation the most desired legislation at 
this time. Ms. Smith further testified the U.S. launch market 
now includes 47 percent of the world market. Launch revenues 
topped $1.1 billion in 1998. The key to the U.S. success has 
been the high number of commercial launches to Low Earth Orbit 
(LEO) over the past two years.
    Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of Space Policy, 
Aerospace Industries Association, also testified the U.S. has 
nearly 50 percent of launches. He noted this percentage did not 
represent the largest share in actual dollar amounts. Mr. 
Mahone estimated that with new heavy-lift launch vehicles 
coming on line in the next few years, the U.S. would gain back 
much of the heavy lift business and a larger share of the 
dollar amount of the world market. Several areas of concern 
included: (1) long-term renewal of the indemnification 
provisions of the Commercial Space Launch Act; (2) national 
launch range modernization; and (3) the need for an export 
arena in which the U.S. industry can export space hardware 
quickly but maintain U.S. national security.
    Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Human Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, related his dedication to motivating the 
Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) to ensuring NASA 
takes full advantage of the available commercial communications 
and operations infrastructure. The Space Office and Management 
Office (SOMO) was established in 1995 to address the growing 
cost of NASA's space operations. Mr. Rothenberg reported the 
solution to cost growth included: (1) the need to downsize the 
workforce and shift the NASA civil service personnel from 
operations into R&D (2) ensure the agency is buying available 
commercial services in support of operations; (3) take 
advantage of continued advances in technology to reduce 
operations costs; and (4) to turn routine space operations over 
to the contractors. CSOC has had some difficulties with start-
up but NASA continues to estimate a savings of $1.4 billion 
will be realized over the 10 year life of the contract. Mr. 
Rothenberg concluded his testimony by detailing the 
responsibilities of the SOMO Board of Directors. The directors 
consist of representatives from SOMO, Space Science, Earth 
Science, and Human Space Flight. Their mission is to ensure the 
needs of the user community are being met by both SOMO and CSOC 
contractors.

                  4.4(f)--Range Modernization, Part I


                             March 24, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-10


Background

    On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held the first of a series of two hearings on Range 
Modernization.
    Witnesses included: Major General Robert C. Hinson, 
Director of Operations, Air Force Space Command; Mr. Loren 
Shriver, Deputy Director for Launch and Payload Operations, 
NASA's Kennedy Space Center; Mr. Forrest McCartney, Vice 
President, Launch Operations, Lockheed Martin Astronautics; Mr. 
Jay Witzling, Vice President and General Manager, Delta II 
Program, The Boeing Company; and Mr. Ron Grabe, Senior Vice 
President and Deputy General Manager, Orbital Sciences 
Corporation's Launch Systems Group.

Summary of hearing

    America's obsolete space transportation infrastructure is 
considered a major factor in lowering the competitiveness of 
our commercial space transportation industry. It also harms the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the government agencies which 
depend on the national launch ranges to carry out scientific or 
military missions. The goal of this first hearing on Range 
Modernization was to gather information on the status of the 
two U.S. national launch ranges and current efforts to improve 
them.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) Air Force, NASA, and 
industry perceptions of the national launch ranges, their 
operations, and current modernization efforts; (2) Air Force, 
NASA, and industry assessments of what impact this situation 
will have on achieving their respective space transportation 
goals; and (3) what role might NASA and industry users play in 
range modernization.
    Major General Hinson, as Director of Operations for Air 
Force Space Command, is responsible for supplying, training, 
and equipping the Air Force Wings which operate the Eastern and 
Western ranges. His testimony stated much of the infrastructure 
and hardware which make up the ranges are indeed obsolete and/
or dilapidated, but he nevertheless believes the Air Force's 
ongoing, multi-phase Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) 
program is addressing these problems. Maj. Gen. Hinson also 
stated the Air Force is not suffering any negative impacts on 
military effectiveness due to launch delays caused by range 
problems. One key modernization challenge, Maj. Gen. Hinson 
admitted, is scheduling the repair or replacement of equipment 
so as not to conflict with increasingly frequent launch 
campaigns.
    Mr. Shriver testified NASA, including both Shuttle and 
expendable launch vehicle operations, has not yet directly 
suffered from range-caused scheduling or supportability 
problems. Nevertheless, NASA is concerned that increased future 
Shuttle flight rates, particularly during the assembly of the 
International Space Station, may run up against range 
limitations that result from the current state of range 
hardware and software.
    Mr. McCartney, a retired Air Force General and former 
Director of the Kennedy Space Center, leads Lockheed Martin 
Astronautics' Launch Operations activities, which includes the 
Athena, Atlas, and Titan vehicles as well as Lockheed Martin's 
work as the lead contractor for Phase II of the Air Force's RSA 
modernization program. While Mr. McCartney testified that 
obsolete equipment at the Eastern Range has already caused 
launch delays for Lockheed Martin and its customers, he 
believes the current RSA effort, if fully funded, should solve 
the majority of problems by the completion date of 2007.
    Mr. Witzling, as manager of Boeing's Delta II program, 
testified as part of its participation in the EELV program, 
Boeing is spending several hundred million dollars on new 
launch infrastructure at the Delta IV launch sites at Cape 
Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Because they are 
investing in these, Boeing does not believe private launch 
users should pay substantially more than the current ``marginal 
costs'' for range usage. Nevertheless, Boeing estimates even if 
the RSA program is fully implemented, its 2007 completion date 
will be four years too late for a predicted launch frequency 
``peak'' in 2003.
    Mr. Grabe, speaking about Orbital Sciences' Pegasus and 
Taurus small-payload launch systems, indicated the Air Force's 
flat rate costs for range services disproportionately hurt 
their international competitiveness. He also amplified other 
industry witnesses' criticism of how the Air Force operates the 
ranges in a non-businesslike manner. Finally, Mr. Grabe pointed 
out that in the near future, reusable launch vehicles will 
require new approaches to space transportation infrastructure 
to account for landings, including non-destruct flight 
termination.

      4.4(g)--U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness, Part I


                             April 21, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-13


Background

    On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing titled ``Extension of Space Launch 
Indemnification.''
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Tidal W. McCoy, Chairman 
of the Space Transportation Association; Ms. Patricia A. 
Mahoney, Chair of the Satellite Industry Association; Ms. Esta 
Rosenberg, Attorney Advisor for the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Office of the Chief Counsel; and Mr. Joel 
Greenberg, President of Princeton Synergetics.

Summary of hearing

    With the current government indemnification of space 
launches set to expire December 31, 1999, the launch industry 
has been pressing Congress for an extension of this financial 
protection. This hearing gave Subcommittee members an 
opportunity to examine this issue in preparation for upcoming 
legislation on this topic.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) a brief synopsis of the 
Space Transportation Association (STA) and its member 
companies; (2) STA's recommendations on whether to extend 
launch indemnification; (3) the implications of a 1-year 
extension followed by a 5-year extension with additional 
commercial incentives versus a straight 5-year extension; (4) 
how Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) development activities would 
be impacted by indemnification renewal; (5) a brief synopsis of 
the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) and its member 
companies; (6) SIA's recommendations on whether to extend 
launch indemnification; (7) how commercial satellite marketing 
efforts are impacted by uncertainties in indemnification 
extension; (8) the Federal Aviation Administration's role in 
the regulation of commercial launch activities; (9) how 
indemnification fits into the FAA's ``Financial Responsibility 
and Risk Allocation'' activities as described in the Commercial 
Space Launch Act; (10) answers to specific questions from the 
Members of the Subcommittee on indemnification, including from 
a legal or regulatory standpoint; (11) Princeton Synergetics' 
study on indemnification extension for the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation; 
(12) Princeton Synergetics' recommendations on whether to 
extend launch indemnification; (13) recommendations for future 
launch environments with respect to insurance indemnity; and 
(14) any recommended actions to facilitate such a restructured 
scenario.
    The Honorable Tidal W. McCoy, Chairman of the Space 
Transportation Association began his testimony with an overview 
of the Space Transportation Association. The organization, 
founded by General Daniel O. Graham, brings together aerospace 
companies for the purpose of developing and advocating 
standards, producing studies and analyses that address specific 
matters related to space transportation, and maintaining close 
contact with key figures in the Executive and Legislative 
branches of government. Mr. McCoy then characterized the U.S. 
Government's extension of commercial launch indemnification as 
the single most important thing that can be done to assist the 
commercial launch market. He further indicated that, after 
consulting with his member companies, he could report this 
extension would be necessary to assist both large and small 
companies which build both expendable and reusable vehicles. 
Moreover, this extension would need to be for a sufficient 
period of time--at least 5 years--in order to demonstrate to 
customers and investors a stable and favorable U.S. launch 
business environment.
    Ms. Patricia A. Mahoney, Chair of the Satellite Industry 
Association, first presented an overview of her organization--
consisting of over 30 member companies involved in all aspects 
of aerospace. She explained the Satellite Industry 
Association's purpose is to represent the wide gamut of 
industry with one voice and message. Ms. Mahoney then described 
the commercial space market itself, pointing out that the U.S. 
manufactures over two-thirds of the world's satellites, the 
U.S. accounted for slightly less than half of the world's 
commercial space revenues, and the number of commercial 
launches now exceed government launches--including both 
military and civilian. Further testimony described the 
criticality of indemnification extension, pointing out this 
policy has never cost the government anything, a long-term 
extension would be necessary to ensure stable markets, and such 
extension was a critical factor in the consideration of 
international competition.
    Ms. Esta Rosenberg, Attorney Advisor for the Federal 
Aviation Administration's Office of the Chief Counsel, 
described the regulatory responsibility of her office. As she 
pointed out, her office's first responsibility is to ensure the 
safety of the public and to safeguard U.S. interests. 
Indemnification extension, she described, is consistent with 
both of these goals. The government's provision for 
indemnification protection is the result of a quid pro quo 
agreement where the commercial launch company agrees to 
purchase liability insurance up to the maximum probable loss 
amount. Indemnification is then provided for up to $1.5 billion 
worth of third-party liability beyond that insured amount. 
Accordingly, Ms. Rosenberg indicated her office's strong 
endorsement of indemnification extension in order to ensure 
this continued agreement which helps the launch companies and 
protects the public.
    Mr. Joel Greenberg, President of Princeton Synergetics, 
began his testimony with an overview description of the 
indemnification issue and the space launch insurance sector. He 
then recommended against the short-term elimination of 
indemnification protection, citing the dramatic shock to launch 
service providers, customers, insurers, and investors. However, 
Mr. Greenberg also described a possible long-term view on 
indemnification which might provide for a different 
relationship between industry and government with regard to 
risk sharing. Accordingly, he recommended the immediate 
extension of indemnification, but with a simultaneous look at 
ways to gradually phase this protection out in favor of a 
restructured approach.

     4.4(h)--Y2K in Orbit: The Impact on Satellites and the Global 
                           Positioning System


                              May 12, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-6


Background

    With just over 200 days remaining untill the date rollover, 
this hearing received a status report on the Y2K impact on our 
Nation's satellite systems and the Global Positioning System 
(GPS) from representatives of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DoD), 
the General Accounting Office (GAO), and an industry trade 
association. Satellite networks are a critical link to 
communications worldwide, from cellular phones to weapons 
guidance and aircraft navigation. Yet, the computers running 
those networks could be Y2K vulnerable since those networks 
rely on computers that are controlled by thousands of software 
programs and millions of lines of programming code.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Lee B. Holcomb, Chief Information 
Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. 
Marvin Langston, Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. 
Department of Defense; Mr. Neil R. Helm, Member, Communications 
Systems Technical Committee, American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics; and Mr. Keith Rhodes, Technical Director for 
Computers and Telecommunications, United States General 
Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rhodes stated the Global Positioning System (GPS) is 
the Department of Defense's primary radionavigation system, and 
the GPS has become an integral asset in numerous civilian 
applications and industries, including emergency services, 
airlines services, commercial fishing and shipping, corporate 
vehicle fleet tracking, and surveying. It also plays a critical 
role in communications networks and, hence, the Internet. The 
system is affected by both the Year 2000 computing problem and 
a problem associated with the way the system keeps track of 
time. Mr. Rhodes believes it is vital that organizations make 
an effort to determine (1) whether the networks they operate 
rely on GPS equipment as a time source and (2) the potential 
GPS-related risks. Once the problem and its potential impact 
are known, organizations and individual users can (1) modify 
receivers, (2) replace them with newer models, or (3) contact 
their service providers to ensure that GPS receivers supporting 
their telecommunications networks are not susceptible to the 
upcoming End-of-Week rollover. Because the rollover is less 
than 4 months away, however, organizations must undertake these 
measures as quickly as possible.
    Dr. Langston stated that the DoD has the largest and most 
comprehensive evaluation plan in the Department's history, and 
is continuing to work on refining plans to improve the overall 
evaluation of core DoD functions. This plan will significantly 
improve the level of confidence in the DoD's ability to carry 
on operations despite Year 2000. While these extensive efforts 
will mitigate risk, the interconnectedness of everything 
guarantees that Year 2000 will have an impact on DoD. To deal 
with this reality, DoD must focus on realistic contingency 
planning. Dr. Langston said the Department of Defense will be 
prepared to execute its national security responsibilities 
before, on, and after January 1, 2000. The Department's 
comprehensive systems compliance efforts, operational 
evaluations and end-to-end testing, and systems and operational 
contingency plans are being developed and executed within a 
solid management structure. All Year 2000 efforts are receiving 
the personal attention of the Department's senior leadership. 
Finally, these efforts are being rigorously scrutinized by 
independent auditors, including the Department's Inspectors 
General and the General Accounting Office.
    Mr. Holcomb stated the GPS is a technical problem similar 
to but not directly related to Y2K. Two upcoming events may 
affect civil GPS users and government users of commercially 
procured receivers--GPS End of Week rollover and Y2K issues. 
GPS End-of-Week rollover happens every 20 years because GPS 
system time, counted in weeks, started counting on January 6, 
1980. At midnight between August 21 and 22, 1999 the GPS week 
will rollover from week 1023 to 0000. This could be interpreted 
as an invalid date in GPS receivers that were not designed to 
meet GPS specification. The Department of Defense is the 
service provider for GPS and has verified that all generations 
of GPS satellites and ground support systems are Y2K and End-
of-Week rollover compliant. NASA has assessed the impact of 
this known problem with GPS receivers, and has replaced or 
upgraded a small number of GPS receivers where required, either 
for this GPS-unique problem, or due to Y2K reasons. Mr. Holcomb 
said NASA does not anticipate problems with GPS receivers on 
August 21, 1999 or on January 1, 2000. Additionally, NASA 
remains confident the probability of a Y2K-related failure of 
NASA-controlled assets and systems is very low.
    Mr. Helm stated the Y2K problem has been examined by the 
U.S. commercial satellite communications vendors and service 
providers. The results of the examination indicate because 
spacecraft on board timing clocks are not referenced to 
calendar dates, there will be no space segment anomalies with 
the Year 2000 rollover. However, problems will be found in 
early designs of ground-segment equipment, both in the hardware 
and software. The major companies are currently addressing 
these problems with a rigorous compliance program, and are 
informing their customers if and when modifications need to be 
made.

     4.4(i)--U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness, Part II


                             June 10, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-13


Background

    On June 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing titled ``Barriers to Commercial Space Launch.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Edward A. O'Connor, Jr., Executive 
Director, Spaceport Florida Authority; The Honorable Andrea 
Seastrand, Executive Director, California Space and Technology 
Alliance; Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Space Policy, 
Aerospace Industries Association; Dr. Jerry Grey, Director, 
Aerospace and Science Policy, American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics; and Ms. Laura Montgomery, Attorney-Advisor, 
Federal Aviation Administration's Office of the Chief Counsel.

Summary of hearing

    A number of significant policy issues face the commercial 
launch industry which may require legislation. The potential 
need for such legislation provides the Congress with a unique 
opportunity to examine the framework of the commercial launch 
industry as a whole. This hearing gave Subcommittee members an 
opportunity to identify and examine barriers that impede such 
commercial launch activities in anticipation of upcoming 
legislation on the topic.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) the identification of 
problems and challenges which create barriers to the commercial 
space launch industry; (2) descriptions of corrective actions 
necessary to correct such barriers; (3) descriptions of any 
other appropriate changes in program funding, policy, 
legislation, or international agreements to help the commercial 
space launch sector; (4) the government perspective on problems 
and challenges which create barriers to the commercial space 
launch industry; and (5) a discussion of current regulatory 
activity at the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 
which will address such barriers.
    Mr. Edward A. O'Connor, Jr. began his testimony with an 
overview of the Spaceport Florida Authority--a component of the 
Florida State Government. The Spaceport coordinates key 
partnerships between state government, Federal Government, and 
the private sector to promote and enable the commercial launch 
industry. Mr. O'Connor described a series of meetings held with 
the private sector to identify key issues. He identified the 
extension of launch indemnification as the most critical issue 
facing the U.S. launch community. He further describes the 
critical importance of modernizing the launch range facilities. 
During those meetings, a total of 18 barriers to commercial 
launch were identified, of which 7 were recognized as critical, 
4 were deemed to be important, and the remaining 7 were deleted 
from further discussion. Mr. O'Connor described a brief 
overview of the ``critical'' and ``important'' issues, and 
further stressed the importance of preserving U.S. launch 
capability in light of the Cox-Dicks Committee Report.
    The Honorable Andrea Seastrand also began her testimony 
with an overview of the California Space & Technology 
Alliance--also designated as the California Spaceport 
Authority. This organization functions as the official policy 
advisor to both the California Governor and State Legislature. 
The spaceport also represents the State of California's 
interests in dealing with both the federal and local 
governments. Ms. Seastrand's description of commercial launch 
barriers echoed those of Mr. O'Connor--a reasonable outcome 
since the California Spaceport worked with many of the same 
stakeholders as the Florida Spaceport. She also addressed the 
national security concerns described in the Cox-Dicks Committee 
Report, and stressed the importance of finding an important 
balance between the two legitimate concerns of U.S. national 
security and international competitiveness in the aerospace 
industry.
    Mr. Bruce L. Mahone's testimony reflected the viewpoint of 
U.S. manufacturers. His testimony identified broader issues to 
set the stage for overall U.S. competitiveness in the coming 
years. He first described the importance of a careful 
consideration of bilateral launch trade agreements with Russia, 
China, and the Ukraine. He then indicated the importance of 
reinstating the White House National Space Council (a sentiment 
echoed by the written testimonies of Ms. Seastrand and Mr. 
O'Connor). He further stressed the importance of the 
preservation of radio spectrum allocation for the commercial 
sector, particularly in light of recent jurisdictional 
transfers of this matter. Finally, Mr. Mahone spent the balance 
of his testimony describing the importance of the national 
investment in research and development. He pointed out that 
current levels are at an all-time low relative to Gross 
Domestic Product reinvested in aerospace research. He further 
testified that the trade surplus is larger in aerospace than 
any other U.S. industrial sector, and a healthy R&D base will 
help to preserve the international market share.
    Dr. Jerry Grey began his testimony with a description of 
his policy background and his specific support to the American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He then identified 
10 specific initiatives which, if implemented, would help lower 
existing barriers to the commercial launch sector. Dr. Grey 
grouped these suggestions into 4 categories: (1) U.S. 
Government policy and/or policy implementation, (2) industry 
actions, (3) joint government/industry actions, and (4) 
government incentives for industry. Dr. Grey described his 
ideas and expanded on suggestions for their implementation.
    Finally, Ms. Laura Montgomery represented the government's 
perspective addressing commercial launch barriers. 
Specifically, from the FAA's point of view, the two topics 
meriting particular attention were (1) the extension of 
commercial launch indemnification, and (2) the continuation of 
the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation's progress in 
updating their regulatory program. Ms. Montgomery expressed 
appreciation that the Subcommittee's earlier hearing had 
focused on the first topic, and therefore focused her testimony 
on the second. Specifically, she described regulatory progress 
underway at the FAA and gave a status report of several 
specific measures. She further described the FAA's engagement 
of the industry via the Commercial Space Transportation 
Advisory Committee. Finally, Ms. Montgomery detailed the FAA's 
efforts to develop a comprehensive air and space traffic 
management system. She described the recently released 
``Concept of Operations in the National Airspace System in 
2005'' which defines those efforts, and submitted the report 
for the record.

                  4.4(j)--Range Modernization, Part II


                             June 29, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-10


Background

    On June 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a joint hearing with the House Committee on Armed 
Services' Subcommittees on Military Research and Development 
and Military Procurement.
    Witnesses included: Lt. Gen. Richard Henry, USAF (Ret.), 
chaired a Range Integrated Product Team study for Air Force 
Space Command; Dr. John M. Borky, Vice Chairman, Air Force's 
Scientific Advisory Board; Mr. Tom Moser, Executive Director, 
Texas Aerospace Commission; Mr. Robert Davis, President, R.V. 
Davis & Associates; and Mr. Jess Sponable, Vice President for 
Flight Operations, Universal Space Lines.

Summary of hearing

    This hearing built on the record of the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics' previous fact-finding hearing (``Range 
Modernization, Part I'' on March 24, 1999) by addressing 
various options for improving the condition and operation of 
U.S. federal launch ranges. Several independent but 
knowledgeable witnesses were able to discuss a wide range of 
different approaches to solving current and possibly-worsening 
problems at the ranges, both to meet near-term public and 
private demands and to enable long-term space transportation 
competitiveness.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) the effectiveness of the 
Federal Government's current approach to management and funding 
of range operations and modernization, particularly for current 
and planned commercial space transportation systems; (2) the 
impact of current and potential federal investments in range 
modernization on non-federal space launch facilities and the 
role such facilities could play in addressing the inadequacies 
of the U.S. launch infrastructure; (3) the emergence of 
reusable launch vehicles and their impact on space 
transportation infrastructure development and operation; and 
(4) potential alternative approaches to management and funding 
of range operations and modernization.
    Lt. Gen. Henry (USAF, Ret.) presented a summary of the 
recommendations of the Range Integrated Product Team he led for 
Air Force Space Command. These included moving the federal 
ranges towards an ``airport operations'' model; improving range 
management--including accounting and business practices--to 
become more ``customer friendly;'' an independent assessment of 
whether new technologies can ease the cost burden of providing 
range safety; and increasing funding to pay for a ``second 
shift'' of workers, enabling faster progress in modernization 
without negatively impacting launch schedules. He also noted 
that a budget-constrained Air Force will always fund military 
obligations (such as foreign deployments) before investing in 
range infrastructure to meet commercially-driven needs. 
Finally, Lt. Gen. Henry stated industry might be willing to 
bear a greater fraction of the financial costs of range 
operations (and modernization) in exchange for priority launch 
scheduling and a more business-friendly approach in operating 
the range.
    Dr. Borky testified about the Air Force Scientific Advisory 
Board's ``Space Roadmap for the 21st Century Aerospace Force'' 
study and its recommendation to ``transition national launch 
facilities to civilian operations with the Air Force as a 
tenant.'' Dr. Borky echoed Lt. Gen. Henry's comments on the 
inappropriateness of the Air Force having to subsidize an 
increasingly-commercial activity. He stated an initial step 
towards ``privatization'' of the ranges would be to combine the 
operations and modernization contracts at the federal ranges 
into one integrated effort. This would allow for greater 
efficiencies, with savings plowed back into modernization 
investments. Beyond this first step, Dr. Borky suggested 
appropriate federal, state, and commercial entities should plan 
out a transfer of responsibility for the ranges to one or more 
national or regional spaceport authorities.
    Mr. Moser testified on the Texas Aerospace Commission's 
plans to develop a ``spaceport'' in southern Texas to support 
the operations of one or more commercial reusable launch 
vehicle companies. He stated reusable launch vehicles will 
require a new kind of space transportation infrastructure 
different from the federal ranges which is designed from the 
ground up for efficient operations, much like (and possibly 
integrated with) an airport. These spaceports should be 
developed--like most other transportation infrastructure--as a 
partnership between the public and private sectors. Mr. Moser 
argued that simply increasing Air Force spending on existing 
ranges is not sufficient to boost U.S. space transportation, 
and recommended that the Federal Government ``balance'' its 
investment in current ranges with support for commercial 
spaceports.
    Mr. Davis, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for 
Space, testified that based on discussions with several senior 
Air Force officials he believes they no longer see space launch 
infrastructure as a critical ``role and mission'' for the Air 
Force. While the Air Force should continue its current range 
modernization program, Mr. Davis argued Congress, the Executive 
Branch, and Industry should all work to define a new approach 
which would reflect the growing commercialization and 
internationalization of space transportation activities. One 
option would be to turn the ranges into ``government-owned, 
contractor-operated'' facilities, where the Air Force (or 
another federal agency) would perform a few limited functions 
and everything else would be managed by a commercial operator. 
Another, Mr. Davis stated, was to ``privatize'' the ranges by 
selling them to one or more companies which would operate them 
under the regulation of a government oversight board.

          4.4(k)--H.R. 1883, Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999


                             July 13, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-22


Background

    On July 13, 1999 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing entitled, ``H.R. 1883, Iran Nonproliferation Act 
of 1999,'' to review the legislation, which had been referred 
to the Committee for consideration.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Kenneth Timmerman, Director, Middle 
East Data Project, editor of The Iran Brief, and a contributing 
editor to Reader's Digest; Mr. Henry Sokolski, Executive 
Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and former 
Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense during the Bush Administration; Mr. Roald 
Sagdeev, Executive Director, East-West Center, University of 
Maryland; and, Mr. John Schumacher, NASA's Associate 
Administrator, Office of External Relations.

Summary of hearing

    The hearing was called to review H.R. 1883, the Iran 
Nonproliferation Act of 1999, and the connection between U.S. 
nonproliferation policies and Russian proliferation activities. 
Specifically, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999 prohibits 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from 
transferring U.S. funds to the Russian Space Agency (RSA) and 
entities under RSA's jurisdiction unless the President 
determines: (1) the Russian government opposes proliferation to 
Iran; (2) the Russian government is taking steps to halt the 
transfer of Russian technology associated with weapons of mass 
destruction and ballistic missiles to Iran; and (3) the Russian 
Space Agency and entities under its jurisdiction have not 
transferred such technology to Iran during the year prior to 
the President's determination. The hearing gave Members the 
opportunity to review Russian proliferation activities, U.S. 
nonproliferation options, and the potential impact of the 
legislation on the International Space Station prior to the 
Committee's consideration of the bill.
    Mr. Timmerman testified about the extent of Russian-Iranian 
cooperation in Iran's efforts to develop ballistic missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction. He began by noting the Russian 
government had approved visas to allow Russian scientists and 
engineers to train Iranian scientists and engineers in a 
variety of weapons-related fields both in Russia and Iran. He 
further summarized past instances in which the Bush and Clinton 
Administrations had sanctioned Russian state-owned research 
enterprises for assisting Iran's efforts to develop ballistic 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction. He concluded by 
pointing out that public sources indicated some 20 Russian 
entities were committing Category I and II violations of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Russian Space 
Agency (RSA) was responsible for these entities under Russian 
law. Mr. Timmerman argued against watering down H.R 1883 in any 
way.
    Mr. Sokolski testified passage of H.R. 1883 was critical to 
U.S. efforts to stem the proliferation of ballistic missiles 
and weapons of mass destruction to Iran. He stated making 
payments to the Russian Space Agency while it was assisting 
Iran's efforts to acquire such weapons would only create 
contempt for U.S. nonproliferation norms and stated the bill 
was well-crafted to use the leverage the United States had over 
RSA, which is responsible for the Russian aerospace industry 
under Russian law, to encourage it to more aggressively ensure 
Russian compliance with the MTCR. Mr. Sokolski argued in favor 
of toughening H.R. 1883 if that was possible.
    Mr. Schumacher testified Russia was an important partner in 
the International Space Station program. He stated 
nonproliferation was a top priority for the Clinton 
Administration and the Russians had made progress ``on the 
nonproliferation front'' by adopting new policies. He further 
testified NASA opposed section 6 of H.R. 1883, which precludes 
U.S. payments to the Russian Space Agency if Russia is 
assisting Iran's efforts to acquire or develop ballistic 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction, because raising the 
International Space Station in the nonproliferation context 
would make the United States appear an unreliable partner and 
might lead Russia to reduce its contributions to ISS. Mr. 
Schumacher did not address the point that Russian participation 
in the ISS was initially justified by the Administration in 
order to incite Russian compliance with the MTCR.
    Mr. Sagdeev testified that Russian press reports Russia's 
aerospace executives were enriching themselves by assisting 
Iran's missile programs were unreliable. He continued by 
stating Russia was so chaotic that the Russian government could 
not stem the flow of technology from its borders and the funds 
NASA was planning to pay the Russian Space Agency 
(approximately $100 million) were inconsequential as a source 
of revenue to the Russian aerospace industry.

                      4.4(l)--Space Shuttle Safety


                           September 23, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-36


Background

    On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Space Shuttle Safety.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Michael J. McCulley, Vice President 
and Deputy Program Manager, United Space Alliance; Mr. William 
F. Readdy, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Space 
Flight; and Mr. Frederick D. Gregory, NASA's Associate 
Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance.

Summary of hearing

    On July 23, 1999 at 12:30 a.m. the Space Shuttle Columbia 
launched from NASA's Kennedy Space Center on mission STS-93 to 
deploy the Chandra X-ray Observatory telescope. This mission 
received much publicity due to its commander, Air Force Colonel 
Eileen Collins--the first female commander of the Space 
Shuttle. This flight, however, was also unusual because of 
several significant anomalies that occurred during the launch 
phase of the flight. This hearing gave Subcommittee Members an 
opportunity to learn more about the problems that occurred 
during the flight and the subsequent response by NASA and the 
United Space Alliance. Testimony also addressed procedures 
under consideration for change as a result of the issues 
identified in the post-flight review and inspections of STS-93.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) an overview of Shuttle 
inspection and repair activities underway; (2) the expected 
completion date for these activities; (3) changes in procedure 
to be considered in light of discoveries made during inspection 
of the orbiters; (4) a description of any damage and resulting 
program impacts due to Hurricane Floyd; (5) a brief overview of 
anomalies encountered during the STS-93 flight; (6) resultant 
corrective action planned as a result of those anomalies; (7) 
the current state of the Shuttle launch schedule after 
considering the hurricane evacuation, the inspection and repair 
activities, and the Leonids Micrometeroid Shower; (8) an 
overview of the panel led by Harry McDonald which is comparing 
best practices within the aviation and space communities; (9) 
the extent to which the NASA Associate Administrator for Safety 
and Mission Assurance is participating in the Shuttle 
inspection and repair activities underway; (10) the extent to 
which his office had participated in developing previously 
instituted procedures as they relate to the problems now being 
found; (11) the extent to which he was aware of the problems 
encountered with LOX post deactivation pin ejections during 
testing and what corrective actions were taken after those 
tests; and (12) his office's assessment of whether the 
combination of main engine shutdown and the resultant loss of 
fuel line pressure with the ruptured hydrogen tubes exposed to 
flame could have resulted in catastrophic loss of the orbiter.
    Mr. Michael J. McCulley, Vice President and Deputy Program 
Manager at the United Space Alliance (USA), began his testimony 
with a brief description of his company's role in the operation 
of the Space Shuttle. He then described, in a greater level of 
detail, specific anomalies encountered during the STS-93 
flight, and the wiring inspection procedures underway. Further 
testimony addressed the impacts from these problems on both the 
Shuttle program generically and USA's role in the program 
specifically. Throughout his testimony, Mr. McCulley emphasized 
USA's commitment to ensuring that Shuttle safety remain the 
number one priority, and that safety considerations take 
precedence over concerns about Shuttle scheduling, cost, 
performance, and USA corporate financial considerations.
    Mr. William F. Readdy, NASA's Deputy Associate 
Administrator for Space Flight, began his testimony with a 
summary of Space Shuttle program priorities, to (1) Fly Safely; 
(2) Meet the Manifest; and (3) Improve Mission Supportability. 
Further testimony described anomalies encountered during the 
STS-93 flight, and the post-landing resolution activities. Mr. 
Readdy pointed out the new Shuttle launch schedule could not be 
addressed until the full after-effects of Hurricane Floyd had 
been determined. Mr. Readdy then described the independent 
assessment team in place to compare Shuttle practices with 
those of commercial aviation, and finally underscored NASA's 
commitment to Shuttle safety.
    Mr. Frederick D. Gregory, NASA's Associate Administrator 
for Safety and Mission Assurance, began his testimony with an 
overview of his office for Safety and Mission Assurance, and 
that office's role both within NASA and within the Shuttle 
program. Further testimony described his office's specific role 
in Space Shuttle inspection and repair activities underway, and 
the post-flight analysis of problems encountered during 
previous tests and the STS-93 flight. In this testimony, Mr. 
Gregory pointed out, while his office was not directly 
responsible for carrying out the safety activities addressed in 
the hearing, his office did concur with the safety-related 
actions carried out by the Shuttle program office.

                      4.4(m)--NASA's X-33 Program


                           September 29, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-41


Background

    On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space & 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``NASA's X-33 Program.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. Gary Payton, NASA's Deputy 
Associate Administrator for Aero-Space Technology (Space 
Transportation Technology); Mr. Jerry Rising, President and 
CEO, VentureStar, LCC; and Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for 
Defense Acquisition Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    The NASA-Lockheed Martin X-33 project has been the 
centerpiece of the space agency's efforts to develop and 
demonstrate advanced space transportation technologies since 
1996. Led by an industry team working in partnership with NASA, 
the X-33 effort aims to enable private industry to develop and 
operate fully-reusable launch vehicles (such as Lockheed 
Martin's proposed VentureStar) that could dramatically lower 
the cost of human and cargo space transportation. But according 
to an August 1999, General Accounting Office report and 
previous hearing testimony, the project has met with 
significant technical problems causing a schedule slip of 
nearly a year and a half, significant cost increases (mostly 
borne by industry), and some reduction in ``technology 
content.''
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) the current cost and 
schedule projections for completion of the X-33 program; (2) 
changes in the technical and programmatic objectives of the X-
33 program; (3) the impact of the X-33's problems on other NASA 
programs and budgets; and (4) ``lessons learned'' emerging from 
the X-33 program to date.
    Mr. Payton began by pointing out the X-33 program has been 
the first serious effort to develop new space transportation 
technology since the Space Shuttle was initiated in the early 
1970s. While the project has suffered delays, it has already 
succeeded in pushing several advanced technologies that will 
enable many potential reusable launch vehicles. Given a limited 
budget and the time constraint of the ``End of Decade 
Decision'' (in the President's Space Transportation Policy), 
NASA believed a single X-33 vehicle was the best way to 
proceed. Since then, NASA has gone on to initiate additional X-
vehicle projects to pursue alternative technologies to enable 
competing reusable launch systems.
    Mr. Rising testified the X-33 program has been able to 
capitalize on technological progress to demonstrate both 
performance and operational capabilities that would enable a 
single-stage-to-orbit launch system. While some performance 
standards for the X-33 flight test program have been reduced, 
the X-33 will still fully demonstrate the key technologies 
required for a low-cost, fast-turnaround reusable launch 
vehicle. Additional costs incurred due to technical 
difficulties and related schedule delays have been borne by 
Lockheed Martin, using both corporate funds and Independent 
Research and Development (IR&D) monies (earned in other 
government contracts). Both the successes have been achieved so 
far with the X-33 and the project's responsiveness to the 
technical challenges are largely due to the unique industry-
government partnership pioneered by the X-33 project.
    Mr. Allen Li testified on the major conclusions of the 
General Accounting Office's investigation of the X-33 program, 
and began by noting the project has already failed to meet some 
of its original cost, schedule, and performance objectives. 
Because Lockheed Martin will use government-paid IR&D funds to 
cover some of its additional expenses, the government will 
share some burden of these cost overruns, although NASA will 
not pay for them directly. The cooperative agreement used to 
manage the NASA-Lockheed partnership on the X-33 has worked 
well, giving government greater access to information on how 
the company is doing. Mr. Li added that while X-33 may help 
enable a commercial VentureStar reusable launch vehicle that 
can lower NASA's launch costs, there are many other obstacles 
which must be resolved before that happens. Furthermore, NASA 
does not have a clear roadmap of how it will build in the X-33 
project's results to achieve lower-cost access to space, 
particularly for crew and cargo missions to the International 
Space Station.

                     4.4(n)--Commercial Spaceplanes


                            October 13, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-41


Background

    On October 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space & 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Commercial 
Spaceplanes.''
    Witnesses included: Dr. George Mueller, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Kistler Aerospace Corporation; Mr. Steve 
Wurst, President and CEO, Space Access, LLC; Mr. Gary Hudson, 
President and CEO, Rotary Rocket Company; Mr. Mitchell Burnside 
Clapp, Chief Executive Officer, Pioneer Rocketplane; and Mr. 
Robert Davis, President and CEO, Kelly Space & Technology, Inc.

Summary of hearing

    Over the same period as NASA has begun pursuing RLV 
technologies (1993-present), several U.S. entrepreneurs started 
private companies to develop commercial reusable launch 
vehicles (RLVs). They had been inspired by the early and public 
success of the first federal experimental RLV, the Defense 
Department's DC-X; by the forecasts of several commercial Low 
Earth Orbit-based communications satellite (LEOsat) 
constellations (requiring low-cost replenishment) which would 
require multiple launches; and by many policymakers' interest 
in promoting cheaper access to space and commercial space 
development. This hearing assessed the progress made and 
challenges faced by this new ``spaceplane'' industry in the 
context of several public policy goals: lowering launch costs 
to promote the commercialization of space and reduce NASA's 
human and cargo space transportation expenses, improving the 
U.S. launch industry's capacity and competitiveness, and 
pursuing synergy with military RLV technology investments.
    Written testimony focused on: (1) the companies' commercial 
RLV concepts, proposed capabilities and intended markets; (2) 
the status of their RLV development efforts; (3) the impact 
that changes in the satellite launch marketplace and/or 
government actions have had on their progress; (4) their RLV 
concept's applicability toward the Nation's goals in civil, 
military, and commercial space, including meeting NASA's space 
transportation requirements; and (5) the assistance they would 
like from the Federal Government in order to help them succeed 
in developing their commercial RLV systems.
    George Mueller stated Kistler has completed some 75% of the 
manufacturing work on its first K-1 RLV, having raised and 
spent over $500 million in private funding to date. To help 
companies like Kistler complete development of their systems, 
Dr. Mueller recommended that the Federal Government use 
contingent launch service contracts, tax incentives (such as 
capital gains ``holidays''), and procurement reforms. 
Commercial RLVs, in turn, would allow the government not only 
to save money on launch costs but increase safety, reliability, 
and flexibility for human and cargo space missions.
    Steve Wurst testified unlike other commercial RLV 
companies, Space Access is targeting the medium-heavy payload 
market, including geosynchronous (GEO) communications 
satellites. Space Access' SA-1 vehicle is designed to be more 
like an airplane than a high-performance launch vehicle, using 
weight-efficient air breathing engines in its first stage and a 
robust and simplified physical structure. In addition to 
launching commercial satellites, the SA-1 could carry logistics 
modules or a crewed vehicle to the International Space Station. 
Continued government funding of existing or incrementally 
improved launch systems, however, dissuades commercial 
investors from investing in new systems such as the SA-1, Mr. 
Wurst argued. Government financial incentives, especially loan 
guarantees, would invigorate the private RLV industry. Finally, 
government could encourage commercial investment if it allowed 
companies to retain their intellectual property even when they 
receive some federal assistance.
    Gary Hudson presented a video of an October 12, 1999, test 
flight of Rotary Rocket's Atmospheric Test Vehicle, a full-
scale prototype of the planned Roton RLV. Mr. Hudson stated 
government action to help the commercial RLV industry should be 
carefully planned so as to do no harm, and should focus on 
providing incentives to private investors. These could include 
tax credits with a pass-through to passive investors, and loan 
guarantee legislation which does not pick winners and losers. 
Both NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration should expand 
their efforts to support the RLV industry. Finally, current 
export control problems are hampering development of new RLVs 
as well as their eventual commercial operation.
    Mitchell Burnside Clapp testified Pioneer Rocketplane's 
approach in developing its Pathfinder RLV is to minimize as 
much risk as possible, and therefore uses not only off-the-
shelf technologies but also off-the-shelf parts. Nevertheless, 
Pioneer's progress has been slowed by competition from 
subsidized systems, an unstable market for small satellite 
launches, and a general lack of interest in launch vehicle 
development projects among institutional investors. NASA could 
help by providing in-kind services, including expertise and 
access to unique facilities such as windtunnels, in exchange 
for launch service options. Mr. Clapp concluded by stating 
Pioneer could meet many of the government's required space 
transportation needs, and could do so sooner if the economic 
development practices of Earth were applied to space.
    Robert M. Davis testified Kelly Space & Technology's 
Astroliner uses a unique tow-launch approach, and therefore is 
free from many of the ground infrastructure requirements of 
existing launch vehicles. Like other companies, Kelly faces 
difficulty in raising private funds because of foreign as well 
as domestic government competition, a decline in demand for 
small satellite launches, and the current Internet investment 
``mania.'' The government could help companies like Kelly by 
funding flight demonstrations of RLV concepts, by tailoring its 
future payloads to use--rather than preclude--commercial RLVs, 
and by offering appropriate investment incentives.

    4.4(o)--Safety and Performance Upgrades to NASA's Space Shuttle


                            October 21, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-41


Background

    On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Safety and Performance 
Upgrades to NASA's Space Shuttle.''
    Witnesses included: Mr. William F. Readdy, NASA's Deputy 
Associate Administrator for Space Flight; Mr. Andy Allen, 
Director of Space Shuttle Development, United Space Alliance; 
Mr. Byron K. Wood, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing 
Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power; and Dr. Stephen A. Book, a 
member of the National Research Council's Committee on Shuttle 
Upgrades.

Summary of hearing

    NASA currently has numerous plans both underway and planned 
in the future to upgrade the Space Shuttle. NASA intends to 
upgrade the Shuttle in order to: (1) enhance safety and 
reliability; and (2) improve performance. Accordingly, this 
hearing will give Subcommittee members an opportunity to learn 
about the various types of upgrades under consideration in 
preparation for any funding requests that NASA might present to 
Congress for these activities.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) any recommendations 
toward further privatization of the Space Shuttle that would 
enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of United Space 
Alliance's Shuttle upgrade activities; (2) an overview of the 
Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME); (3) an overview of the 
factors which have led to the requirement to upgrade the SSME; 
(4) an overview of the SSME upgrade program in place including 
the completion of the Block II design in 2000; (5) an overview 
of the need or desire for any additional future engine upgrades 
to be performed subsequent to the Block II design; (6) an 
overview of the NASA framework under which upgrades to the 
Shuttle are defined and prioritized; (7) a description of 
safety upgrades which have already been incorporated into the 
Shuttle; (8) a description of planned or desired safety 
upgrades, the timeframe for these upgrades, and the associated 
costs; (9) desired performance upgrades, the timeframe for 
these upgrades, and the anticipated costs; (10) the findings of 
the National Research Council Committee on Space Shuttle 
Upgrades; (11) followup activities subsequent to the 
Committee's recommendations (i.e. NASA's response and resulting 
actions); and (12) the methodology used by the study team to 
distinguish between safety and performance-driven upgrades.
    Mr. William F. Readdy, NASA's Deputy Associate 
Administrator for Space Flight, began his testimony with an 
overview of the Shuttle Upgrades Program and a description of 
the upgrades selection process. The selection of upgrades, as 
he described, is conducted by a separate review board which 
makes recommendations to the program office for final approval. 
As Mr. Readdy pointed out, an important third category of 
upgrade not identified by the Subcommittee--supportability 
upgrades--seeks to improve the Shuttle's efficiency of 
operations, even though it might not directly impact safety or 
performance. Finally, Mr. Readdy provided a detailed list of 
upgrades planned or under consideration by NASA which will 
provide the Subcommittee with useful context for the oversight 
of future upgrades planned.
    Mr. Andy Allen, Director of Space Shuttle Development at 
United Space Alliance (USA), began his testimony with a 
description of improved Shuttle operations under USA's 
stewardship. He then transitioned into a discussion of Shuttle 
upgrades in that context, describing investments and activities 
undertaken by USA independent of NASA upgrade activities, 
providing cost savings both to USA and NASA. Mr. Allen then 
detailed specific upgrades in progress, and underscored Mr. 
Readdy's designation of supportability upgrades as a distinct 
class of activities. The discussion of additional privatization 
did not identify ground-breaking new areas for consideration, 
but rather underscored the importance of continuing this trend.
    Mr. Byron K. Wood, Vice President and General Manager of 
Boeing Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power, began his testimony 
with an overview of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) and 
upgrades in progress to the SSME. He then emphasized the 
importance of future upgrades to the SSME, and pointed out the 
criticality of SSME safety during the high-risk ascent phase. 
Finally, Mr. Wood underscored Boeing Rocketdyne's commitment to 
success and the historical success of the Space Shuttle Main 
Engine.
    Dr. Stephen A. Book, a member of the National Research 
Council's Committee on Shuttle Upgrades, began his testimony 
with an overview of the history of Space Shuttle upgrades. He 
then described, in detail, the National Research Council (NRC) 
process for reviewing and prioritizing such upgrades. A key NRC 
recommendation which came out of the review was NASA should be 
careful not to place too much confidence in the Quantitative 
Risk Assessment System (QRAS). As he described, QRAS is a 
useful tool to calculate risk reductions which result from 
various proposed modifications, but--like all software--the 
results are only as good as the models put into it, and much of 
the technologies being tested are still experimental and 
unprecedented. NRC's study resulted in 25 specific 
recommendations to NASA. In their response to the NRC report, 
NASA has concurred with 22 of the 25 recommendations, and 
expressed the need to further study the other 3.

4.4(p)--Space Transportation Architecture Studies: The Future of Earth-
                          to-Orbit Spaceflight


                            October 27, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-41


Background

    On October 27, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space & 
Aeronautics held a hearing to assess the results of NASA's 
industry-led Space Transportation Architecture Studies.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Daniel Mulville, NASA's Chief 
Engineer and Chairman, Space Transportation Council; Dr. 
Michael Griffin, Executive Vice President and Chief Technical 
Officer, Orbital Sciences Corporation; Mr. Rick Stephens, Vice 
President for Reusable Space Systems, Boeing Space and 
Communications; Mr. Michael Coats, Vice President for Reusable 
Transportation Systems, Lockheed Martin Astronautics; and Mr. 
Thomas F. Rogers, Chairman, Sophron Foundation.

Summary of hearing

    This was the last in a series of four hearings on the 
future of Earth-to-orbit space transportation. Starting in late 
1998 NASA funded several industry partners to conduct Space 
Transportation Architecture Studies. These refined and analyzed 
various potential space transportation development investments, 
including life-extending upgrades to the Space Shuttle, a post-
Shuttle (or ``second generation'') RLV such as Lockheed 
Martin's proposed X-33-derived VentureStar, and assistance to 
the entrepreneurial spaceplane industry. The results of these 
studies will inform the Administration's and Congress' 
deliberations on the FY2001 and subsequent budgets.
    Witness testimony focused on: (1) the results of the 
industry studies and independent assessments, particularly with 
regards to commercial second generation space transportation 
systems that could address NASA's International Space Station 
and related crew and cargo transportation requirements; (2) 
opportunities for such architectures to bridge commercial and 
NASA requirements, creating economic efficiencies, and also to 
achieve synergy with other federal space transportation 
investments (such as NASA's planned Crew Rescue Vehicle for the 
International Space Station or the Air Force's Evolved 
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) and military spaceplane 
programs); and (3) NASA's transition to buying commercial space 
transportation services to meet its Earth-to-orbit 
requirements, in accordance with the legal requirements of the 
Commercial Space Act of 1998, and those federal investments, 
policy changes, or other initiatives that would be required to 
successfully achieve this transition.
    Dr. Dan Mulville, who oversaw the NASA-industry STAS 
activity, testified the space agency reached out to industry 
for its best ideas on how to reduce launch costs while 
increasing safety and reliability beyond that of the current 
Space Shuttle and ELV fleet. While second generation RLVs offer 
dramatic improvements in all three areas, the current 
commercial launch market and state of technology are not 
sufficient to justify a 100 percent privately-funded RLV 
development effort. NASA is, therefore, developing an 
Integrated Space Transportation Plan that includes options for 
near-term Shuttle safety and performance upgrades, second 
generation RLV technology risk reduction, and longer-term 
technologies for eventual third generation RLVs. NASA's FY2001 
budget submission will include initial investments towards this 
plan.
    Dr. Michael Griffin testified Orbital Sciences Corp. has 
proposed developing a Crew-Cargo Transfer Vehicle (CCTV) which 
could fulfill the crew rescue function for the International 
Space Station, provide early ``back-up'' human access to space 
using an EELV booster, and later replace the Shuttle entirely 
using a reusable launch vehicle as its ``first stage.'' As such 
the CCTV could leverage funds already planned for use in 
developing a Crew Rescue Vehicle while meeting the ISS' 
schedule. While NASA would fund development of the CCTV on a 
fixed-price contract, the CCTV would be commercially-owned and 
operated in order to spur development of commercial human 
activity in low Earth orbit.
    Mr. Rick Stephens stated both government and industry are 
faced with near-term investment decisions regarding the Space 
Shuttle and alternative human space flight systems. Boeing has 
found at this time, the investment required to develop a second 
generation RLV, estimates of revenue levels, and capital 
markets' expected rates of return do not allow for a 
commercially-developed RLV. This ``investment gap'' can best be 
addressed by additional government (and private) investment in 
technologies such as reliable low-cost propulsion, integrated 
vehicle health management, large-scale structures, and 
innovative crew escape systems.
    Mr. Michael Coats testified ultimately, NASA's safety-
improvement, cost-reduction, and commercial synergy goals 
cannot be met by a Shuttle-based architecture. However, the 
U.S. should not give up any of the space transportation 
capabilities the Space Shuttle provides until a workable and 
more cost-effective alternative, such as Lockheed Martin's 
VentureStar, is proven. A Crew Transfer Vehicle, building on 
lessons learned from the X-38 and its follow-on Crew Rescue 
Vehicle, will also be important to achieving more robust human 
access to space, particularly for the International Space 
Station. To help industry mature its RLV concepts to a point 
where private capital markets will invest, NASA should include 
operational components and integration demonstrations in its 
technology plans. Finally, the Federal Government should seek 
innovative incentives for private RLV investments.
    Mr. Tom Rogers declared that using privately-developed and 
-operated fully-reusable launch vehicles is the most promising 
means of achieving much safer, more reliable, and less costly 
space transportation, but current efforts do not appear to be 
able to raise sufficient private capital. The presence of the 
International Space Station should allow initial fully-reusable 
vehicles to have less capability than the Shuttle, and 
therefore cost less to develop. Furthermore, the ISS' estimated 
Shuttle support costs presents a sufficiently large market, if 
bid out to the private sector, to make at least one private RLV 
profitable. This will offer the potential not only of reducing 
NASA's costs, but of opening up space to much broader and more 
diverse uses, promising economic, national security, and 
cultural benefits to our Nation.

          4.4(q)--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: NASA Posture


                           February 16, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held NASA's annual posture hearing to review the 
state of the civil space program and the President's FY 2001 
budget request for NASA.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator.

Summary of hearing

    Administrator Goldin testified regarding the FY 2001 budget 
request for NASA, which, at $14,035 million, represented a 
$434.5 million increase over the FY2000 appropriation. Funding 
for International Space Station (ISS) fell slightly from $2,323 
million to $2,114.5 million, reflecting the fact the program 
had passed its funding peak. The request increased funding for 
Space Shuttle from $2,999.7 million in FY 2000 to $3,165.7 
million in FY 2001, principally to pay for new shuttle safety 
and operability upgrades. Funding for Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology--which includes NASA's space science, earth science, 
life and microgravity research, and aerospace technology 
activities--rose from $2,192.8 million to $2,398.8 million in 
FY2001, principally due to the Administration's new Space 
Launch Initiative, which would total $4.5 billion over five 
years.
    Administrator Goldin stressed NASA would seek to capitalize 
on developments in information technology, nanotechnology, and 
biotechnology to improve its mission performance in coming 
years. He further stated his belief the budget increase 
requested by the President would help lay the foundation to 
move the space program into the 21st century. Mr. Goldin was 
asked about NASA's responses to the Mars failures in late 1999, 
but declined to answer pending the completion of the Young 
Panel's work and the development of a new Mars architecture, 
stating he did not want to risk biasing the Young Panel with 
his personal preferences. He was additionally asked about 
NASA's continued reliance on Russia for the Service Module and 
related ISS functions. Goldin defended NASA's dependence on 
Russia, but expressed considerable anger at elements of the 
Russian aerospace industry for the diversion of Progress and 
Soyuz vehicles from ISS to Mir. When questioned about Russia's 
continuing proliferation activities and the impact those 
activities would have on U.S.-Russian space cooperation, Goldin 
replied by saying he could not comment as such matters were 
outside of his responsibilities.
    Several members asked about NASA's educational programs and 
expressed concern that the President had requested cuts in 
funding, while others expressed their frustration with NASA's 
unwillingness to commit to a dedicated life and microgravity 
research mission aboard the Shuttle, despite the enactment of 
several laws requiring it do so.

        4.4(r)--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: Human Spaceflight


                             March 16, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on NASA's FY 2001 budget request for 
Human Spaceflight. NASA's Human Spaceflight activities are 
funded in a single appropriations account and include funding 
for the development and operations of the International Space 
Station and the Space Shuttle.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate 
Administrator, NASA, Human Spaceflight; Dr. Henry McDonald, 
Director, Ames Research Center, NASA; Ms. Roberta Gross, 
Inspector General, NASA; and Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, 
General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rothenberg provided testimony on NASA's request for 
funding for the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle, 
Payload Utilization and Operations, Payload and ELV Support, 
and Investments and Support. Furthermore, he discussed NASA's 
expectations for the International Space Station program over 
the next 12 months.
    Dr. McDonald discussed the internal agency review of Space 
Shuttle processing issues in the wake of problems in the 
fleet's wiring harnesses.
    Ms. Gross testified regarding reports from the Inspector 
General's office addressing NASA's management of its Human 
Spaceflight activities, including the International Space 
Station, the X-38, and Space Shuttle processing.
    Mr. Li discussed the GAO's review of NASA's compliance with 
its safety requirements for the International Space Station and 
the process for waiving those requirements. Mr. Li also 
discussed issues related to Russia's compliance with ISS safety 
requirements.

 4.4(s)--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: Life and Microgravity Research


                             March 22, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On March 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on the FY 2001 budget request for 
NASA's Life and Microgravity Science programs. The Office of 
Life and Microgravity Science and Applications (OLMSA) is 
responsible for a wide range of projects aimed at achieving 
NASA's expressed goal of bringing the frontiers of space fully 
within the sphere of human activities. The FY 2001 request for 
the Office of Life and Microgravity Science and Applications 
was $302.4 million.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, Associate 
Administrator of NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications; Dr. Richard Hodes, Director of the 
Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health; Dr. 
Mary Jane Osborn, Chair of the Committee on Space Biology and 
Medicine; Dr. Jay Buckey Jr., President of the American Society 
for Gravitational and Space Biology; and Dr. David G. Kaufman, 
President of the Federation of American Societies for 
Experimental Biology.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Nicogossian discussed new initiatives in the area of 
life and microgravity research and applications in FY 2001 and 
the status of current programs and activities.
    Dr. Hodes discussed the nature of the collaborative 
research activities that have been undertaken by the National 
Institute on Aging in conjunction with NASA and areas of 
research that may be pursued in the future.
    Dr. Osborn addressed a number of recent reports from the 
Space Studies Board including ``Future Biotechnology Research 
on the International Space Station'' and ``A Strategy for 
Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century.''
    Dr. Buckey provided his perspective, as a scientist and 
former payload specialist, on NASA's life and microgravity 
research programs and a summary of the views of the American 
Society for Gravitational and Space Biology on these programs.
    Dr. Kaufman discussed the Federation of American Societies 
for Experimental Biology's overall perspective on NASA's life 
and microgravity research programs and gave an assessment of 
the current strengths and weaknesses of NASA's investigator-
initiated research programs in life and microgravity research.

      4.4(t)--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: Aero-Space Technology


                             April 11, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On Tuesday, April 11, 2000 the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on NASA's Aero-Space Technology 
Enterprise in the context of the President's FY 2001 budget 
submission. The President's FY 2001 budget request for the 
Office of Aero-Space Technology totals $1,193.0 million.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Sam Venneri, Associate 
Administrator, Aero-Space Technology Enterprise, NASA; Dr. 
George Donohue, Professor, Systems Engineering & Operations 
Research, George Mason University; and Mr. Ivan Bekey, 
President, Bekey Designs.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Sam Venneri discussed FY 2001 plans for the Aero-Space 
Technology Enterprise (AST), where the focus is on integrated, 
long-term, innovative aerospace technology that is critical to 
NASA's future. He identified new technologies for space 
applications in concert with current programs in aeronautics 
and space transportation, i.e., the Space Launch Initiative.
    Mr. Ivan Bekey restricted his remarks to the advanced space 
transportation portions of the AST Enterprise. Specifically, he 
provided comments on the Space Launch Initiative's second and 
third generation reusable launch vehicle programs. Although Mr. 
Bekey supports these programs in principle, he has major 
concerns regarding NASA's ability to achieve its future space 
transportation goals, given the problems associated with the X-
33 program.
    Mr. George L. Donohue stated the U.S. ``hub and spoke'' air 
transportation system is approaching a serious capacity crisis, 
where both safety and capacity are ``intertwined.'' Further, he 
stated NASA's objectives for addressing this situation may not 
be achievable in the absence of a ``fundamental rethinking'' of 
the air transportation mode.

  4.4(u)--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request: NASA's Earth Science Program


                              May 10, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On May 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on NASA's FY 2001 budget request for the Earth 
Science Enterprise. The FY 2001 request for Earth Science is 
$1,405.8 million, which is an overall decrease of $37.6 million 
or 3.2% from the latest revised Operating Plan for FY 2000.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate 
Administrator, NASA Earth Science Enterprise; Mr. James J. 
Frelk, Vice President, Geospatial Information Systems, Veridian 
ERIM International; Dr. Michel F. Goodchild, Director, National 
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of 
California, Santa Barbara; and Mr. Jim Pagliasotti, Director 
Government Relations, Aerospace States Association.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Asrar discussed the progress made over the past year by 
the Earth Science Enterprise. Specifically, the Earth Science 
Program had six successful spacecraft launches, including the 
first major Earth Observing System, Terra. Additionally, Dr. 
Asrar discussed the status of the Commercial Remote Sensing 
Program's Scientific Data Purchase initiatives.
    Mr. Frelk provided an industry perspective on NASA's 
execution of the Commercial Remote Sensing Program and 
questioned whether NASA has effectively incorporated the 
purchase of commercial remote sensing data as a ``normal way of 
doing business.''
    Dr. Goodchild provided an overview of scientific research 
conducted with remote sensing data. Dr. Goodchild also 
discussed commercial remote sensing products currently 
available that would be of use to the conduct of scientific 
research and his assessment of the applicability of future 
types of commercial data for the conduct of additional types of 
research.
    Mr. Pagliasotti provided an overview of the uses of Earth 
Science data to meet state and local government needs. Mr. 
Pagliasotti also discussed highlights of selected pilot 
projects to apply remote sensing data to support state and 
local users and an assessment of NASA's commercial data buy 
program in supporting state and local applications.

          4.4(v)--U.S. Bilateral Space Launch Trade Agreements


                              May 24, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-105


Background

    On May 24, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on Bilateral Space Launch Trade Agreements. The 
hearing examined the uncertainty in the Administration's 
position regarding the expiration of bilateral space launch 
trade agreements may have on the U.S. space transportation 
industry. These agreements were originally intended to 
facilitate market entry of economies in transition, including 
the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and 
Ukraine.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Oren B. Phillips, Vice President, 
Thiokol Technologies; Mr. Jeff Foote, President, Alliant 
Aerospace Propulsion Company, Alliant Techsystems; Mr. Pierre 
A. Chao, Managing Director, C.S. First Boston; and Mr. Clayton 
Mowry, Executive Director, Satellite Industry Association.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Oren B. Phillips discussed the negative impact 
relaxation or even elimination of the space launch quotas on 
foreign launch service providers will have on the U.S. space 
transportation industry, which constitutes the total business 
base of the solid propulsion industry. He concludes if measures 
are not taken to shore up U.S. launch competitiveness, the U.S. 
will lose the capability to manufacture propulsion stages, 
which is a ``unique robust, on-demand potential that is the 
cornerstone of our strategic missiles.''
    Mr. Jeff Foote's testimony echoed many of the points that 
were addressed by Mr. Phillips concerning the need for a space 
launch quotas regime for foreign launch service competitors. He 
gave particular attention to some aspects of the relationship 
between U.S. industry's launch vehicles and its government's 
strategic missiles and the need for a credible U.S. launch 
capability in maintaining the industrial base and national 
security.
    Mr. Pierre A. Chao summarized the state of the 
international commercial space market from a financial 
perspective and how ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the 
issue of extending the bilateral trade agreements only serves 
to weaken the investment community's confidence in the 
commercial space industry.
    Mr. Clayton Mowry made the point that the current 
commercial satellite market requires flexibility in scheduling 
and a greater selection of launch service providers is not 
possible under the existing space launch quota regime. He 
believes quotas have lost ``legitimate trade purpose'' they 
once had.

              4.4(w)--Financing Commercial Space Ventures


                             July 18, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-79


Background

    On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on Financing Commercial Space Ventures. The goal 
of the hearing was to gain insight into the economic and market 
forces facing commercial space ventures and to review various 
financial incentives aimed to increase investment and 
competition in commercial space.
    Witnesses included: Marcia S. Smith, Specialist in 
Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research 
Service; Robert Landis, Managing Director, Telecom & Aerospace, 
Deutsche Banc Alex Brown; Molly Macauley, PhD, Senior Fellow, 
Energy and Natural Resources Division, Resources for the 
Future; and The Honorable Robert Walker, Chairman and CEO, The 
Wexler Group.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Smith provided an overview of the commercial space 
business and projected forecasts for commercial space markets, 
such as telecommunications, space tourism, remote sensing, and 
zero gravity manufacturing. She also provided a summary of 
proposed legislative initiatives related to commercial space 
financing, such as tax credits, tax moratoria, and loan 
guarantees.
    Mr. Landis discussed the current and projected climate for 
investment in commercial space ventures, including opportunity 
costs between space ventures and other investments. Mr. Landis 
also discussed the criteria and process for evaluating 
commercial space venture proposals and an analysis of the 
impact that various financial incentives would have on 
investment decisions.
    Dr. Macauley discussed the economic forces that drive the 
commercial space market, the barriers to market entry into the 
commercial space business, and an analysis of the relative 
merits of potential financial incentives to increase investment 
and competition in commercial space.
    Mr. Walker provided his views on the challenges facing the 
development of the commercial space industry and an assessment 
of the relative merits of various types of financial incentives 
such as tax credits, tax moratoria, and loan guarantees to 
increase investment and competition in commercial space.

         4.4(x)--The Technical Feasibility of Space Solar Power


                           September 7, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-87


Background

    On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing to discuss the technologies needed 
to proceed with deployment of space solar-power collection and 
transmission systems, including the technical hurdles that must 
be surmounted, the economic feasibility of space solar-power 
(SSP), and NASA's role in facilitating the development of such 
a system.
    Witnesses included: Dr. John Mankins, Manager of Advanced 
Concepts Studies, Office of Human Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Ralph 
Nansen, President of Solar Space Industries, Inc., Seattle, WA; 
Mr. John Fini, Senior Associate, Strategic Insight Ltd. 
(testifying on behalf of Dr. Molly Macauley, Resources for the 
Future); and Dr. Jerry Grey, American Institute for Aeronautics 
and Astronautics.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Mankins reviewed NASA's efforts to develop and mature 
technologies required prior to fielding the first generation 
space solar-power satellite. He indicated it would take 25 
years of phased efforts before the first full-powered SSP 
satellite could be flown.
    Mr. Ralph Nansen reviewed global energy consumption trends, 
asserting that world demand for hydrocarbon-based fuels would 
soon begin to deplete readily-available sources. He testified 
space solar-power represented a clean and economical 
alternative source, provided government and industry began to 
aggressively develop necessary technologies.
    Dr. Jerry Grey offered assessments on current technologies 
(including wireless power transmission, in-space 
transportation, and solar-array technology development), 
identifying potential obstacles that must be resolved. He also 
outlined SSP-related research being conducted by Japan and 
western European countries.
    Mr. John Fini summarized research undertaken by Resources 
for the Future--under a contract with NASA--characterizing 
future electrical energy markets. Their study suggested 
electricity costs for the next 25 years should not be 
substantially different from what they are today.

          4.4(y)--The State of NASA's Space Science Enterprise


                           September 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-70


Background

    On September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on NASA's Space Science programs. 
NASA's Space Science Enterprise is responsible for all of 
NASA's programs relating to astronomy, the solar system, and 
the sun and its interaction with Earth. The FY 2001 request for 
Space Science is $2,398.8 million.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate 
Administrator for Space Science at NASA; Dr. Claude R. 
Canizares, former Chair of the Space Studies Board at the 
National Research Council; and Dr. Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., co-
Chair of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee of the 
National Research Council.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Weiler addressed new Space Science initiatives for FY 
2001 and the status of current programs and projects in the 
Office of Space Science, including the restructuring of NASA's 
Mars program.
    Dr. Canizares discussed the Space Studies Board's recent 
reports pertaining to NASA's Office of Space Science, including 
``Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space 
Science Missions,'' ``Continuing Assessment of Technology 
Development in NASA's Office of Space Science,'' ``Scientific 
Assessment of `Exploration of the Solar System: Science and 
Mission Strategy,' '' and ``Review of Office of Space Science 
2000 Strategic Plan.''
    Dr. Taylor described the recent report of the Space Studies 
Board's Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee ``Astronomy 
and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.''

     4.4(z)--Range Privatization: How Fast, How Soon, and How Much?


                           September 28, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-88


Background

    On September 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled ``Range Privatization: How 
Fast, How Soon, and How Much?'' The hearing focused on the need 
for and how best to proceed in transferring range management 
authority from the Air Force to a non-federal entity, as a 
means of stimulating additional non-federal investments in U.S. 
space launch capabilities. One potential means of bringing 
additional non-federal resources to bear on the problem may be 
full or partial privatization.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Pete Aldridge, Jr., 
President of the Aerospace Corporation, former Secretary of the 
U.S. Air Force and Chair of the Defense Science Board Tasks 
Force on the national ranges; Dr. Billie Reed, Executive 
Director, Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority; Dr. 
Ronald C. Moe, Specialist in Government Organization, 
Congressional Research Service; and Mr. Michael S. Kelly, 
Chairman, Kelly Space and Technology, Inc.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Ronald C. Moe discussed the theoretical aspects of 
privatization and its consequences for space launch range users 
in the public and private sectors. He stated because public and 
private sector entities have different management styles, 
partnerships involving the two do not generally work in 
creating a business-like environment for a government-owned and 
-operated infrastructure. He did point out the government 
corporation concept could be viewed, however, as an alternative 
to privatization, or it could serve as a transitional mechanism 
for achieving eventual full privatization.
    Mr. Aldridge addressed the issue of U.S. Air Force 
divestiture from the U.S. National ranges in terms of the 
results from a Defense Science Board study on space launch 
ranges. He pointed out that more non-federal ownership of the 
ranges could be possible if, among other things, changes in the 
range ground infrastructure and Air Force cost accounting and 
management approaches are instituted.
    Dr. Billie M. Reed provided the commercial spaceport 
perspective on the issue of national range privatization. He 
suggested privatizing some aspects of the national ranges is 
possible, but range operations should remain a government 
responsibility.
    Mr. Kelly agreed with the general points made by Dr. Reed. 
Additionally, he advocated for the immediate start of ``market-
based, range privatization,'' which provides the actual market 
value of government infrastructure. Mr. Kelly believes this 
approach would yield greater advances in space transportation, 
particularly reusable launch systems, and provide the 
opportunity to transition towards new ways for conducting 
launch operations.

                    4.5--Subcommittee on Technology


     4.5(a)--Review of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request for the 
                       Technology Administration


                           February 11, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-1


Background

    On February 11, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing to review the funding requirements for the Department 
of Commerce Technology Administration in fiscal year (FY) 2000. 
Additionally, it reviewed the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
request and out-year budget projections through FY 2004, and 
sought to determine the effectiveness of the programs under the 
Technology Administration.
    The Technology Administration (TA) consists of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), including the 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership (MEP); the National Technical Information 
Service (NTIS); and the Office of Technology Policy (OTP). The 
TA is headed by the Under Secretary for Technology who serves 
as the principal adviser to the Secretary of Commerce on 
Technology Policy.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Gary Bachula, testifying as the Acting Under Secretary 
for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, stated the 
national investment in R&D has significantly increased. Between 
1994 and 1997, total U.S. R&D expenditures were up over 13 
percent in real terms, while industry increased its investment 
by nearly 25 percent. He stated the OTP serves as an advocate 
for U.S. innovation enterprise. Some initiatives include: 
developing an ongoing statistical analysis of corporate R&D 
investment in partnership with the National Science Foundation; 
helping the Nation meet the growing demand for skilled 
information technology workers by conducting town meetings 
through an IT web site; two new benchmarking studies in space 
commerce and electronic commerce to identify key areas for 
policy analysis and development in FY 2000; OTP serves as 
government secretariat for PNGV; and evaluating OTP's EPSCoT 
initiative, designed to foster development of indigenous 
technology assets in states and regions traditionally under 
represented in Federal R&D funding in order to foster 
technology-based regional economic growth. The President's 
request includes $2M for NTIS to cover costs associated with 
acquiring a product, abstracting, cataloging and indexing the 
title, merging into NTIS's permanent bibliographic database and 
physically storing or scanning it into an electronic image for 
electronic storage. ``In 2000, the Administration also intends 
to submit legislation clarifying the mission of NTIS, while 
providing NTIS with greater operating flexibility.''
    Mr. Ray Kammer, testifying as the Director of NIST, stated 
commerce and technology are the two greatest forces shaping the 
world. Economists estimate technology accounts for at least 50 
percent of economic growth in U.S. and other industrialized 
nations. He stated NIST is working to ensure world leadership 
through NIST's Measurement and Standards Laboratories. He 
pointed out NIST received two significant awards in the past 
year. First, the Lorentz Medal from the Royal Netherlands 
Academy of Arts and Science was awarded to physicists Eric A. 
Cornell of NIST and Carl E. Wieman of the University of 
Colorado at Boulder for their laboratory creation of the first 
Bose-Einstein condensate. Second, NIST materials researcher 
John Cahn was named by President Clinton to receive the 
National Medal of Science, the Nation's highest scientific 
honor. He stated the Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory 
(ACSL) building was completed on-time and on-budget. NIST is 
requesting $95M to be combined with $108.3M already 
appropriated in FY98 to build the Advanced Measurement Lab 
(AML) that will provide stringent controls on particulate 
matter, temperature, vibration, and humidity that are not 
attainable in current NIST buildings. ``AML will allow NIST to 
provide U.S. industry and science with higher quality NIST 
reference materials improved measurements and faster access to 
NIST research advances.'' Three million dollars is requested 
for Critical Infrastructure Protection to allow NIST to develop 
needed measurements, test methods and standards to help ensure 
reliability of information technology systems supporting 
critical national infrastructure. RNIST is requesting $500,000 
to begin the Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Program 
(TSTEP). NIST is always working to ensure measurement 
capabilities and standards are in place to support U.S. 
participation in global markets. ``As part of this initiative 
NIST will help increase U.S. participation in international 
standards development by providing $1 million to the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI), the official U.S. 
representative to the International Organization for 
Standardization and the International Electrotechnical 
Commission. Participation in the international standards arena 
will support the growth of U.S. exports by reducing technical 
barriers to trade.'' He stated NIST is attempting to build a 
greater consensus on ATP's value. The FY2000 ATP request for 
$239M allows NIST to continue multi-year projects from previous 
years; conduct new competitions and continue to implement a 
multifaceted economic evaluation program. The request of $99 
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
includes an effort to help small businesses better understand 
and deal with the year 2000 date problem. Finally, he noted 
that $5 million is requested for the Baldrige National Quality 
Awards and the program has been expanded to include the 
education and health-care sectors.
    Mr. Johnnie Frazier, testifying as the Acting Inspector 
General for the Department of Commerce, stated, ``In general, 
we found that most of NIST's plans for renovating existing 
laboratory space were justified and necessary if the agency is 
to continue its mission into the future.'' ``In addition, we 
endorsed NIST's plan to construct an Advanced Chemical Sciences 
Laboratory (ACSL) in Gaithersburg and have confirmed NIST's 
need to construct an AML in Gaithersburg.'' NIST is 
accumulating funds for unified construction of this $218M 
facility to begin in FY2000. ``The addition of the ACSL which 
is due to be occupied beginning later this month, the 
Gaithersburg AML, the currently leased building in 
Gaithersburg, and the vacant NOAA space to be occupied in 
Boulder will give NIST significantly more space than it had 
just a few years ago. NIST's new construction, plus its plan to 
renovate most of its current laboratory space, provides 
increased capacity to conduct research, but represents a 
significant investment for the Department. Given the potential 
magnitude of these expenditures and increases in space and 
capacity, it is essential that OIG, NIST, and Department 
officials continue to scrutinize these plans to ensure that all 
construction, renovation, and maintenance costs are fully 
justified. While we recognize that maintaining NIST's 
facilities and capacity will require a significant investment 
of funds, it is crucial that we, along with the Commerce 
officials, continue to challenge NIST to justify its proposed 
facilities expenditures and space increases.'' In FY98, NIST 
made 508 awards representing more than $262M in financial 
assistance under five programs: ATP, MEP, the State Technology 
Extension Program (STEP), the National Standards Reference Data 
System Program and the Measurement and Engineering Research and 
Standards Program. Audits found that most of NIST's programs 
are using appropriation merit-based criteria and competitive 
procedures. He noted NTIS is facing significant challenges. An 
audit report concluded that the agency's operations were 
jeopardized by declining sales for clearinghouse products and 
services and its core mission functions, bibliographic and 
archiving services had incurred losses in two of the past three 
fiscal years and was operating at a loss in FY98. He 
recommended that the Acting Under Secretary for Technology 
commission an outside review of NTIS operations.

    4.5(b)--The Impact of Y2K: Can the Postal Service Still Deliver?


                           February 23, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-35


Background

    A joint hearing was held between the Subcommittee on 
Technology, Committee on Science and The Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee 
on Government Reform. The United States Postal Service (USPS) 
is arguably the largest ``business'' in the Federal government. 
With over 700,000 employees, the Postal Service handles about 
185 billion pieces of mail annually. This hearing featured 
Postal Service Inspector General Karla Corcoran, to report on 
the current status of USPS' Y2K initiatives. The IG presented 
the findings and results of her office's assessment of Y2K 
activities. Testimony was also received from Mr. Jack Brock of 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) regarding the nature of 
USPS' efforts. Norm Lorentz, the Chief Technology Officer of 
the Postal Service presented the management perspective of the 
current status of Y2K efforts as the USPS nears the 
Administration's March 31, 1999, deadline.

Summary of hearing

    USPS Inspector General Corcoran stated the Postal Service 
is heavily dependent on automation to carry out its mission. In 
1998, the postal service used automation and information 
systems to deliver 198 billion pieces of mail, maintain its 
nationwide network of over 38,000 post offices and facilities, 
and pay its more than 775,000 career employees. This dependency 
on automated systems makes the postal service highly 
susceptible to the Y2K problem. As a key element in our 
Nation's communication and commerce infrastructure, its 
preparedness may be crucial to the Nation's Y2K readiness. Both 
the private sector and government may rely on the Postal 
Service as a contingency if their systems fail on January 1, 
2000. While the postal service has made progress in pursuing 
solutions to its Y2K problems, it still faces significant 
challenges in the ten months that remain. Corcoran then went on 
to highlight USPS efforts and accomplishments to date to 
achieve Y2K readiness; the results of their Y2K reviews; the 
current status of the Postal Service's Y2K Initiative; and 
actions the Postal Service believe should be taken to minimize 
risks.
    Mr. Jack Brock of the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
stated even with the stronger management structure now in 
place, there are substantial challenges still facing the Postal 
Service. If they are not addressed adequately, these challenges 
will threaten the Postal Service's ability to deliver the mail 
on time next January. The primary challenge is time. Because 
the USPS has been behind schedule it is now playing catch-up. 
Exacerbating the time issue is the anticipated holiday business 
rush, which typically starts in September. This surge in 
workload will require Postal Service management to split its 
attention and resources. Second, there are still many unknowns 
about the Postal Service's core business processes. The USPS 
does not yet have complete inventory and status information on 
its information technology infrastructure, internal and 
external interfaces, and field equipment and systems. Nor does 
the Service know whether the majority of its critical vendors 
will be ready in time or have assurance that public 
infrastructure systems, including power, water, transportation, 
and telecommunications will be compliant in time. Finally, 
until the simulation testing is complete and contingency plans 
and business continuity plans are developed and tested, the 
Postal Service will not have reasonable assurance on its 
readiness.
    Mr. Norm Lorentz, the Chief Technology Officer of the 
Postal Service, stated the Postmaster General and senior postal 
service management are giving Y2K significant attention, with 
weekly meetings of a management committee serving as a forum 
for reports and discussion about the status of the Year 2000 
program. This is one of the most important public policy issues 
they are facing this year. The Postal Service is doing 
everything possible to minimize and eliminate the potential for 
disruption that could arise from the Year 2000 computer 
problem. The Postal Service is part of the Year 2000 
contingency plans of many organizations that rely on electronic 
communications, whether benefit payments by federal agencies, 
electronic payments in the private sector, or simple data 
transmission from person to person. This means their readiness 
efforts must focus on maintaining the ability to process and 
deliver normal mail volumes as we enter the new year, and to 
absorb additional volumes that could be diverted from the 
electronic message stream. Mr. Lorentz reiterated that the USPS 
is up to the management challenges it faces and expects to be 
Y2K compliant in a timely manner.

              4.5(c)--Unscrewing the Fastener Quality Act


                           February 25, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-2


Background

    This hearing was the third in a series of hearings to 
review the need for the 1990 Fastener Quality Act (FQA) (PL 
101-592). The hearing focused on the Department of Commerce's 
report on the fastener industry and discussed recommendations 
for amending the FQA, including the views of fastener 
manufacturers, distributors and consumers.
    Passed by Congress in 1990, the FQA 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, implementing 
regulations for the Act were not finalized until April 14, 
1998. NIST's current final rule was developed only after 
legislative changes were adopted to the Act in 1996.
    At that time, Congress was convinced that foreign 
manufacturers were actively engaged in unfair trade practices 
that resulted in the dumping of ``substandard'' fasteners in 
the United States market. Most of the problems were associated 
with the federal procurement of fasteners at the Defense 
Industrial Supply Center (DISC) and National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA). It was determined most substandard 
fasteners originated from foreign companies in Japan, Mexico, 
Spain, Korea, Taiwan, and Poland, and were the result of 
apparent attempts to undercut legitimate U.S. fastener 
manufacturers with products that were manufactured specifically 
to a cheaper standard rather than the result of a poor 
manufacturing process.
    As a reaction to the report and hearings, Congress passed 
FQA. Despite its passage in 1990, FQA has never been 
implemented. Questions about the number and adequacy of 
laboratories necessary to test fasteners in a timely manner, 
the definition of fasteners covered by the Act, and the need 
for FQA have plagued the law and prevented implementation of a 
final NIST rule.
    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on ``Unscrewing the Fastener Quality Act.'' The hearing 
was held to review the FQA. Witnesses included: Mr. George 
Parker, Vice President Association of International Automobile 
Manufactures, Inc. Arlington, VA; Mr. Ed McIlhon, President, 
Iowa Industrial Products, Inc., Cedar Falls, IA; and Mr. John 
M. O'Brien, Vice President, Federal Screw Works, FQA Reform 
Coalition, Detroit MI.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. John O'Brien, Vice President, Federal Screw Works 
testified there is a need to develop a new FQA that would 
ensure the continued safety of fasteners used for commerce, but 
would not impose unnecessary and costly burdens on fastener 
manufacturers or their customers. Mr. O'Brien stated the FQA, 
as it stands now, is fatally flawed because it forces reliance 
on testing procedures and protocols that have been eclipsed by 
technology and improved practices. To substantiate these 
claims, Mr. O'Brien stated dramatic advances in manufacturing 
technology and the implementation of quality assurance systems 
have resulted in a dramatic reduction of the defect rates in 
the fastener industry. Furthermore, he stated purchasers of 
fasteners today have taken on the responsibility of ensuring 
the quality of products they buy at the beginning of the 
transaction--before the fastener reaches the assembly line. Mr. 
O'Brien suggested the thrust of the FQA should be toward 
preventing the intentional sale or offering sale of mismarked, 
substandard or counterfeit fasteners--and not toward the 
regulation of manufacturing and testing procedures. Mr. O'Brien 
agreed with the proposed requirement that manufacturers 
register a copyright insignia they imprint on fasteners.
    Mr. Edward J. McIlhon, President, Iowa Industrial Products 
Corporation testified there is no longer a basis or need for 
the FQA. Mr. McIlhon sited the Edgerly Report entitled, ``Is 
there Still A Basis For The Fastener Quality Act?'' which 
concluded the major problems identified in the 1988 
Congressional investigation and report have been resolved, and 
there is no longer a basis for the finding that the health and 
safety of Americans is threatened by the widespread sale of 
mismarked, substandard and counterfeit fasteners. Mr. McIlhon 
feels the current solution offered by NIST is still unworkable 
because it is too encumbered by the original language of the 
FQA that would require redundant and unnecessary testing. 
Furthermore, he stated the current Act does not permit 
retesting and recertification of fasteners produced before its 
date of implementation, and this could result in a $1 billion 
loss to the industry. Mr. McIlhon testified the current Act's 
requirements pertaining to accredited laboratories are 
unworkable, and because a sufficient number of laboratories 
have not been available to conduct the required testing the Act 
has been delayed three times. He also mentioned the current Act 
is an impediment to trade with our partners in Europe. Mr. 
McIlhon concluded by stating the following are certain portions 
of the Act he believes should be preserved: The record of 
manufacturers' fastener insignias by the Patent and Trademark 
Office (PTO) to assure the trace-ability of fasteners after 
they are placed into service; The use of accredited 
laboratories to assure the quality of laboratories involved in 
testing fasteners under appropriate consensus and government 
standards and specifications: and the use of grade 
identification markings on fasteners as a means of helping 
original equipment manufacturers assure that only properly 
manufactured and graded fasteners will be used in safety 
critical applications.
    Mr. George Parker testifying on behalf of the Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers stated the current 
FQA would not provide any higher levels of fastener quality and 
would be a step backward and impose costs without benefits. He 
stated although there is not substantial evidence that there 
are any fastener quality problems, the auto industry believes 
any potential fastener quality problems that produce safety 
risks would derive from mismarked, substandard, and counterfeit 
fasteners. Furthermore, the auto industry believes the record 
before Congress supports a conclusion that there are no quality 
or safety problems with fasteners used in major industries. Mr. 
Parker stated most major end users have systems in place to 
ensure only the highest quality fasteners are used in their 
products. Mr. Parker concluded by stating if Congress believed 
a law was needed on general fastener quality, the auto industry 
recommends such a law be directed at deterring the introduction 
of non-conforming fasteners into commerce and to generally 
provide commercial and government customers with greater 
assurance that fasteners meet stated specifications. Such a law 
should recognize the actions major end users take to ensure 
only high quality fasteners are used in their products, and 
should also recognize the Quality Assurance Systems in place to 
produce high quality fasteners. Finally, Mr. Parker stated such 
a law should incorporate the concept of self-certification of 
the Safety Act.

4.5(d)--Year 2000 Problem at the Department of Defense: How Prepared is 
                         our Nation's Security?


                             March 2, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-47


Background

    The Executive Branch of the Federal Government has 
approximately 6,500 computer systems that have been identified 
as essential to the performance of the government's most 
important functions. These systems are known as ``mission 
critical.'' DOD itself has 2,300 mission-critical systems, 
which account for more than one-third of all mission-critical 
systems in the Federal Government. As of February 12, 1999, DOD 
reported only 72 percent of these mission-critical systems were 
to be Year 2000 compliant. In December 1998, however, DOD 
reported 81 percent of its mission-critical systems were 
compliant. Since August 1997, the Department's Inspector 
General (IG) has issued 142 audit and inspection reports 
pertaining to DOD organizations or functions and their Year 
2000 conversion progress. The General Accounting Office (GAO) 
issued two reports last year that expressed concerns with DOD's 
slowness in fixing its mission-critical systems. At that time, 
GAO concluded Defense lacks complete and reliable information 
on systems, interfaces, other equipment needing repair, and the 
cost of its correction efforts.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, Assistant 
Inspector General for Auditing, Department of Defense; Mr. Jack 
L. Brock, Jr., Director, Government-wide and Defense 
Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office; and Dr. 
John J. Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of 
Defense.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. John J. Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department 
of Defense, stated the Y2K problem is particularly critical 
because of DOD's dependence on computers and information 
technology for its military advantage. The Department of 
Defense helped nurture the computer industry, but now they must 
deal with the difficulties generated by retaining legacy 
systems. Of all the Departments in the Federal Government, DOD 
has the largest number of computer systems. These are not 
simply weapons systems, the category best prepared for Year 
2000, but command and control systems, satellite systems, the 
Global Positioning System, highly specialized inventory 
management and transportation management systems, medical 
equipment, and important systems for payment and personnel 
records. The complexity of DOD operations results in an 
enormous scope, variety and number of information technology 
systems, all potentially vulnerable to the Y2K problem. In 
summary, DOD has the largest and most comprehensive evaluation 
plan in the Department's history, and is continuing to work to 
refine plans and improve the overall evaluation of core DOD 
functions. This plan will significantly improve DOD's levels of 
confidence in their ability to carry on operations despite Y2K. 
While these extensive efforts will mitigate risk, the 
interconnectedness of everything guarantees that Y2K will have 
an impact on DOD. To deal with this reality, DOD must focus on 
realistic contingency plan and continuity of operations 
planning. The key elements of the DOD contingency plan effort 
involves common guidance, focusing on core missions and 
functions, an adequate management oversight structure, and DOD 
engagement with other agencies and activities. Using the GAO 
guidelines, we have published DOD policy and guidance that 
requires every system, mission, and function owner to develop 
and test contingency and continuity of operations plans.
    Mr. Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Government-Wide and 
Defense Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
stated this dilemma is particularly daunting for the DOD for 
two reasons. First, DOD's size and scope of operations, 
criticality of mission, and heavy reliance on a diverse 
portfolio of information technology is unparalleled in either 
the public or private sector. Second, despite considerable 
progress in the last 3 months, DOD is still well behind 
schedule. This is largely because DOD did not have the 
necessary oversight and management framework for handling 
large-scale department-wide information technology projects. 
DOD has recently taken steps to strengthen management of its 
Year 2000 program. The Year 2000 program has been demanding on 
DOD because of the size and scope of its operations and its 
heavy reliance on information technology, but also because it 
began the effort with weak and undisciplined information 
technology management processes. DOD still faces two 
significant challenges and a fast approaching deadline. First, 
the Department must still ``catch up'' and complete remediation 
and testing of mission critical systems. Second, it must have a 
reasonable level of assurance that key processes (functional 
areas) will continue to work on a day-to-day basis and key 
operational missions necessary for national defense can be 
successfully accomplished. Such assurance can only be provided 
if the Department takes steps to improve its visibility over 
the status of key business processes. This information is 
critical to identify those areas where it faces the greatest 
risk of failure and critical to providing the necessary data 
for preparing overall business continuity plans.
    Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, Assistant Inspector General for 
Auditing, Department of Defense, stated the DOD is overcoming 
the increased risk posed by its belated start on several facets 
of the Y2K conversion effort. As the intensive effort 
continues, the IG remains committed to their partnership with 
the Department on this difficult matter and will continue 
striving to provide DOD, the President's Council on Y2K 
Conversion, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress 
with reliable, candid and timely feedback on Y2K progress. The 
IG emphasizes the need for robust in-depth testing. The sheer 
number of systems involved, the risk of incompatible Y2K fixes 
because of the number of different firms and individuals 
involved in remediating code, and the compression of this 
ambitious testing schedule into just over a year pose a 
formidable management challenge. It is the most daunting of the 
remaining Y2K challenges. The IG will be looking for indicators 
of good test planning, such as detailed written test plans; 
management controls to ensure appropriate oversight of both the 
test plans and the reporting of test results; and provision for 
sufficient technical support before, during, and after the 
test. The IG fully anticipates that numerous previously 
undetected and perhaps unanticipated ``glitches'' will surface 
during each of the various types of tests. If not, the rigor of 
the tests--and their credibility--may be called into question.

   4.5(e)--Soaring into the Future: Funding Requirements for FAA R&D


                             March 4, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-4


Background

    On March 4, the Subcommittee on Technology met to review 
the FAA's research and development request for FY2000 and 
beyond. Of particular interest to the Subcommittee is the 
activities of the FAA's Research, Engineering & Development 
(RE&D) account which is utilized by the agency in its efforts 
to improve the national air traffic control system by 
increasing its safety, security, capacity, and productivity. 
The RE&D request also includes funds for human factors 
research, aviation medical research, and environmental 
research. The hearing discussed several issues pertaining to 
the RE&D authorization level. Specifically, the Subcommittee 
was interested in whether the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee's and 
the aviation industry's recommendations were reflected in the 
FY2000 RE&D budget request. Other issues discussed included: 
whether the FAA's National Airspace System modernization effort 
has been hampered by problems traceable to weaknesses in the 
agency's R&D portfolio; if the overall FAA R&D funding level is 
adequate enough to support the modernization of the National 
Airspace System; and finally, if the FAA RE&D Advisory 
Committee and aviation community are comfortable with the 
respective roles of the FAA and NASA in federally funded civil 
aviation research.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Zaidman, Associate Administrator for Research and 
Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), testified 
that the FAA had increased its partnerships with industry, 
academia, and other government agencies. He testified it has 
always been a goal to stress the importance of partnerships 
which leverage the use of available government research funds. 
Mr. Zaidman stated the agency continues to work on reducing the 
accident rate, and has been particularly encouraged by this 
year were there have been zero fatalities in commercial 
aviation. Mr. Zaidman credited the FAA/NASA partnership in 
research and technology as one of the backbones in the effort 
to improve aviation safety. He stated both agencies are 
collaborating on aging aircraft and wake vortex research, as 
well as developing improved technologies for predicting wind 
shear, detecting aircraft icing, and detecting clear air 
turbulence. Mr. Zaidman also discussed the FAA's partnership 
with industry in the Safe Flight 21 program that when 
operational will provide critical weather and safety 
information directly to the cockpit. Mr. Zaidman concluded his 
testimony by discussing a new runway safety system which 
utilizes a foam-like product that has been installed at a few 
airports to help prevent future incidents when aircraft roll 
off the end of runways.
    Ms. Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for 
Aviation, U.S. Department of Transportation, testified the FAA 
is requesting $173 million in RE&D funding for FY2000. This is 
an increase of about 15% over the amount appropriated last 
year. Ms. Stefani also testified there have been some changes 
in how the FAA finances its R&D efforts, specifically 
significant amounts of development efforts for air traffic 
control have been funded from the Facilities and Equipment 
account rather than RE&D. Ms. Stefani also stated FAA and NASA 
research has produced very valuable aviation technology, like 
windshear radar. Ms. Stefani stated the FAA's work on the 
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), data 
link, and the deployment of new explosives detection systems, 
has underscored the need for FAA to take an early and active 
role in resolving human factors in the development of new 
technology. Ms. Stefani concluded by testifying the Safe Flight 
21 program is intended to test and validate technologies 
required for Free Flight. Specifically, the program will focus 
on 9 operational enhancements, like display of terrain in the 
cockpit. Ms. Stefani stated the FAA is requesting $16 million 
for Safe Flight 21 for FY 2000.
    Mr. Robert Frenzel, Senior Vice President for Aviation 
Safety and Operations, Air Transport Association of America, 
urged full funding out of the FAA's R&D FY 2000 Budget for the 
Safe Flight 21 program because it is an important step in the 
development and demonstration of new technologies which will be 
vital to Free Flight. Mr. Frenzel stated that Free Flight has 
been embraced by the FAA and the aviation community as the 
solution to projected growth in the National Airspace System in 
the future. He expanded on this point by adding when fully 
implemented the Free Flight program will dramatically increase 
efficiency and reduce costs associated with air travel.
    Mr. Robert Doll, Chairman, FAA Research Engineering & 
Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee (REDAC), testified in 
general the REDAC is concerned about the level of the RE&D 
budgets that have been allocated to the FAA over the past 
several years. Mr. Doll stated many of the REDAC members are 
very concerned that as a Nation we are rapidly giving away our 
traditional lead in the aviation industry to European 
interests. He is particularly concerned with the strides that 
the Europeans have made in the area of Air Traffic Management. 
Mr. Doll expressed the possibility if this issue is not 
addressed we are looking at a situation where our airlines are 
going to be faced with the choice of equipping their aircraft 
with dual avionics systems or flying them with European 
equipment set to European rules and standards.

     4.5(f)--Impact of Litigation Caused By Failures Related to Y2K


                             March 9, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-3


Background

    On March 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology, Committee 
on Science and the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform 
held a hearing entitled, ``The Impact of Litigation on Fixing 
Y2K.'' The hearing was held to review the potential costs of 
litigation due to the Y2K problem.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Tom Donohue, President and CEO, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Professor Walter Effross, American 
University, Washington School of Law; Ms. Abbie Lundberg, 
Editor in Chief, CIO Magazine; Mr. Howard Nations, Former Vice 
President, American Trial Lawyers Association; and Mr. Walter 
Andrews, Partner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding.

Summary of hearing

    Chairwoman Morella and Chairman Horn discussed the 
potential liability issue and that despite passage of the Year 
2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act last year, some 
companies remain unwilling to share Y2K information. In 
general, witnesses had mixed reactions to the proposed 
legislation, H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and 
Responsibiliy Act. Mr. Donohue supported the bill.
    Mr. Tom Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce testified that unlike other national emergencies hit 
without any warning we have the opportunity to directly address 
the Y2K problem before it hits. Mr. Donohue stated the business 
community is willing to do its part in fixing the Y2K problem, 
and compensate those who have suffered legitimate harms. 
However, Mr. Donohue asked Congress pass legislation that would 
reduce the likelihood of frivolous litigation by placing limits 
on the fees attorneys stand to gain from this problem.
    Professor Walter Effross, American University, Washington 
School of Law, testified the legal system was sufficiently 
equipped to deal with the potential flood of Y2K litigation. 
Mr. Effross saw no need for any further legislation that would 
help businesses overcome potential lawsuits.
    Ms. Abbie Lundberg, Editor in Chief, CIO Magazine, 
testified businesses should be held accountable for their Y2K 
problems, and should be able to be prosecuted to the full 
extent of the law. However, she added, many inconveniences we 
are all sure to encounter should not be allowed to clog up the 
courts. Ms. Lundberg concluded by stating the threat of 
litigation has not impeded businesses' ability to fix the Y2K 
problem, instead she felt it has acted as a powerful stimulus 
for giving the problem the serious attention it deserves.
    Mr. Howard Nations, Former Vice President American Trial 
Lawyers Association, testified there is no need for federal 
legislation regarding Y2K liability because the common law 
principles, state statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code, 
provide all of the business rules and guidelines needed to 
measure the conduct of business entities. Mr. Nations stated 
the one trillion-dollar cost estimated for Y2K litigation, was 
fictitious, not based on any scientific study, and had no basis 
other than guesswork.
    Mr. Walter Andrews, Partner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 
testified as of March 9, 1999, fifty-four Y2K related lawsuits 
had been filed. Mr. Andrews stated due to the magnitude of 
potential Y2K costs, businesses must take steps now to ensure 
that their systems are compliant. He stated comprehensive Year 
2000 legal audits, in conjunction with aggressive Year 2000 
assessment and remediation programs, are what businesses need 
to do in order to avert a potential Y2K catastrophe. Mr. 
Andrews stressed that legal counsel can be part of the Year 
2000 solution by helping businesses take responsibility for 
addressing their Y2K problems and to minimize their liability 
exposure.

  4.5(g)--Will Transportation and the FAA Be Ready for the Year 2000?


                             March 15, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-46


Background

    On March 15, 1999, the Technology Subcommittee met to 
examine the progress the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
has made to face the challenges of the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer 
problem in their computer and information systems. The 
Technology Subcommittee held three hearings last year to 
investigate the efforts of the FAA in addressing Y2K, 
specifically as it relates to the mission critical components 
of the air traffic control system. At the hearings, GAO and 
others testified that potential serious Y2K consequences 
include degraded aviation safety, grounded or delayed flights, 
increased airline costs, and customer inconvenience.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information 
Systems Accounting and Information Management Division, 
testified the FAA has made tremendous progress in its Y2K 
remediation efforts. However, Mr. Willemssen stated there still 
is much work to be done and the agency continues to face 
challenges in making internal systems Year 2000 compliant. He 
testified the risk of failures by external organizations, such 
as airports and foreign air traffic control systems, could 
seriously affect the FAA's ability to provide aviation 
services--which could have a dramatic effect on the flow of air 
traffic across the Nation and around the world. To avert the 
risk from external and internal failures, Mr. Willemssen stated 
the FAA needs a sound business continuity and contingency plan.
    Mr. Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, testified the FAA and the DOT have made a great 
deal of progress addressing their respective Y2K problems. 
However, he cautioned that much work still remains to be 
completed. Furthermore, Mr. Mead testified he has a much higher 
level of confidence today than a year ago that DOT's mission-
critical systems, such as air traffic control, will be 
compliant before October 1999. Mr. Mead also stated the DOT has 
taken an active role in reaching out to the transportation 
industry, which has resulted in a high level of Year 2000 
awareness.
    Ms. Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, Federal Aviation 
Administration, testified since February 1998, the FAA has 
worked around the clock to make sure that air travel would be 
as safe and efficient as possible come midnight December 31, 
1999. Ms. Garvey asserted not only has the FAA caught up with 
much of the rest of the Federal Government, but in many cases 
has surpassed the expectations of many. She moved on to state 
at the turn of the millenium the FAA would be ready. Ms. Garvey 
concluded by cautioning even though much work has been 
completed the FAA still has many obstacles to face in the 
coming months.
    Mr. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, testified to the commitment he and Secretary 
Slater ensure DOT systems will operate properly before, during, 
and after the millennium change. Mr. Downey stated as of March 
12, 1999, 64 percent of the Department's 607 mission-critical 
systems were Y2K compliant, and reported by March 31, 1999, 85 
percent were projected to be compliant. He stated the systems 
projected to be completed after June belong to the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Mr. Downey testified even with the confidence he has 
that many of the Departments goals will be reached extensive 
efforts are underway to prepare business continuity and 
contingency plans.

   4.5(h)--Are the Federal Government's Critical Programs Ready for 
                            January 1, 2000?


                             April 13, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-53


Background

    The hearing presented the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) with the 
opportunity to report on the status of the Executive Branch's 
Year 2000 efforts. In addition, this hearing laid the 
groundwork for the executive branch to demonstrate the overall 
readiness of its critical business functions--functions the 
American public relies upon. Testimony was given from four 
agencies that have yet to testify in joint Y2K hearings before 
the Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Science and the 
Government Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee, 
Committee on Government Reform: the Department of Agriculture, 
the Agency for International Development, the Department of 
State, and the Department of the Treasury. The agencies 
reported on: (1) the compliance status of mission-critical 
systems in meeting the President's stated March 31, 1999, 
deadline; and (2) steps being taken to ensure their respective 
high impact programs will be ready for the new millennium.
    Witnesses included: Jacob Lew, Director, OMB (invited, with 
testimony given by Deidre Lee, Acting Deputy Director for 
Management, OMB); Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies 
Information Systems, GAO; Anne Reed, Chief Information Officer, 
Department of Agriculture; James Flyzik, Chief Information 
Officer, Department of the Treasury; and Fernando Burbano, 
Chief Information Officer, Department of State, accompanied by 
Richard Nygard, Chief Information Officer, Agency for 
International Development.

Summary of hearing

    Chairwoman Morella stated 92 percent of Federal systems 
have met the government-wide goal of Y2K compliance, but eleven 
agencies are not yet compliant. Mr. Willemssen stated there is 
still continuing reason for concern and a need for federal-
state partnerships.
    Ms. Lee stated 92 percent of the Federal Government's 
mission critical systems met the government-wide goal of Y2K 
compliance by March 31. Overall progress is tribute to the 
hard, skillful work of thousands of Federal employees and 
contractors. Thirteen of the 24 major Federal departments 
reported that 100 percent of their mission critical systems are 
Y2K compliant; three agencies are between 95 to 99 percent Y2K 
compliant (DOC is among the three); four agencies are between 
90 and 94 percent Y2K compliant; and three agencies are between 
85 and 90 percent Y2K compliant. USAID has not completed 
implementation of its seven mission critical systems.
    On March 26, 1999, OMB issued guidance to agencies that 
identify 42 high-impact programs and directed Federal agencies 
to take the lead on working with other Federal agencies, state, 
tribal and local government contractors and banks to ensure 
programs critical to public health and safety will provide 
undisrupted services. ``While it is expected the business 
continuity and contingency plans will continue to change 
through the end of the year as agencies update and refine their 
assumptions and will continue to test and modify, we have asked 
agencies to submit their plans no later than June 15. We will 
work with the agencies to assure government-wide consistency of 
their basic assumptions surrounding the Year 2000.''
    Mr. Willemssen stated some vital government functions still 
remain with systems that are not yet compliant. Not all of the 
government's systems have undergone independent verification 
and validation. Achieving compliance of individual systems does 
not necessarily ensure a key business function will continue to 
operate through the change of the century. He claims end-to-end 
testing is very important. Business continuity and contingency 
plans are essential. Lead agencies must provide to OMB a 
schedule and milestones of key planned activities for high-
impact priorities. About one-quarter of high-impact programs 
are state-administered programs such as food stamps and 
Medicaid--some programs are at risk. Recent data from OMB on 
state-administered systems shows that there is a continuing 
reason for concern and a need for federal-state partnerships--
large number of state systems reported not due to be compliant 
until late in 1999.
    Ms. Reed added USDA is currently tracking 350 mission-
critical systems--93 percent of these systems are compliant and 
fully deployed. Priorities are to achieve 100 percent 
compliance and implementation of all mission-critical and non-
mission-critical systems. ``We're working with state partners 
in territories that actually deliver the services to the 
public. Since June of 1997, USDA and other federal departments 
have jointly established expedited approval procedures for 
state acquisition of ADP resources, necessary to support their 
Y2K efforts.'' States must share their business continuity and 
contingency plans with us. Twenty-six states have programs 
which complement the Food Safety and Inspection Service health 
program. They anticipate no major disruptions to the food 
supply, and will continue to support outreach to small 
businesses. They will also continue programs in cooperation 
with DOC and SBA.
    Mr. Nygard was confident mission-critical systems will be 
Y2K compliant before the end of this year. However, they did 
not achieve Y2K compliance by the end of March 1999, the 
government-wide target date. Problems were discovered during 
the testing phase, thus delaying efforts and forcing a move 
back in the completion date. These delays were the result of 
problems encountered outside the systems and were caught in 
testing broader processes. Substantial work is needed to 
renovate USAID's new management system which performs 
accounting, budgeting and procurement functions. Mr. Nygard 
believes it will be renovated and fully tested and implemented 
by the end of July. They will be working closely with the 
Department of State and other agencies who operate overseas to 
assure that essential functions will continue next January.
    Mr. Burbano believes the State Department has made 
significant progress in readying its systems. They have 
completed the remediation of all 59 mission-critical 
applications and completed implementation of 53 of 59 mission-
critical systems. The department has established a rigorous 
year 2000 compliance certification process and plans to conduct 
a process-based end-to-end test of business functions. The 
department is finalizing contingency plans to ensure continuity 
of core activities. ``On the international front, the 
Department of State has developed an overseas contingency 
planning tool kit to allow each of the embassies and consulates 
and missions the ability to develop location-specific 
contingency plans by balancing the needs and priorities of the 
particular post against the year 2000.''
    Mr. Flyzik claims the Treasury has identified 328 mission-
critical systems of which 293 or 91.8 percent are year 2000 
compliant. IRS is 90 percent compliant. Financial Management 
Service is able to make 90 percent of its payments (over 775 
million annual payments) using year 2000 compliant and tested 
systems, including monthly social security and supplemental 
security income payment, veterans' benefits payments, IRS tax 
refunds, railroad retirement board annuity payments, federal 
salary payments and vendor payments. U.S. Customs met year 2000 
compliance goals for its mission-critical systems by 
September,1998. They have established interagency services 
programs to address interconnections and interoperability of 
disparate systems. They are also designing a Treasury Emergency 
Information Coordination Center to address any contingency 
planning needs at Treasury. Costs continue to rise and 
estimates now are $1.92B, of which about $1.53B are 
appropriated resources.

4.5(i)--The Melissa Virus: Inoculating Our Information Technology from 
                            Emerging Threats


                             April 15, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-5


Background

    On April 15, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on ``The Melissa Virus: Inoculating Our Information 
Technology from Emerging Threats.'' This hearing was held in 
order to describe the features of the ``Melissa'' computer 
virus and explore its impact on the Federal Government and the 
private sector.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Raymond Kammer, Director, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology; Mr. Michael Vatis, 
Director, National Infrastructure and Protection Center, FBI; 
Dr. Richard Pethia, Director, CERT Coordination Center, 
Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute; and 
Keith Rhodes, Technical Director, Office of the Chief 
Scientist, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, testified the Melissa virus is what 
is known as a denial of service attack, whereby servers and 
routers are literally overwhelmed by e-mail. Mr. Kammer 
stressed we as a Nation must maintain a proper perspective in 
developing computer security solutions and not target the 
problem of the moment. Mr. Kammer stated NIST is taking a broad 
perspective and the agency has several initiatives underway to 
strengthen the IT security infrastructure of the U.S. economy.
    Mr. Michael Vatis, Director, National Infrastructure and 
Protection Center, FBI, testified the Melissa virus is a macro 
virus spread through Microsoft Word 97 or Word 2000 e-mail 
attachments. He explained the problem with this particular 
virus was its ability to spread quickly. Mr. Vatis moved on to 
state we are fortunate this virus did not do more damage. 
However, he added its occurrence should serve as a wake up call 
for both the government and the private sector, because the 
virus exploited known vulnerabilities. Mr. Vatis stated the 
notifications and information provided by the NIPC, CERT, and 
others demonstrated the value of cooperative efforts by the 
private and government sectors.
    Mr. Rich Pethia, Director of the CERT Coordination Center 
(CERT/CC), Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie 
Mellon University stated CERT/CC provides assistance to 
computer system administrators in the Internet community who 
report security problems and coordinate the response with other 
sites affected by the same incident. CERT/CC is also 
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Fed CIRC 
(Federal Computer Incident Response Capability) Operations 
Center, that provides incident response and other security-
related services to Federal civilian agencies. He described 
CERT's experience with the Melissa virus including giving early 
warning to DOD incident response teams, the Fed CIRC Management 
Office, the FBI and other sensitive sites within eight hours 
after receiving the first report of the Melissa virus. He 
stated the press acted responsibly in reporting the Melissa 
virus news accurately. He warned Melissa is another warning 
siren of the increasing vulnerability of our networks and 
recognized the need for enhanced incident response capability, 
faster communications, better analytical tools and techniques 
to solve problems.
    Mr. Keith Rhodes of the GAO testified the Melissa virus 
disrupted the operations of thousands of companies and some 
government agencies, but did not reportedly permanently damage 
systems and did not compromise government data. ``Moreover, 
Melissa has clearly highlighted the urgent and serious need for 
strong agency and government-wide protection over sensitive 
data.'' He discussed broader implications of the Melissa virus 
including how quickly viruses can proliferate due to extensive 
connectivity of today's networks; how hard it is to trace any 
virus back to its source; and Melissa demonstrated 
vulnerabilities in widely adopted commercial-off-the-shelf 
(COTS) products can be easily exploited to attack all their 
users. He noted it is likely that the next virus will propagate 
faster, do more damage and be more difficult to detect and to 
counter. He warned Federal agencies need to implement long-term 
solutions to protect systems and sensitive data. He stated it 
is critical the Federal government establish reporting 
mechanisms that facilitate analyses of viruses and other forms 
to computer attacks and their impact. Finally, he noted GAO's 
Information Security Best Practice guide offers a good 
framework for agencies to follow-- sustained government-wide 
leadership needed to ensure executives understand the risks, 
and monitor agency performance.

4.5(j)--Genetics Testing in the New Millenium: Advances, Standards, and 
                              Implications


                             April 21, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-7


Background

    On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Genetics Testing in the New Millenium: 
Advances, Standards, and Implications.'' The Human Genome 
Project (HGP), a joint venture between the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH) and the Department of Energy (DOE), is a 
collaborative international research program designed to map 
the many different genes, perhaps as many as 100,000 different 
varieties, contained in the human body. In large part due to 
the work of the HGP, it is now possible to test for an 
individual's predisposition to certain genetic disorders such 
as breast cancer or heart disease. Despite its promise for the 
future, there still exist many unanswered questions surrounding 
the development of new genetic tests, especially those that can 
be used to predict future diseases in healthy or apparently 
healthy individuals. The hearing focused on technological 
advances in genetics testing and its future implications and 
also examined the need for quality assurance, accuracy 
standards of testing procedures, and accreditation of 
laboratories that perform genetics testing.
    Witnesses included the Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD; Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, Bethesda, MD; Dr. William F. Raub, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Science Policy, Department of Health and 
Human Services, Washington, DC; Dr. Michael Watson, Professor 
of Pediatrics and Genetics, Washington University School of 
Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Collins provided the Subcommittee with an overview of 
the work of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and the goals the 
HGP hoped to achieve in the next five years. Based on the 
genetic discoveries of the HGP, he indicated there are 
currently about 550 genetic tests being used in the diagnosis 
of disease and predicted that number would greatly increase in 
the coming years. He indicated these tests should not be 
offered in a clinical setting without knowing the reliability 
and validity of the test. Dr. Collins stated there is a need to 
implement the proper regulatory and legal framework for the 
successful integration of emerging genetic technologies and the 
recommendations provided by the Task Force on Genetics Testing 
were a good starting point.
    Mr. Kammer testified the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) plays a critical role for the genetic 
testing community by developing the measurements and standards 
that are necessary for U.S. industry to determine the accuracy 
and reliability of emerging genetic testing technologies. He 
also noted NIST has had a long history of working with the NIH, 
DOE, and other federal agencies associated with the HGP to 
provide the needed tools and standards required for accurate 
measurements.
    Dr. Raub testified the Department of Health and Human 
Services was in the process of establishing a Secretary's 
Advisory Committee on Genetics Testing as recommended by the 
Task Force on Genetics Testing. The role of the Advisory 
Committee, which is comprised of individuals from all areas of 
the genetics field, is to help the Department craft policies 
that will allow for the proper oversight and regulation of new 
genetics tests while at the same time allow this exciting new 
field to flourish.
    Dr. Watson, testifying on behalf of the Task Force on 
Genetics Testing, relayed to the Subcommittee the key 
recommendations set forth in the Task Force's report. He also 
indicated the Task Force focused on three major areas: 
scientific validity of tests, laboratory quality, and the 
delivery of the service to consumers. In addition, he testified 
as the genetics field continues to grow at an unprecedented 
pace, it will be important for the Department of Health and 
Human Services to have its Secretary's Advisory Committee up 
and running to continue to access the development of the field.

 4.5(k)--Y2K in Orbit: Impact on Satellites and the Global Positioning 
                                 System


                              May 12, 1999


                        Hearing Volume No. 106-6


Background

    On May 12, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology along with 
the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology, Committee on Government Reform held a hearing. With 
just over 200 days remaining until the date rollover, this 
hearing was a status report on the Y2K impact on our Nation's 
satellite systems and the Global Positioning System (GPS) from 
representatives of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), and an industry trade 
association. Satellite networks are a critical link to 
communications worldwide, from cellular phones to weapons 
guidance and aircraft navigation. Yet, the computers running 
those networks could be Y2K vulnerable since those networks 
rely on computers that are controlled by thousands of software 
programs and millions of lines of programming code.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Lee B. Holcomb, Chief Information 
Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. 
Marvin Langston, Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. 
Department of Defense; Mr. Neil R. Helm, Member, Communications 
Systems Technical Committee, American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics; and Mr. Keith Rhodes, Technical Director for 
Computers and Telecommunications, United States General 
Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Rhodes stated the Global Positioning System (GPS) is 
the Department of Defense's primary radionavigation system, and 
the GPS has become an integral asset in numerous civilian 
applications and industries, including emergency services, 
airlines services, commercial fishing and shipping, corporate 
vehicle fleet tracking, and surveying. It also plays a critical 
role in communications networks and, hence, the Internet. The 
system is affected by both the Year 2000 computing problem and 
a problem associated with the way the system keeps track of 
time. Rhodes believed it is vital organizations make an effort 
to determine (1) whether the networks they operate rely on GPS 
equipment as a time source and (2) the potential GPS-related 
risks. Once the problem and its potential impact are known, 
organizations and individual users can (1) modify receivers, 
(2) replace them with newer models, or (3) contact their 
service providers to ensure that GPS receivers supporting their 
telecommunications networks are not susceptible to the upcoming 
end-of-week rollover. Because the rollover is less than 4 
months away, however, organizations must take these measures as 
quickly as possible.
    Dr. Langston stated the DOD has the largest and most 
comprehensive evaluation plan in the Department's history, and 
is continuing to work on refining plans to improve the overall 
evaluation of core DOD functions. This plan will significantly 
improve the level of confidence in the DOD's ability to carry 
on operations despite Year 2000. While these extensive efforts 
will mitigate risk, the interconnectedness of everything 
guarantees the Year 2000 will have an impact on DOD. To deal 
with this reality, DOD must focus on realistic contingency 
planning. Langston said the Department of Defense will be 
prepared to execute its national security responsibilities 
before, on, and after January 1, 2000. The Department's 
comprehensive systems compliance efforts, operational 
evaluations and end-to-end testing, and systems and operational 
contingency plans are being developed and executed within a 
solid management structure. All Year 2000 efforts are receiving 
the personal attention of the Department's senior leadership. 
Finally, these efforts are being rigorously scrutinized by 
independent auditors, including the Department's Inspectors 
General and the General Accounting Office.
    Mr. Holcomb stated the rollover problem with GPS is a 
technical problem similar to but not directly related to Y2K. 
Two upcoming events may affect civil GPS users and government 
users of commercially procured receivers--GPS End of Week 
rollover and Y2K issues. GPS End of Week rollover happens every 
20 years because GPS system time, counted in weeks, started 
counting on January 6, 1980. At midnight between August 21 and 
22, 1999 the GPS week will rollover from week 1023 to 0000. 
This could be interpreted as an invalid date in GPS receivers 
that were not designed to meet GPS specification. The 
Department of Defense is the service provider for GPS and has 
verified all generations of GPS satellites and ground support 
systems are Y2K and End of Week rollover compliant. NASA has 
assessed the impact of this known problem with GPS receivers, 
and has replaced or upgraded a small number of GPS receivers 
where required, either for this GPS-unique problem, or due to 
Y2K reasons. Holcomb said NASA does not anticipate problems 
with GPS receivers on August 21, 1999 or on January 1, 2000. 
Additionally, NASA remains confident that the probability of a 
Y2K-related failure of NASA-controlled assets and systems is 
very low.
    Mr. Helm stated the Y2K problem has been examined by the 
U.S. commercial satellite communications vendors and service 
providers. The results of the examination indicate that because 
spacecraft onboard timing clocks are not referenced to calendar 
dates, there will be no space segment anomalies with the Year 
2000 rollover. However, problems will be found in early designs 
of ground-segment equipment, both in the hardware and software. 
The major companies are currently addressing these problems 
with a rigorous compliance program, and are informing their 
customers if and when modifications need to be made.

4.5(l)--Easing Traffic Congestion and Improving Vehicle Safety: ITS and 
        Transportation Technology Solutions for the 21st Century


                              May 20, 1999


                       Hearing Summary No. 106-16


Background

    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing to review the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems 
(ITS) and other advanced transportation technologies to ease 
traffic congestion and to improve vehicle safety.
    Witness included: The Honorable Kenneth Wykle, 
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; Mr. Robert 
Merryman, Acting Director, Montgomery County (MD) Department of 
Public Works and Transportation; and, Mr. William J. Harris, 
Member--Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation Society 
of America.

Summary of hearing

    Administrator Wykle testified the Department of 
Transportation is attempting to utilize advances in information 
technology, communications and navigations to establish an 
electronic transportation system providing unprecedented 
safety, mobility and productivity. The department's strategy is 
to build an intelligent infrastructure that includes cameras 
and detectors to monitor and respond to highway conditions, to 
control traffic and to communicate the information to 
travelers. Administrator Wykle identified a five step approach 
towards implementing an intelligent infrastructure: (1) define 
a national architecture; (2) define the standards that are 
necessary to ensure interoperability; (3) build a foundation 
through 80 field operations and tests; (4) develop a 
professional workforce to support infrastructure operations; 
and (5) utilize deployment incentives for communities to expand 
their existing infrastructures. Finally, Administrator Wykle 
also laid-out a comprehensive plan to bring technology into 
vehicles through the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative which seeks 
to utilize technology to improve traveler safety.
    Mr. Merryman, testifying on behalf of Montgomery County 
Department of Public Works and Transportation, stated his 
department has turned to technology like Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS) to address the transportation 
problems of the Nation's second-most congested area. In 
Montgomery County, ITS has been successfully utilized to reduce 
travel times, fuel consumption, improve transit operations, and 
lessen environmental impacts of transportation. Mr. Merryman 
noted Montgomery County's advanced transportation management 
system (ATMS) includes a computerized traffic signal system 
that controls over 700 signals, 80 ground-based cameras, Global 
Positioning Satellite (GPS) tracking and broadcasting equipment 
that allows the County to transmit real-time traffic 
information to the public. Finally, Mr. Merryman stated 
communities all over the country are seeking to develop systems 
similar to Montgomery County's ATMS and that technology holds 
great potential for tackling congestion and other traffic 
problems of the future.
    Mr. Harris, testifying on behalf of ITS America, stated 
that the advancement of ITS over the last eight years has 
revolutionized transportation all over the world. Here in the 
U.S., ITS is working in public and private partnership with the 
government (federal, state and local) and industry to advance 
ITS focusing on both infrastructure and in-vehicle 
technologies. Mr. Harris pointed-out collaboration is needed to 
develop a more effective ITS workforce, to address technical 
and institutional barriers of widespread ITS deployment, and to 
achieve ITS America's goals of improved transportation 
efficiency and enhanced vehicle safety. Finally, Mr. Harris 
thanked the Science Committee for their leadership and support 
for ITS and transportation research and development.

  4.5(m)--Federal Research and Small Business: A Review of the Small 
                  Business Innovation Research Program


                             June 17, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-26


Background

    On June 17, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on ``Federal Research and Small Business: A Review of 
the Small Business Innovative Research Program.'' The hearing 
was held to review the SBIR program.
    Witnesses included: Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, 
Energy, Resources and Science Issues, General Accounting 
Office; Timothy Foreman, Deputy Director, Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Defense; 
Charles Wessner, Program Director, Board on Science, 
Technology, and Economic Policy, National Academy of Sciences; 
and Robert Archibald, Professor of Economics, The College of 
William and Mary.

Summary of hearing

    Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy, Resources and 
Science Issues, General Accounting Office, testified in the 16 
year history of the SBIR program it has provided over 45,000 
awards worth $8.4 billion in 1998 dollars to thousands of small 
high-technology companies. Ms. Kladiva stated much concern has 
been raised regarding the concentration of awards in certain 
states and companies--commonly known as ``frequent winners.'' 
Ms. Kladiva noted the GAO report on the SBIR program found the 
programs 25 most frequent winners, which represent fewer than 1 
percent of the companies in the program, received about 11 
percent of the programs awards from fiscal year 1983 through 
fiscal year 1997. However, she stated that one third of the 
companies receiving awards from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal 
year 1997 were first-time winners, which indicates the program 
is attracting an average of 750 new companies annually.
    Timothy Foreman, Deputy Director, Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Defense, 
testified the SBIR program represents a major commitment by the 
federal government to harness the potential of our small 
technology companies. Mr. Foreman stated the SBIR program has 
proven to be a highly effective vehicle for harnessing this 
important small business resource for U.S. military and 
economic strength. He noted there have been independent studies 
dating back to the late 1980s that have consistently confirmed 
the value of the SBIR program. Mr. Foreman concluded by stating 
he anticipates the changes DOD has made in its SBIR program 
over the last few years will further strengthen its 
contribution to our Nation's military and economic 
capabilities.
    Charles Wessner, Program Director, Board on Science, 
Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), National Academy of 
Sciences, testified the formal findings of the STEP board have 
not yet been released, and the remarks by Dr. Archibald do not 
represent the formal findings of the panel. Rather, they 
represent an interim and partial illustration of its ongoing 
research and analysis. Mr. Wessner stated STEP is in the 
process of developing its recommendations for the Defense 
Department and when these have been completed they will be sure 
to share them with the Committee.
    Robert Archibald, Professor of Economics, The College of 
William and Mary, testified he was not reporting the formal 
findings and recommendations of the National Academies. 
Professor Archibald stated the result of his survey was that 
the DOD SBIR program was fulfilling its directives well. 
Professor Archibald testified that his initial findings are 
commercial success in the program has not come at the expense 
of research quality, and the Fast Track has been an effective 
tool to encourage commercialization without apparent harm to 
research quality.

  4.5(n)--Federal Agencies Under Attack: Why Are Government Websites 
                              Vulnerable?


                             June 24, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-32


Background

    On June 24, 1999, the Technology Subcommittee held a 
hearing to review recent cyber-attacks on Federal websites, and 
the steps taken by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to 
assist Federal agencies in their security plans as mandated by 
the Computer Security Act of 1987.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Raymond Kammer, Director, NIST; Mr. 
Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director, Information Systems Security, 
NSA; and Mr. Keith Rhodes, Technical Director, Office of the 
Chief Scientist, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kammer, testifying on behalf of NIST, stated his agency 
is responsible in assisting federal agencies in the protection 
of sensitive unclassified systems by developing and 
promulgating security standards and guidelines. NIST's computer 
security program focuses on: cryptographic standards and 
guidelines; public key infrastructure; security research, 
agency assistance and the National Information Assurance 
Partnership which is jointly managed by NIST and the National 
Security Agency to focus on increasing the number and quality 
of IT security products. Besides promoting software evaluation, 
NIST promoted giving agencies the ability to quickly respond to 
attacks by creating, in 1996, the Federal Civilian Incident 
Response Capability (FedCIRC), a joint effort with two existing 
incident handling teams. FedCIRC has transitioned from NIST to 
GSA, which uses the technical services of the Computer 
Emergency Response Team at Carnegie-Mellon University and works 
closely with the National Infrastructure Protection Center. 
NIST is developing the Advanced Encryption Standard that will 
provide strong cryptographic protection in the future. Security 
risk management, planning, training and budget are critical and 
must be addressed by all agencies. NIST recommendations for 
agencies to secure networks include: (1) implementing security 
policies consistent with agency mission; (2) embracing obvious 
solutions such as patching systems with current security 
patches, taking action consistent with security advisories, 
deploying virus detection tools, firewalls, intrusion detection 
software and vulnerability scanners; (3) testing own systems 
continuously; (4) configuring systems with security in mind; 
(5) buying security technology that has been tested by an 
independent party; and (6) supporting security despite limited 
IT budgets.
    Mr. Jacobs, testifying on behalf of NSA, stated a valuable 
partnership has evolved between NSA and NIST in providing both 
security solutions for government as well as advancing 
solutions in the private sector. For example: (1) under the 
National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP), NIST and NSA 
collaborate on the specification, testing and evaluation of new 
information security products in accordance with 
internationally recognized Common Criteria; (2) yearly, NSA and 
NIST sponsor the National Information Systems Security 
Conference to promote and educate the information technology 
and security community on the threats and innovations to 
electronic communications that attracts about 2000 participants 
from industry, academia and government agencies; (3) NSA has 
supported NIST on the Advanced Encryption Standard by 
independently evaluating candidates AES algorithms--future. NSA 
support will include assessing the impact on hardware design of 
these algorithms; (4) NSA and NIST have participated on various 
Public Key Infrastructure working groups over the past five 
years to support the development of Public Key Infrastructure 
for the Government; and (5) NSA supports NIST in the 
development of biometrics, network security, random number 
generators and the Biometric Consortium. Finally, Mr. Jacobs 
warned that due to an escalation in the destructive nature and 
aggressive pace of attacks, agencies and the private sector 
must remain vigilant against evolving techniques hackers use to 
test protective measures.
    Mr. Rhodes, testifying on behalf of GAO, noted websites 
offer efficiency and productivity benefits to agencies and 
citizens. Websites open up avenue of security risks which can 
range from embarrassing to theft of sensitive information. To 
maximize the advantages offered by web sites and the Internet, 
it is imperative that Federal agencies implement security 
programs that will enable them to closely watch information 
resources for signs of intrusion and to quickly react to 
intrusions when detected. It is important for the Federal 
Government to implement effective strategy that will (1) ensure 
agencies focus on security from an organization wide 
perspective and implement a comprehensive set of security 
controls and (2) establish central tracking and reporting 
mechanisms that facilitate analyses of website attacks and 
other forms of attacks and their impact.

 4.5(o)--H.R. 2086, Networking and Information Technology Research and 
           Development Act of 1999: Resources for IT Research


                              July 1, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-27


Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 2086, The Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act of 1999. 
The hearing focused on three provisions of the bill: (1) the 
role of internships in meeting the demands for competent IT 
researchers; (2) the role of the Research and Development Tax 
Credit to leverage private sector dollars; and (3) the 
availability of encryption technologies.
    Witnesses included: Dr. William Destler, Interim Vice 
President for University Advancement, University of Maryland, 
College Park, MD; Ms. Laura Allbritten, Director of Tax, 
PeopleSoft, Inc, Pleasanton, CA; and Mr. Kevin Hassett, 
Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. William Destler testified the United States corporate 
sector has been steadily reducing its expenditures on medium 
and long term research and development in order to remain price 
competitive with companies abroad. He stated it is especially 
true in the areas of computer networking, encryption, and 
information technology due to the intense competition for 
expanding world markets. Compounding these problems is the fact 
the U.S. corporate demand for information technology 
professionals currently far outstrips supply, thereby raising 
IT labor costs and limiting corporate expansion even when 
opportunities for growth are strong. Dr. Destler testified in 
order for the United States to maintain its position of global 
leadership in these critical areas it is essential that H.R. 
2086 become law.
    Ms. Laura Allbritten testified making the existing Research 
and Development (R&D) tax credit permanent best serves the 
country's long term economic interests. She argued by 
eliminating uncertainty over the credit's future the permanent 
extension would allow R&D performing businesses to make 
important long-term business decisions regarding research 
spending and investment in the United States. Furthermore, by 
creating an environment favorable to private sector R&D 
investment through the permanent extension, jobs and economic 
value would remain in the United States. She concluded by 
stating the R&D tax credit is essential for the United States 
economy in order for its industries to compete globally.
    Mr. Kevin Hassett testified research and development is a 
classic example of an activity that has external benefits: when 
a firm uncovers something new, the knowledge will ultimately 
help other firms perform their own R&D. Therefore, the benefits 
to society of R&D are likely to be higher than the benefits to 
individual firms doing the research, since these firms tend to 
look only at their own payoffs. Therefore, without the R&D tax 
credit, it is likely there would be relatively little R&D from 
society's perspective. Mr. Hassett continued by stating the 
current situation where the R&D credit is continually renewed 
exposes firms to a great deal of uncertainty which likely leads 
them to respond with less R&D than they might otherwise do with 
the credit. Mr. Hassett stated if the credit were to become 
permanent, the benefits could well be higher, since the 
uncertainty surrounding its renewal would be removed. He cited 
a Coopers and Lybrand report which estimated that a permanent 
credit would stimulate an additional $41 billion of R&D 
spending between 1998-2010, but would produce more than $58 
billion worth of new goods over this same period. Thus 
concluding that the credit would more than pay for itself. Mr. 
Hassett also favored the R&D tax credit because it would go 
along way in restoring faith in the basic tenets of our tax 
system.

 4.5(p)--The Computer Security Impact of Y2K: Expanded Risks of Fraud?


                             August 4, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-23


Background

    The purpose of this hearing is to review concerns raised by 
a number of information technology experts that Y2K fixes may 
pose a substantial security threat to computer operating 
systems. The concern is Y2K employees, hired to correct 
systems, might have left ``trap doors'' or other means through 
which they can clandestinely take control of systems, including 
those that electronically move $11 trillion a year among 
financial institutions, corporations, governments and private 
organizations. The computer security threat, however, may not 
be limited to just being financially motivated. Some 
programmers hired to fix Year 2000 problems may be quietly 
installing malicious software codes--such as a logic bomb or a 
time-delayed virus to sabotage companies or gain access to 
sensitive information sometime in the new millennium. Most 
troubling is several security firms say they have already found 
``trap doors'' in Y2K programming, creating the possibility 
that those with malicious intent can gain access to the systems 
at a future date. If used successfully for hostile purposes, 
these computer ``trap doors'' may create a unique vulnerability 
for sensitive national and proprietary information systems to 
be accessed, stolen, compromised, or disrupted.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Joe Pucciarelli, Vice President and 
Research Director, GartnerGroup, Inc.; Mr. Harris Miller, 
President, Information Technology Association of America; Mr. 
Dean Rich, Vice President for Security Services, WarRoom 
Research; and Mr. Wayne Bennett, Chair, Commercial Technology 
Practice Area, Bingham Dana LLP.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Pucciarelli stated the law of very large numbers 
dictates we have a vastly increased risk of electronic theft 
and fraud after the Year 2000 remediation efforts. In the rush 
to aggressively solve Y2K, enterprises need to ensure 
appropriate resources have been rededicated to protecting them 
from the increased risks of electronic theft or fraud. This is 
possibly the most important artifact created by Year 2000 
remediation. Specific steps need to be taken now and 
continually reemphasized because, despite our wish for highly 
stable, status quo operations, changes in competition, business 
models and distribution channels will bring a much more dynamic 
operational norm. Specifically, Pucciarelli recommends the most 
effective theft and fraud deterrent is the perception that 
there are very high levels of security. To accomplish this, the 
GartnerGroup advises organizations to collaborate to create a 
Year 2000 security team composed of individuals with the 
requisite technical and auditing skills to review procedures, 
assess the risks and implement a risk containment plan. These 
procedure reviews must limit the ability of a single individual 
to make changes or initiate activities without a second person 
participating in the process. Risk assessment must include 
reviewing all enterprise insurance coverage as well as 
contracts with external services providers and independent 
(programmer) contractors. Additionally, risk management plans 
should include careful reconsideration of all existing theft 
and fraud deterrence activities in light of this expanded 
threat profile.
    Mr. Miller stated the information technology is a $1.8 
trillion global industry with great economic benefits for 
countries around the world. The Year 2000 software glitch and 
other well-publicized episodes of natural or man-made disasters 
have also triggered an awareness of the importance and 
vulnerabilities posed by disruptions to information technology. 
But to focus on the issue of computer malfeasance through a Y2K 
lens primarily is to peer at the issue from the wrong end of 
the telescope. Information Security is the next Y2K issue for 
the IT community and its users. Aggressors attack at the point 
of maximum leverage. For modern society, this means critical 
infrastructure--transportation, telecommunications, oil and gas 
distribution, emergency services, water, electric power, 
finance and government operations. Government and industry must 
work to prevent such attacks. While achieving common ground on 
the issue is vital, the roles for government and industry in 
the information security realm are likely to be quite 
different. Not surprisingly, difficult questions remain.
    Mr. Bennett stated while concerns about Y2K and computer 
security are each considerable and justified, he would caution 
against concluding any significant multiplier is at work; or 
the possibility of fraud exacerbates the risk that is inherent 
and already being addressed in connection with the Y2K 
problem--namely, the risk critical operations will be disrupted 
because of systems that are not Y2K compliant. The Nation's IT 
personnel are right now working at a breakneck pace doing 
thankless, yeoman's work against an unforgiving deadline. If 
they succeed in their Herculean task, some will question why we 
spent billions of dollars on a crisis that never came about; if 
they fail, they will be blamed. At this point, Mr. Bennett 
suggest we let the security officers quietly pursue their job 
while we lend all necessary support to the employees and 
contractors working on the Y2K effort--without any inadvertent 
suggestion from Congress that any of them might be criminals, 
even in the face of continuing risk. The job of fixing the Y2K 
problem and the consequences of failure so enormous that the 
on-going risk of fraud, particularly at a time when detection 
methods, as well as accountability, have improved pales by 
comparison.
    Mr. Rich addressed the Y2K vulnerability issue. While he 
believes this is a valid threat and agrees it needs to be 
addressed today, many of the Fortune 500 companies have been 
``outsourcing'' source code development and maintenance for 
years. A large number of these U.S. companies have permanent 
network connections into their corporate networks to facilitate 
the work from overseas. Without intrusion detection or traffic 
analysis, these foreign companies have the potential to run 
free and obtain unauthorized access to U.S. corporate propriety 
information. Rich recommends programs that support a total 
``Risk Management'' approach to Infrastructure Assurance. He 
recommends protecting the ``critical path'' and life cycle of 
high value infrastructure, not just the end product.

          4.5(q)--FAA and January 1, 2000: On-Time or Delayed?


                           September 9, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-51


Background

    On September 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, to 
review the Y2K status of the Federal Aviation Administration's 
(FAA) computer and automated information systems. This hearing 
is the fifth time the Subcommittee has met to review this 
issue.
    Witnesses included: the Honorable Jane Garvey, 
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); The 
Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Transportation; and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil 
Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO).

Summary of hearing

    Administrator Garvey, testifying on behalf of the FAA, 
announced as of June 30, 1999, the FAA has completely 
implemented all Y2K fixes in their systems. An independent 
contractor has reviewed the documentation and verified the 
FAA's work. Administrator Garvey noted that the FAA is 
committed to making sure the National Airspace System (NAS) 
will remain safe and efficient through the Y2K change and has 
added a post implementation phase to their Y2K efforts to 
ensure all systems remain compliant. The FAA continues to work 
with all of their business partners on a Business Continuity 
and Contingency Plan which details actions the FAA should take 
should Y2K problems arise. She noted the FAA has completed 
visits to the top 150 airports in the U.S. and found most will 
complete Y2K efforts by October while the rest plan to conclude 
by December. Finally, Administrator Garvey stated international 
aviation has been more of a challenge to the agency. Through 
cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), 
serious progress has been made with most international 
partners. However, Administrator Garvey warned that the FAA 
would not compromise the safety of U.S. air travelers. If the 
FAA has any safety concerns, the agency will delay or cancel 
flights accordingly.
    Mr. Mead, testifying as the Inspector General, stated while 
the FAA has set-up an impressive management approach towards 
addressing Y2K and has ambitiously worked to mitigate potential 
problems, there are no guarantees that all Y2K related system 
glitches have been found in internal systems or external 
sources. He noted controllers and technicians will need 
retraining in the event they must revert to special procedures 
as part of a contingency plan for radar or other mission 
critical system failures. Mr. Mead stated the FAA is working 
with domestic air carriers and that 83 percent of airport 
systems are reported to be Y2K compliant. He expects large 
carriers are handling Y2K preparations well, but there are some 
concerns with smaller carriers because they have not been 
forthcoming with compliance information. Mr. Mead stated he 
would be more confident if the FAA had followed his 
recommendations and required to certify compliance. Finally, he 
stated two significant ``uncertainties'' remain with 
international air travel: (1) fifty-three countries still had 
not replied to an ICAO survey; and (2) a policy has not been 
established on allowing U.S. carriers to fly to countries that 
either did not respond to the survey or that cannot give 
sufficient assurance they are Y2K ready.
    Mr. Willemsen, testifying on behalf of GAO, stated the FAA 
has made excellent progress in tackling the Y2K problem, but 
warned the work is not done. He identified a number of 
challenges remaining, including managing modifications to 
compliant systems, independent verification of systems' 
compliance, and systems testing. Mr. Willemsen also pointed out 
the FAA must mitigate risks posed by external organizations 
(including airports, airlines, and foreign air traffic control 
systems) which have the potential to impede the flow of air 
traffic across the Nation and around the world. Finally, Mr. 
Willemsen noted the FAA must have a comprehensive and tested 
business continuity and contingency plan ready to implement, 
and train its staff in how to do so.

    4.5(r)--National Technical Information Service: A Review of the 
         Department of Commerce's Plan to Terminate the Agency


                           September 14, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-37


Background

    On September 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a hearing to examine the Department of Commerce's plan to close 
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). NTIS, which 
was created in the 1950s, is the Federal Government's central 
clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of U.S. and 
international science and technical information. Since 1987, 
NTIS has been a self-sustaining entity funding itself through 
the sale of its publications and documents. However, with the 
advent of the Internet, many consumers can obtain science and 
technical information for free. Accordingly, it is likely NTIS, 
operating under its current business model, can no longer 
remain self-sustaining. On August 11, 1999, Secretary of 
Commerce, William Daley, announced his plan to close NTIS and 
transfer its core archiving functions to the Library of 
Congress. The Department's plan requires Congressional 
approval.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Robert Mallett, Deputy 
Secretary, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC; The 
Honorable Michael DiMario, Public Printer, The Government 
Printing Office, Washington, DC; Mr. Ken Allen, Chairman, NTIS 
Advisory Board, Springfield, VA; Ms. Caroline Long, Assistant 
University Librarian for Collection Service, George Washington 
University, Washington, DC; and Ms. Bonnie Carroll, President, 
Information International Associates, Inc, Oak Ridge, TN. Mr. 
James Billington, Librarian, Library of Congress, Washington, 
DC, provided written testimony for the record.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Mallet testified the Department believes the economics 
of the Internet will dramatically affect NTIS' ability to 
remain a self-sustaining entity under its current business 
model. Mr. Mallet explained the Department's plan for dealing 
with NTIS, which includes closing the operation by the end of 
FY 2000 and transferring its core archiving functions to the 
Library of Congress. He did not indicate what the financial 
impact on the Library of Congress would be to assume NTIS' 
mission. In addition, he proposed the DOC would make sure 
federal agencies post their technical and business reports on 
the Internet to ensure consumer access. He said the DOC would 
attempt to place NTIS' approximately 260 employees who cannot 
be absorbed into Commerce with other federal agencies. Mr. 
Mallet also testified the Department had not consulted outside 
user groups of NTIS, the Library of Congress, or other 
interested parties before releasing its proposal to the public.
    Mr. DiMario proposed transferring NTIS' archiving and 
dissemination functions to the Government Printing Office 
(GPO). He testified GPO would make the collection available to 
the public free-of-charge through the Federal Depositories 
Library program. He also said GPO would, for a fee, sell 
documents requested for ownership by individuals. Mr. DiMario 
indicated that transferring NTIS' collection to GPO would 
consolidate the government's primary information dissemination 
programs under a single agency. While GPO was in the process of 
analyzing NTIS' operations at the time of the hearing, he did 
testify it was likely GPO would require a federal appropriation 
to maintain the collection and make it available to the public.
    Mr. Allen stated he believed there is still a need for some 
entity to perform NTIS' core functions even in today's 
information age. He testified it is no longer likely NTIS can 
survive on a full cost recovery basis operating under its 
current model. He recommended a study be performed to look at 
ways to restructure NTIS or to examine what other federal 
entity should undertake the mission of acting as a central 
clearinghouse for science and technical documents. He urged the 
Department to include all interested parties in further 
discussions of NTIS' future.
    Ms. Long testified she was appearing before the 
Subcommittee on behalf of the American Association of Law 
Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of 
Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the 
Special Libraries Association. Ms. Long called for a full 
assessment of NTIS' services to determine how best to make sure 
the public still has access to NTIS' documents. She said NTIS 
should not be closed until there is a thorough study of the 
full range of NTIS services, of alternatives for providing each 
service, and of the requirement the program remain self-
sustaining.
    Ms. Carroll stated there are clear benefits to having a 
central depository for science and technical information. She 
indicated one immediate impact of Commerce's plan might be the 
burden of cost would be shifted to the general taxpayer from 
the user who directly benefits from the services in the current 
NTIS cost recovery operation. She called for a thorough 
assessment of NTIS and its mission before moving forward with 
any plan to close the agency or transfer its functions to 
another federal entity.
    Mr. James Billington testified if NTIS cannot continue in 
its present form, the Federal Government must examine which of 
its functions are sufficiently desirable and effective to merit 
continued federal support, and how and where such functions can 
best be sustained to ensure public access and permanent 
availability. He indicated given the proper resources, the 
Library might be a logical successor to NTIS for those 
functions that complement the Library's mission--namely 
collecting, cataloging, and providing public access. However, 
he testified he felt that NTIS' other functions, such as high 
volume document distribution, brokering agency databases to the 
information industry, and publication of information products 
of executive agencies, were beyond the Library's mandate.

4.5(s)--The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Implications for International 
                                 Travel


                           September 15, 1999


                         Hearing Volume 106-52


  4.5(t)--Overcoming Barriers to the Utilization of Technology in the 
                               Classroom


                           September 22, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-44


Background

    On September 22, 1999, the Subcommittees on Technology and 
Basic Research held a joint hearing, which focused on 
technology in the K-12 classrooms. In particular, the hearing 
examined the appropriate role of local, state, and Federal 
programs in helping schools get connected; the barriers that 
prevent schools from implementing successful technology 
programs; and how the private sector can be harnessed to assist 
schools in bringing technology into the classroom.
    Witnesses included: Dr. George O. Strawn, Executive 
Officer, Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
Directorate, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA; Mr. 
Alan Spoon, President, The Washington Post, Washington, DC; Dr. 
Elizabeth Glowa, Director for Instructional Technology Support 
Team, Office of Global Access Technology, Montgomery County 
Public Schools, Rockville, MD; and Mr. James Fallon Jr., 
Superintendent of Schools, East Hartford School District, East 
Hartford, Connecticut.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Strawn provided an overview of the National Science 
Foundation's involvement with the creation of the Internet and 
its use in the classroom. He testified since 1996, NSF has 
supported R&D in novel technologies that could lower the cost 
of and/or lower other barriers to bringing the Internet to 
public school and libraries. He testified there is a need to 
better understand the costs, capabilities, human resource 
requirements, and potential educational benefits of universal 
high speed internet access for all schools. Finally, he said 
NSF stands ready to work with Congress and other stakeholders 
in education technology to develop an effective mechanism to 
inform policymakers in the rapidly evolving world of 
networking.
    Mr. Spoon testified on behalf of the CEO Forum on Education 
and Technology. The CEO Forum is a coalition of corporate and 
academic leaders who joined together in 1996 to form a four-
year partnership to access and monitor progress toward 
integrating technology in American schools. He stated the CEO 
Forum has committed to releasing four reports examining 
different areas of education technology and his testimony would 
focus on the Forum's third report dealing with teacher 
training. He stated it is important for schools to invest in 
professional development so teachers can successfully integrate 
technology in the classroom. Otherwise, schools are at risk of 
wasting scarce resources on technology that will not be 
utilized to its fullest potential. He went on to list a set 
recommendations put forth by the CEO Forum to help guide 
schools in preparing their teachers.
    Dr. Glowa testified if technology is to realize its 
powerful potential for improving education, it must be used for 
more than just automating the traditional methods and practices 
of teaching. She further stated positive changes in the 
learning environment brought about by technology are more 
evolutionary than revolutionary. She stated these changes occur 
over a period of years, as teachers become more experienced 
with technology and instructional implementation strategies and 
are supported by effective staff development efforts. She 
highlighted in her testimony a list of barriers to effectively 
utilizing technology in the classroom.
    Mr. Fallon testified regarding the steps East Hartford 
School District had undertaken to integrate technology in the 
classroom. He stated funding for technology continues to be a 
major obstacle--especially when schools must weigh spending 
money on hardware and infrastructure against spending money on 
staff development and technology support. He stated new 
technologies that facilitate the sharing of teaching units and 
expertise among teachers and school districts over the World 
Wide Web promise a much more effective use of resources than 
has been possible by isolated, individual teachers acting 
alone.

  4.5(u)--Small Manufacturing and the Challenges of the New Millennium


                           September 23, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-43


Background

    On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
a hearing entitled ``Small Manufacturers and the Challenges of 
the New Millenium.'' Small manufacturers, those with less than 
500 employees, contribute greatly to our Nation's economic 
growth, creating thousands of new jobs each year and providing 
all Americans with high quality manufactured goods. In 
recognition of the vital contribution small manufacturers make 
toward our national prosperity, 1999 was declared the ``Year of 
the Small Manufacturer.'' The hearing examined the challenges 
facing small manufacturers in the 21st Century and reviewed the 
appropriate role of government, industry, and academia in 
helping to ensure continued growth in this important sector of 
our economy.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD; Mr. Jerry Jasinowski, President, National Association of 
Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Mr. John Churchill, Quality 
Assurance Director, Wilcoxin Research, Gaithersburg, MD; and 
Mr. Norm Braddock, President, Saginaw Remanufacturing, Saginaw, 
MI.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kammer testified the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and the Modernization Forum had recently 
convened a national summit on small manufacturing in 
Washington, DC. The Summit examined four topics of importance 
to small manufacturers: electronic commerce, workforce, 
international trade, and sustainable manufacturing. He also 
stated NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program 
provides hands-on assistance to small manufacturers. He said 
through the MEP network of local extension centers, each one 
linked to public and private organizations with complementing 
expertise, small manufacturers have access to comprehensive 
sets of technology and business assistance. He testified MEP 
centers have provided services to more than 77,000 
manufacturers. He also gave examples of specific small 
manufacturing companies that have been assisted by MEP. 
Finally, Mr. Kammer described other programs at NIST, such as 
the Measurements and Standards Laboratories, that help benefit 
small manufacturers.
    Mr. Jasinowski discussed in detail the four topics 
addressed at the National Summit on Small Manufacturing. He 
said the number one issue facing small manufacturers is finding 
qualified workers to fill employment slots. He said many small 
manufacturers want to hire more minorities and older Americans 
but lack the resources to adequately train them. On the subject 
of E-Commerce, Mr. Jasinowski suggested that NIST MEP institute 
a website that will provide small manufacturers with advice on 
getting started in e-commerce. Mr. Jasinowski testified many 
small manufacturers were not participating to their fullest 
extent in international trade because of daunting trade 
barriers. He said programs such as the Export-Import bank were 
important for small manufacturers. Mr. Jasinowski also said we 
need greater flexibility and cooperation in environmental 
quality enhancement between the Federal government and the 
private sector. Finally, he stated he supported the work of 
NIST MEP and looked forward to working in partnership with them 
to ensure small manufacturers continue to thrive.
    Mr. Churchill stated he had utilized the services of his 
local MEP affiliated office on many occasions. He testified 
that advice from the MEP affiliate helped to decrease his 
company's products failure rates and product warrant returns, 
thus affecting about 50 percent of their sales.
    Mr. Braddock described for the Subcommittee his experience 
with the Saginaw Valley State University's Center for 
Manufacturing Improvement (an affiliate of Michigan MEP). He 
stated their expertise helped him to better understand how the 
production process contributes to the overall cost of the 
product, thus allowing him to provide more accurate quotes to 
potential customers. Mr. Braddock testified he gained a great 
deal of knowledge from the National Summit and appreciated the 
opportunity to discuss with other small manufacturers ways to 
improve their businesses.

4.5(v)--A Review of H.R. 2413--The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 
                                  1999


                           September 30, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-45


Background

    On September 30, 1999, the Technology Subcommittee held a 
hearing to review H.R. 2413, the Computer Security Enhancement 
Act of 1999, legislation introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, 
Congresswoman Morella and Congressman Gordon.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Raymond Kammer, Director, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology; Mr. Keith Rhodes, 
Director, Office of Computer and Information, Technology 
Assessment, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Harris Miller, 
President, Information Technology Association of America; and 
Dr. George Trubow, Professor and Director, Center for 
Information Technology and Privacy Law, The John Marshall Law 
School and Member, Computer System Security and Privacy 
Advisory Board (CSSPAB), NIST.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Kammer testifying on behalf of NIST, stated NIST's 
computer security program focuses on standards and guidelines, 
public key infrastructure and security research. Mr. Kammer 
noted the President has recently requested an additional $39 
million in FY 2000 for initiatives proposed to protect critical 
infrastructure, of which $5 million would be for NIST to 
establish an Expert Review Team to assist Government-wide 
agencies in adhering to federal computer security requirements. 
NIST would consult with OMB and NSA on the team's plan to 
protect computer security for federal agencies. $2 million 
would fund a 15 member team responsible for helping agencies 
identify vulnerabilities, plan secure systems and implement 
Critical Infrastructure plans. $3 million would establish an 
operational fund at NIST for computer security projects among 
federal agencies. Projects would include independent 
vulnerability assessments, computer intrusion drill and 
emergency funds to cover security fixes for systems identified 
to have unacceptable risks.
    Mr. Rhodes, testifying on behalf of GAO, stated H.R. 2413 
aims to reinforce the role of NIST, whose mission is to provide 
guidance and technical assistance to government and industry to 
protect unclassified information systems. Mr. Rhodes discussed: 
(1) the urgent need to strengthen computer security across the 
Federal Government; (2) the current and future privacy concerns 
with any computer security legislation; (3) GAO's views on the 
proposed act; and (4) what can be done to further strengthen 
security program management at agencies. According to Rhodes, 
it is imperative that the Federal Government swiftly implement 
long-term solutions both at individual agencies and government 
wide to protect systems and sensitive data. He noted the need 
to protect sensitive data and systems must be weighed against 
cost and feasibility and privacy and security interests of 
citizens, private businesses as well as national security and 
law enforcement agencies. Without computer security, privacy 
cannot be assured. Without agreement among users, businesses, 
law enforcement, national security and other authorities on 
requirements, there is no way to implement new technology or to 
establish standards that will be universally accepted. Finally, 
Mr. Rhodes stated it is important to ensure NIST retains the 
ability to develop security standards for unclassified data and 
decide which industry standards are appropriate for federal 
agencies and the agencies consistently implement such 
standards.
    Mr. Harris, testifying on behalf of the ITAA, stated his 
association and its members support the goals of H.R. 2413, to 
assist NIST in meeting the computer security needs of federal 
agencies and to allow the Federal government through NIST to 
harness the ingenuity of the private sector to help address its 
computer security needs. He noted computer security solutions 
should be industry-led. Mr. Harris recognized that great 
opportunities for collaboration between the Federal Government 
and private industry currently exist and there is a need for 
information security computer specialists and additional 
resources. Finally, Mr. Harris stated there is a need for 
authentication through digital signatures and a public key 
infrastructure.
    Professor Trubow, testifying on behalf of the CSSPAB, 
warned that for the Board to remain effective, it should 
maintain its role as an advisory board. He noted it is 
appropriate for the Board to be asked for its advice and 
wisdom. In his opinion, the Board supports the goal of H.R. 
2413 to expand NIST's activities in developing and promoting 
the use of information system security technologies. He noted 
attention to privacy must not be overlooked. Finally, Professor 
Trubow recommended that ``privacy'' be inserted in the bill in 
several areas.

   4.5(w)--State of the States: Will Y2K Disrupt Essential Services?


                            October 6, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-56


Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology and the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee 
on Government Reform held a joint hearing entitled, ``State of 
the States: Will Y2K Disrupt Essential Services?'' The purpose 
of this hearing is to review the Y2K status of forty-three 
essential Federal programs that have a high impact on a great 
majority of Americans, most of which involve the participation 
of our Nation's fifty states. OMB identified forty-three ``high 
impact'' or essential federal programs including Medicare, the 
Nation's air traffic control system, food safety inspection, 
the weather system, public housing, and unemployment insurance. 
As of August 1999, however, only seven of forty-three (16 
percent) of the programs were ready for the January 1, 2000 
deadline. This number was very troubling. It appears as if the 
main reason for such a low level of Y2K readiness is that key 
supply chain partners, including state and local governments, 
and the private sector, were simply not yet ready. Especially 
troubling is the fact that ten of the forty-three essential 
programs are state administered programs that receive Federal 
funding. These programs include Medicaid, food stamps, child 
nutrition, child support enforcement, and temporary assistance 
for needy families. Not one of these state-administered 
programs was ready.
    Witnesses included: Joel Willemssen, Director, U.S. General 
Accounting Office; John Spotila, Administrator, U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs; John Callahan, Chief Information Officer, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services; Shirley Watkins, Under 
Secretary U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and 
Consumer Services; and Mike Benzen, President, National 
Association of State Information Resources Executives.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Willemssen stated at particular risk are several states 
with systems not yet Y2K compliant. Federal agency reviews of 
business continuity and contingency plans for state-
administered federal programs indicate many are inadequate--
federal agencies are working with state partners to obtain 
readiness information and provide assistance. Some state 
completion dates are so close to the turn of the century that 
the risk of disruption to their programs is substantially 
increased, especially if unexpected problems arise.
    Mr. Spotila said in the days remaining before the year 
2000, they plan to complete work on remaining mission critical 
systems and on other federal systems, complete end-to-end 
testing with the states and other key partners, placing 
emphasis on programs that have direct impact on public health 
and safety and complete and test business continuity and 
contingency plans, particularly day one plans.
    Mr. Callahan said all HHS mission critical systems are Y2K 
compliant, but was concerned about compliance status of some 
territories because their remediation effort may not be 
completed on time. State programs in Alabama, Delaware, DC, 
Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire and South Carolina have 
been assessed at high risk of Y2K failure because both 
remediation and testing of systems is not complete and there 
are underdeveloped contingency plans. A number of states lack 
completed Business Continuity and Contingency Plans (BCCP). Mr. 
Callahan stated HHS is providing direct technical assistance 
and help for remedial problems and there may be some Y2K 
compliant problems associated with Medicare and Medicaid 
providers.
    Ms. Watkins said Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) primary 
goal is to ensure no interruption in the Nation's nutrition 
assistance services (Food Stamp Program, Supplementary 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and 
Child Nutrition Program, includes school breakfast and lunch 
programs). A major concern of FNS is the ability of state 
partners to deliver program benefits as the new year begins. As 
of September 25, 1999, 139 of 162 state agencies that operate 
joint FNS/state agency programs reported they are Y2K compliant 
or would be by month's end. He intends to continue to work with 
the remaining 23 agencies. Ms. Watkins said there is a 
contractor working with the State of Georgia and compliance is 
expected by December and in Maryland there is a manual system 
in place for the School Nutrition program and no disruption in 
payments or serving of meals is expected.
    Mr. Hugler said Unemployment Insurance (UI) program is a 
Federal-State partnership which serves approximately eight 
million unemployed workers and issues payments in excess of $20 
billion and collects taxes of about $22 billion from 6.5 
million employers annually. Currently, benefits, tax and wage 
records systems are Year 2000 compliant in forty-six State 
Employment Security Agencies (SESA) and benefit payment systems 
are compliant in all but three of the fifty-three 
jurisdictions. SESAs in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico 
and California are planning to implement benefit systems during 
last quarter of 1999. All fifty-three SESAs have BCCPs in place 
for their benefit systems and New Jersey and Puerto Rico are 
working on contingency plans for their tax systems. BCCPs are 
currently under review in the Department. The Department has 
asked partners to develop specific plans, ``Zero Day'' and 
``Day One,'' for the period of December 30, 1999 to January 3, 
2000, including additional steps the SESAs will take to reduce 
special risks to their systems.
    Mr. Benzen reported in a survey conducted by NASIRE, 
thirthy-six NASIRE state members are now at least ninety 
percent complete with their remediation progress. According to 
the survey, forty-three NASIRE member systems are now at least 
75 percent compliant (figure represents over ninety-four 
percent of Nation's population). States are scheduled to spend 
$3.5 billion overall on Y2K remediation.

    4.5(x)--Y2K and Nuclear Power: Will Reactors React Responsibly?


                            October 26, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-55


Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology and the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee 
on Government Reform held a joint hearing entitled, ``Y2K and 
Nuclear Power: Will Reactors React Responsibly?'' The purpose 
of this hearing was to review the Y2K status of the nuclear 
energy industry, discuss the industry's readiness and 
contingency plans. In May 1998, the Technology Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the electric and energy industries. At the 
hearing, a number of concerns were raised about the nuclear 
industry. This hearing followed up on the concerns first raised 
at the hearing and provides an update on the industry's Y2K 
efforts.
    Since the May 1998 hearing, the nuclear energy industry has 
been testing plant computers that control operations as well as 
safety. A number of plants undertook individual testing 
programs and utility companies have created a coordinated, 
industry-wide Y2K program of standardized guidelines and 
schedules for plant computer inspection and correction.
    The industry-wide Y2K inspection of some 200,000 items 
revealed that only about 10,000 plant systems required Y2K 
fixes. As of October 1, 1999, the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) announced that ninety-six of the Nation's 103 operating 
nuclear power plants have stated they have completed all of the 
required Y2K remediation. NEI indicates the only obstacle to 
achieving 100 percent industry compliance are just nine 
computer systems that remain to be corrected at seven plants--
none of which affect plant safety.
    Witnesses included: Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil 
Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
accompanied by Keith Rhodes, Director, Office of Computer and 
Information Technology Assessment, U.S. General Accounting 
Office; Frank Miraglia, Deputy Executive Director, Reactor 
Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and Ralph Beedle, 
Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Nuclear Energy 
Institute.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Willemsen and Mr. Rhodes indicated while progress has 
been made in making the Nation's nuclear power plants and fuel 
processing facilities Y2K ready, some risk remains. At 
particular risk are the seven plants that do not yet have their 
non-safety systems ready, especially the two with completion 
dates scheduled for more than 30 days from now, ever closer to 
the turn of the century. Similarly, the four nuclear fuel 
facilities that were not Y2K ready by September 1, 1999, raised 
concerns. Likewise, not knowing the current Y2K status of all 
14 decommissioned plants with spent fuel also raises concern. 
Finally, the lack of information on two key issues--independent 
reviews of Y2K testing and emergency Y2K exercises--and the 
lack of requirements for Day One planning increases the Y2K 
risk to the nuclear power industry.
    Mr. Miraglia said the NRC oversees the operation of all 
nuclear power plants in the United States. At every plant in 
the country, NRC has stationed resident inspectors who monitor 
their safety and operational systems. NRC resident inspectors 
are carefully monitoring Y2K preparations in addition to their 
regular oversight responsibilities. Also, specially trained NRC 
inspectors will conduct formal on-site reviews of Y2K progress 
at each plant. GAO stated to further reduce risks, NRC and the 
nuclear power industry can still take specific actions to 
ensure Y2K-related plant safety. First, NRC should evaluate and 
report on the Y2K status of all decommissioned plants with 
spent fuel status that previously reported they were not Y2K 
ready. Second, NRC should survey the 103 operational nuclear 
power plants to gain an understanding of what independent 
reviews were completed. Based on this information, NRC could 
then identify plants that may need additional reviews. Third, 
it should obtain information on the scope and extent of nuclear 
power plants' emergency exercises, and whether these exercises 
have incorporated Y2K scenarios. Finally, the NRC should ensure 
that all nuclear facilities have developed Day One plans.
    Mr. Beedle stated, there are no Year 2000 safety problems 
at America's 103 nuclear reactors. The 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity generated by nuclear power--enough 
electricity for 65 million homes--will not be jeopardized by 
Y2K. America can rely on electricity from nuclear energy--the 
greatest source of emission-free electricity--on New Year's Day 
2000 and on into the new century. Beedle expressed confidence 
of all safety-related issues have been resolved and these 
baseload electric facilities will continue to substantially 
contribute to the stability of the nation's electricity power 
grid.

    4.5(y)--Competing in the New Millenium: Challenges Facing Small 
                          Biotechnology Firms


                            October 27, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-50


Background

    Biotechnology continues to hold great promise for the 
future. According to statistics compiled by the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization (BIO), over 200,000 million people 
worldwide have been treated by more than 80 biotechnology drug 
products and vaccines available on the market today. Beyond 
health care, biotechnology continues to change the way we grow 
food, protect the environment, and revolutionized criminal 
investigations through DNA technologies.
    A majority of the 1,283 biotechnology firms in the United 
States are small businesses with nearly two-thirds employing 
fewer than 135 people. As a whole, the biotechnology industry 
continues to flourish. In 1998, the biotechnology industry 
generated revenues of $18.6 billion, up 16 percent from $16.1 
billion in 1997. Despite the large number of small biotech 
firms and the economic growth in the industry overall, many 
analysts have expressed concern that small biotech firms have 
been entrenched in a period of recent economic downturn. This 
hearing focused on the challenges facing small biotech firms 
and explored their ability to remain competitive in the 
flourishing biotechnology industry.
    Witnesses included: Dr. John Holaday, President and CEO, 
EntreMed, Inc., Rockville, MD; Dr. Michael Horvath, Department 
of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Mr. Dennis 
Purcell, Managing Director, Life Science, Hambrecht & Quist 
LLC, New York, NY; and Dr. Steven Niemi, President, Genetix 
Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, MA.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Holaday testified one barrier facing biotech companies 
is the length of time needed to move a drug through the 
development process. He said on average only one in 5,000 
discoveries results in an approved drug twelve years later, at 
a cost in excess of $350 million. Unlike large pharmaceutical 
companies, he stated small biotech companies have limited 
resources. To encourage greater investment in the biotech 
industry, Dr. Holaday advocated that those who take the risk of 
funding research and product development in biotechnology by 
purchasing shares in those companies should be allowed greater 
tax incentives. He finished his testimony by stating he 
believed there was a shortage of qualified scientists at the 
graduate and postgraduate levels to staff many biotech firms.
    Dr. Horvath stated biotechnology firms would continue to 
face difficulty in obtaining venture financing relative to 
firms in the internet-related sectors for several years to 
come. He stated while small biotech firms were more limited in 
their ability to raise venture funds in 1996-97, more recent 
data suggested an increasing fraction of biotech venture 
capital is flowing in the form of smaller deals. He cautioned 
against increased federal funding for the biotech industry as a 
way to make up for lost revenue as investors flee toward the 
information technology industry. Instead, he said emphasis 
should be placed on removing any unnecessary uncertainty 
associated with regulation in the product markets that biotech 
firms are pursuing as a way to make investments in the 
biotechnology industry more attractive.
    Mr. Purcell testified the number of drugs coming from the 
biotech industry would explode over the next few years. In 
addition, he stated the large biotech companies have been the 
real winners, with the top ten biotech companies rising in 
value almost 88 percent in 1998, whereas nearly 100 smaller 
biotech companies have less than one year of cash. He indicated 
at the current time, Wall Street favored bigger, more stable 
and more liquid companies. He said the major question becomes, 
can we make the smaller biotech industry a larger biotech 
industry and if we put two companies together, they'll actually 
be worth more than the sum of their parts.
    Mr. Niemi described the process by which a small biotech 
company begins to raise venture capital. He also stated foreign 
countries have been increasingly more aggressive in pursuing or 
recruiting investment or acquisition or subsidiary expansion 
into various European countries. He testified there is more 
money currently going into the European biotech sector for 
various reasons.

 4.5(z)--Y2K and Contingency and Day 1 Plans: If Computers Fail, What 
                              Will You Do?


                            October 29, 1999


                         Hearing Volume 106-54


                    4.5(aa)--Y2K Myths and Realities


                            November 4, 1999


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-61


Background

    The Subcommittee on Technology and the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee 
on Government Reform held a joint hearing entitled, ``Y2K Myths 
and Realities: Responding to the Questions of the American 
Public with 50 Days Remaining Until January 1, 2000.'' With the 
Congressional adjournment of the first session of the 106th 
Congress, this hearing was the final hearing of the House Y2K 
Working Group before the January 1, 2000 Y2K deadline. The 
purpose of this hearing is to discuss and respond to Y2K 
questions raised by the American public relating to issues such 
as our nation's preparedness, investor confidence, Y2K hype and 
marketing, and health concerns, among a host of others. The 
objectives were: to examine questions posed by Americans on how 
they should prepare for any potential Y2K disruptions; to 
discuss the status of federal and private Y2K efforts and their 
contingency plans; to determine the federal strategy on January 
1, 2000; to review the impact of Y2K on investor confidence; to 
explore the media impact and potential hype leading up to the 
January 1, 2000 deadline; to respond to Y2K concerns affecting 
hospitals and the medical community; and to inquire upon other 
related Y2K issues.
    Witnesses included: John A. Koskinen, Special Assistant to 
the President, Chairman, Y2K Conversion Council; Joel 
Willemssen, Director of Civilian Agencies Information Systems, 
United States General Accounting Office; J. Patrick Campbell, 
Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, The 
Nasdaq-Amex Market Group, Inc.; Barry F. Scher, Vice President 
of Public Affairs, Giant Food, Inc.; and Ronald Margolis, 
representing the American Hospital Association, Chief 
Information Officer, University of New Mexico Hospital, Health 
Sciences Center.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Koskinen said the Council's information coordination 
center or (ICC) will be the Federal Government's central point 
for coordinating information on systems operations and events 
related to the Y2K transition that will be collected by 
government emergency centers in the private sector. Information 
gathered by the ICC will be the basis for national and 
international status reports that will be provided to all 
Federal agencies and organizations sharing information with the 
center. Status reports will be provided to Congress and to the 
public. Suggestions from the ICC include having at least a 
three day supply of food and water, keep copies of important 
financial records before and after January 1, 2000 and check 
with manufacturers to make sure that home electronic equipment 
is Y2K ready.
    Mr. Willemssen stated among the areas most at risk are 
health care (Medicare, Medicaid and biomedical equipment) and 
education (many school districts and post secondary 
institutions are not yet compliant). Agencies that need to be 
monitored closely because of the criticality of information 
systems to their missions include the Health Care Financing 
Administration, DOD, FAA and IRS.
    Mr. Sher stated in anticipation of peaks in consumer 
demands for certain products, Giant is developing specific 
merchandising plans which include buying and distribution 
strategies and an internal and external communications plan 
with the objective to inform and educate a number of stake 
holders about their Y2K readiness.
    Mr. Campbell stated they are confident there will be no 
serious disruptions in service and markets and investors will 
be protected. In addition to systems testing, extensive 
contingency plans have been made and NASD has established 
corporate and business line command centers that will operate 
from late December through the first week in January 2000. 
Centers will be linked to SEC and other industry organizations. 
NASD has focused on investor education.
    Mr. Margolis said in a survey conducted last Spring, 95 
percent of hospitals expected their medical devices, 
computerized information systems and infrastructure would be 
Y2K compliant.
    Chairwoman Morella asked about the criticism from the Y2K 
community that the government is overly optimistic in its 
assessments and Mr. Koskinen replied there is a small minority 
of people who think that and none have any evidence that 
disputes surveys that have been presented. We have an 
obligation to the public to provide all the information we 
have--good information and areas that are troublesome. 
Congressman Ose expressed his appreciation to Mr. Koskinen and 
Mr. Willemssen and urged those who plan to travel over the 
millennium weekend visit the FAA website, fly2k.gov. 
Congresswoman Biggert asked about dispelling rumors about Y2K 
and Mr. Koskinen replied his goal in life is to have the 
American public feel they know everything he knows and can then 
decide how to respond appropriately. Chairman Horn and Mr. 
Koskinen discussed the progress made in the educational 
institutions and a third of them are not prepared at this 
time--both higher education and elementary and secondary. Mr. 
Koskinen said they need to keep working on remediation, on 
testing, re-testing and on contingency plans. Congressman 
Turner asked about ensuring we have a response system in place 
and Mr. Willemssen stated the Information Coordination Center 
has a press briefing room and press briefings are planned every 
four hours during the roll-over period. Mr. Campbell said 
similar plans are in place for the securities industry.

 4.5(bb)--The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Did the World Overreact, and 
                           What Did We Learn?


                            January 27, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-84


Background

    On January 21, 2000, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Year 2000 Computer Problem: Did the World 
Overreact and What Did We Learn?'' The hearing was held to 
present the results of the Y2K computer problem and to look at 
the lessons learned from the whole experience. Additionally, we 
evaluated the Y2K glitches that did occur and examined how they 
could have been prevented.
    Witnesses Included: The Honorable John Koskinen, Special 
Assistant to the President, Chairman of the President's Council 
on Year 2000 Conversion; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, 
Civil Agencies Information System, General Accounting Office; 
The Honorable Charles Rossotti, Commissioner, Internal Revenue 
Service; Mr. Fernando Burbano, Chief Information Officer, 
Department of State; Mr. Harris Miller, President, Information 
Technology Association of America; Ms. Cathy Hotka, Vice 
President for Information Technology, National Retail 
Federation; and Mr. Gary Beach, Publisher, CIO Communications, 
Inc.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable John Koskinen testifying as the Special 
Assistant to the President, Chairman of the President's Council 
on Year 2000 Conversion, testified the Y2K problem was the 
greatest management challenge the world has faced in the last 
50 years. However, in trying to make the transition as smooth 
as possible, the problems that did occur did not have a 
noticeable impact on the general public. Contingency plans and 
knowledge of IT systems proved to be an immense help in 
preparing for Y2K. The plans have also helped organizations 
take a deeper look at their existing technology and the 
functions they perform. Y2K transition was seamless due to both 
the partnerships that were formed across traditional boundaries 
as well as the involvement of the American public.
    Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies 
Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office, stated 
while some Year 2000 problems did occur, all of them have been 
fixed, and the transition was relatively smooth. Some of the 
major lessons learned were the importance of providing high-
level congressional and executive branch leadership, providing 
standards guidance, and implementing fundamental information 
technology improvements. He goes on to add that organizations 
should keep moving forward and use all of the information 
gained from this experience to help target and solve problems 
in the future.
    The Honorable Charles Rossotti, testifying as Commissioner 
of the Internal Revenue Service, testified he was gratified 
with the successful Y2K conversion program. However, if the IRS 
had not taken the proper steps in ensuring Y2K readiness, major 
disruptions could have been a result. For the IRS the Y2K scare 
could have been a blessing in disguise. Not only was the IRS 
ready, but they have gained improved program management 
practices, upgraded hardware and software products and 
standardization of products. Likewise, these benefits will only 
be recognized if they use the practices established during Y2K.
    Mr. Fernando Burbano, Chief Information Officer, Department 
of State, stated the Federal Government did not spend too much 
in trying to prepare itself for the Y2K bug. Senior level 
leadership was critical to a successful rollover. Furthermore, 
giving agencies separate funding to remediate any Y2K problems 
was essential. He goes on to add that by providing beneficial 
benchmarks, agencies and the Federal Government were able to 
quickly assess the current status of readiness and see how they 
measured up to federal milestones. The CIO was able to have a 
congressionally managed, yet continuous stream of funding 
specially designed for Y2K. This enabled federal CIOs and Y2K 
program managers to acquire and retain qualified resources in 
the needed quantity. Congressional support and the ability to 
gain access to separate supplemental CIP and security funding 
is vital in keeping Critical Infrastructure Protection goals.
    Mr. Harris Miller the President of Information Technology 
Association of America, testified the Y2K transition was 
successful because so many people put in time and energy to 
ensure Y2K did not disrupt our normal lives. It also began to 
bring to light how dependant we are on IT systems. Y2K gave 
users a better understanding of the uses and capabilities of 
IT. Immense collaboration and planning was used to make Y2K a 
success. Mr. Miller adds that this momentum should be used to 
ensure that the digital era does not leave the ``have nots'' 
behind.
    Ms. Cathy Hotka, Vice President for Information Technology, 
National Retail Federation, stated the retail industry fared 
better than expected in the Y2K rollover. Without Y2K testing, 
100% of private label credit cards and 99% of warehouse 
management systems would have failed. Retailers have learned 
through Y2K how dependent they are on IT. Major functions were 
being carried out on fifteen-year-old systems. She went on to 
add that reliable information was hard to come by and the 
government's involvement was needed to shed light on the 
importance of this issue.
    Mr. Gary Beach, Publisher, CIO Communications, Inc., stated 
the global Y2K remediation experience has helped everyone 
understand the impact of technology on businesses in our lives. 
He contends Y2K has forced organizations to modernize. He 
commended the world's IT workers and hopes technology continues 
to bring us all together. He reminds us not to forget those 
unable to afford such technology.

4.5(cc)--R&D to Improve Aviation Safety and Efficiency: A Review of the 
                  FAA FY 2001 Funding Request for R&D


                             March 1, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-68


Background

    On March 1, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``R&D to Improve Aviation Safety and 
Efficiency: A Review of the FAA FY 2001 Funding Request for 
R&D,'' to receive testimony regarding the review of the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) research and development budget 
request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001. This includes the Research, 
Engineering and Development (RE&D) account and certain other 
activities.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Steven Zaidman, Associate 
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions; Ms. Alexis M. 
Stefani, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing; Mr. Robert 
E. Doll, Chairman, FAA RE&D Advisory Committee; Mr. Jack 
Clemons, Senior Vice President, Lockheed Martin Air Traffic 
Management.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Steven Zaidman, testifying as Associate Administrator 
for Research and Acquisitions, testified the national airspace 
system is in constant battle to keep up with the rising demands 
of air traffic. Yearly, 600 million passengers choose to fly 
within U.S. airspace, however this number is growing, and by 
the end of this decade over one billion people will be flying. 
In order to sustain this level of activity, the FAA must be 
able to, ``employ new technologies and procedures to increase 
efficiency as traffic grows.''
    Furthermore, Zaidman adds new security threats are forcing 
the FAA to produce highly sophisticated equipment to combat the 
problem of cyberterrorism. Proposed R&D investments for FY 2001 
will delegate $5.5 million to fund cyberattacks and other 
malicious agents. Zaidman later claimed partnerships have also 
helped immensely. Data can be shared and analyzed to identify 
root causes of aviation safety incidents to prevent future 
problems from occurring. Collaboration with the Department of 
Defense and NASA has paved the way for R&D research in the area 
of aging aircrafts, aging aircraft systems, aviation system 
capacity and efficiency, and aircraft noise and emissions 
reduction.
    Ms. Alexis M. Stefani, Assistant Inspector General for 
Auditing, stated the FAA is requesting $184 million for RE&D 
funding in Fiscal Year 2001. This is an increase of almost 18 
percent. Some reasons for this rise in funding are the changes 
in the nature of the FAA's research and development efforts and 
how these efforts are financed. In addition, government-wide 
cooperation and coordination on aviation research between the 
FAA and NASA has helped to improve the margin of safety and 
efficiency of the National Airspace System. While creating the 
FAA's Free Flight Initiative, it became evident that technology 
transfer between the two organizations required more attention. 
Another area of concern was the human factor, which was brought 
to light in the research and development of new technology. 
Areas of concern were the impact on selection and training of 
controllers to work technologically-advanced equipment and the 
impact on pilots of new data link communications and cockpit 
display technology. Finally, the FAA is actively working on 
aircraft safety research. They are requesting $4.8 million for 
non-structural aging aircraft work, which includes wiring, 
hydraulics, and mechanical systems.
    Mr. Robert E. Doll, testifying as Chairman of the FAA RE&D 
Advisory Committee, stated he supports the FAA's request for 
$257.4 funding for RE&D in FY 2001. All funds allocated in FY 
2001 are aimed at solving problems that might impact the system 
within the next five years. He contends the surge in air 
traffic must be addressed, and furthermore Air Traffic 
Management is in everyone's interest. Since technology is 
advancing so quickly, the FAA is having problems adopting and 
implementing these programs. The REDAC also supports the 
partnership between the FAA and NASA in forming a ``Blue Ribbon 
Group.'' The group would solicit and synthesize the views of 
all stakeholders in the aviation industry.
    Mr. Jack Clemons, Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin 
Air Traffic Management, testified about the importance of 
leveraging partnership with industry, the need for sustained 
and sufficient funding and the need for specific areas of 
focus. He added Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management has 
invested their own money in R&D research of advanced 
technology. These self-funded initiatives have uncovered the 
need for sustained and sufficient funding to allow adequate 
lead-time in understanding potential problems. In closing, he 
discussed the shortage of highly skilled technological labor. 
Mr. Clemons claimed telecommunications technology was under-
represented in the R&D focus. As the FAA moves towards Free 
Flight, this area of communications will become even more 
important. He stated if the Subcommittee authorized R&D funds 
specifically for hardening telecommunications technologies and 
implementing them into the demands of the FAA, everyone would 
benefit.

   4.5(dd)--Review of the FY 2001 Budget Request for the Technology 
Administration/National Institute of Standards and Technology Including 
              Computer Security and E-Commerce Initiatives


                             March 9, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-71


Background

    On March 9, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Review of the FY2001 Budget Request for the 
Technology Administration/National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Including Computer Security and E-Commerce 
Initiatives,'' The hearing reviewed the FY 2001 Budget Request 
for the Technology Administration and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). In particular, the hearing 
focused on new initiatives in the area of computer security and 
e-commerce.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Cheryl Shavers, Under 
Secretary for the Technology Administration, United States 
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.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Cheryl Shavers, testifying as the Under 
Secretary for Technology, testified innovation continues to 
lead the way for economic expansion in the U.S. Despite this 
ongoing change, the Technology Administration plans to play a 
leading role in helping America's economy continue to move 
forward and remain competitive. The Technology Administration 
has requested almost $722 million with a majority of that going 
to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    One of NIST's FY 2001 budget initiatives proposes new 
funding for the acceleration of electronic commerce. This will 
allow the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) to work with 
the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business 
Administration to create an outreach program. The MEP will also 
create, distribute and produce e-commerce Jump-Start Kits to 
help train and test the adoption of e-commerce.
    The Technology Administration also hopes to broaden the 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). TA 
will use the additional funding to expand the breadth and depth 
of its reporting on agency technology transfer activities. In 
addition, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 
(PNGV) seeks to use additional funding to assess the impact of 
technologies on the automotive supplier base, in conjunction 
with interested stakeholders as well as with state and regional 
economies.
    The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as the Director of 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) stated in 
the Administration's FY 2001 budget to Congress includes $713 
million for NIST. This is an increase of about 12% over its FY 
2000 budget of $636 million.
    Included in the FY 2001 budget request is $337 million for 
Scientific and Technical Research and Service, and $5 million 
for the Baldridge National Quality Program (BNQP), and $339 
million for the Industrial Technology Service, which includes 
$175 million for funding of the Advanced Technology Program 
(ATP). NIST also hopes to upgrade the safety of their 
facilities and thus proposed $36 million for the construction, 
critical repair and maintenance.
    The Honorable Johnnie E. Frazier, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, stated since he last testified before 
the Committee, NIST has been monitoring its capital improvement 
facilities plan. He goes on to add that NIST has failed in some 
situations to justify its new and updated plans. Five 
discretionary grant programs have been completed and four final 
reports have been submitted, all in compliance with Commerce 
and federal guidelines. Mr. Frazier adds that the fate of NIST 
is still in question. The agency has suffered a decline in 
sales of their products and services.
    The Technology Administration is faced with the challenge 
of implementing the Government Performance and Results Act. 
This is due to the difficulty of measuring the benefits of 
investments of scientific research in the long term. Another 
challenge TA faces is the implementation of the Commerce 
Administration Management System (CAMS). Mr. Frazier concluded 
his presentation by adding that proper management is needed to 
minimize delays, disruptions and costs.

 4.5(ee)--Standards Conformity and the Federal Government: A Review of 
                   Section 12 of Public Law: 104-113


                             March 15, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-72


Background

    On March 15, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Standards Conformity and the Federal 
Government: A Review of Section 12 of Public Law: 104-113. 
``This hearing focused on the implementation of Section 12 of 
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(Public Law: 104-113) among the federal agencies and 
departments. In addition, this hearing examined the 
effectiveness of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) in its coordinating role under the Act.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Jim Wells, Director, Energy, 
Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; 
Dr. Belinda Collins, Director, Office of Standards Services, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology; Mr. Gregory E. 
Saunders, Director, Defense Standardization Program Office, 
Department of Defense; Mr. Richard L. Black, Director, Office 
of Nuclear Safety Policy and Standards, Department of Energy.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Jim Wells, testifying as the Director, Energy, 
Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
testified the National Institute of Standards and Technology ( 
NIST) and the Office of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) have been taking steps to guide and coordinate federal 
agencies towards using voluntary consensus standards. He also 
claimed NIST is chairing an interagency committee directing an 
internal advisory committee to create a strategic approach to 
setting standards for other agencies to follow. He later adds 
the reporting from the agencies has not been very successful. 
The 1998 report was submitted 18 months late, and the 1999 
report is still outstanding. One of the factors contributing to 
the delay is there is not a definitive list of the agencies 
that should be reporting. He did state the Department of 
Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency are among the 
few that have been complying with the Act.
    Dr. Belinda Collins, Director, Office of Standards and 
Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
elaborated on NIST's role in the implementation of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. She claimed NIST has 
been encouraging the agencies to implement their own standards 
management program to leverage the efforts of the Interagency 
Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP). Similarly, NIST has been 
working with other federal agencies and the private sector to 
build a national infrastructure, the National Cooperation for 
Laboratory Infrastructure. This infrastructure would make 
progress toward resolving problems of duplication and costly 
accreditation that do nothing to help to the value of the Act. 
NIST has also helped other federal agencies in standards and 
conformity assessment procedures.
    Mr. Richard L. Black, testifying as the Director, Nuclear 
Safety Policy and Standards, Office of Environment, Safety and 
Health, and Department of Energy Standards Executive, 
Department of Energy testified standards are used differently 
in the Department of Energy. They are used to design, build and 
operate nuclear facilities, and the Department's concerns lie 
within safety and procurement standards. However, since the 
Act, standard issues are being shared, and there is a better 
coordination process between the international and national 
standard setting organizations. Mr. Black also claimed there 
has been a decline in participation from 1997-1999. 
Participants fell from 870 to 200. This was due to a decline in 
the budget. Furthermore, help from standards-setting 
organizations gets standards implemented faster, better and 
cheaper in the Federal Government.
    Mr. Gregory E. Saunders, Director, Defense Standardization 
Program Office, Defense Logistics Agency, stated the Department 
of Defense has implemented the intent of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. Mr. Saunders 
acknowledged Federal Government entities should participate and 
adopt voluntary standards. Since the Act has been signed into 
law in 1996, the DOD has adopted 7,400 voluntary standards. The 
DOD has also put in place a stringent system to review 
requirements for documents to determine whether a voluntary 
standard would be appropriate. Their main goal in implementing 
standards is to save taxpayer dollars, improve performance, 
quality, safety and reliability of products. Even so, the DOD 
has experienced a decline in participants in using voluntary 
standards. Much of the decline is due to the reduced numbers of 
technical personnel and reduction in the budget. In closing Mr. 
Saunders stressed that the DOD supports the Act and hope to 
continue its tradition of being at the forefront of standards 
development.

     4.5(ff)--The Changing Face of Healthcare in the Electronic Age


                             March 30, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-73


Background

    On March 30, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Changing Face of Healthcare in the 
Electronic Age.'' The purpose of this hearing was to examine 
the impact of emerging information technologies (IT) on the 
management, administration, and delivery of healthcare. The 
hearing also looked at the barriers to integrating IT into the 
healthcare industry as well as the role of the Federal 
Government in developing both standards and security measures 
that will assist the healthcare industry in implementing 
quality IT strategies.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology; Dr. Lewis 
Lorton, Administrator, Forum on Privacy and Security in 
Healthcare; Mr. Greg Hedges, Lead Partner, Technology Risk 
Consulting, Arthur Anderson, LLP; Mr. Jeff Hodge, Vice 
President, DataCert.Com.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as the Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, testified in 
1998, medical spending exceeded $1.1 trillion dollars, of 
which, 20 percent is spent on administrative processing. One 
initiative NIST has undertaken to evaluate information 
technology security is the development of the Common Criteria. 
This standard is the basis for specifying and testing the 
security features of a wide range of technologies. NIST is also 
developing public key cryptographic techniques to ensure 
confidentiality of patient information transmitted over the 
Internet, otherwise known as Public Key Infrastructure. Through 
their Advanced Technology Program (ATP), NIST has co-founded 32 
projects with about $140 million of ATP funding and $140 
million of private sector funding.
    Dr. Lewis Lorton, Administrator, for the Forum on Privacy 
and Security in Healthcare, stated the government has to help 
in securing the healthcare industry. He went on to add there 
are about 50,000 organizations in the healthcare industry and 
roughly fifteen million people who handle healthcare 
information. There are virtually no technology regulations and 
standards. He later added the public deserve assurance their 
information will be kept private. Since the industry is so 
diverse in size, this assurance has to be able to cover even 
the smallest of practices. Dr. Lorton recommends an independent 
certification process to ensure standards are set and met. He 
believes NIST and other agencies have the ability to provide 
this type of service. He believes the government will be able 
to save consumers millions of dollars while providing the 
security and privacy they deserve.
    Mr. Greg Hedges, Lead Partner, Technology Risk Consulting, 
Arthur Andersen, LLP, testified the trust of the American 
people is at stake as more and more organizations take on and 
use the Internet. He goes on to state health care providers 
must be accountable for the prescriptions they write and 
diagnoses they make. Standards must be made within the industry 
and definitions of what is acceptable must be made. Mr. Hedges 
also adds there must be trust between the two parties sharing 
information. He later claims that the bridge between standards 
and implementation must be filled in order to achieve security 
and confidentiality.
    Mr. Jeff Hodge, Vice President for Healthcare, 
DataCert.com, testified they are aware of the complexity 
involved in making information secure. Mr. Hodge contends even 
though passing important legislation is imperative, the 
government faces the challenge of enacting an administrator's 
health care privacy law to provide structure and guidance 
without hindering development and competition. He firmly 
believes the government should further Public Key 
Infrastructure (PKI) bridging approaches and implement it into 
a separate but connected encryption. PKI and PKI bridging would 
facilitate the free flow of information securely between 
disparate healthcare players. He goes on to state 
standardization is the most efficient and effective way to 
drive down control and the cost associated with technology. The 
government should support scaleable approaches to securing 
information and they should reject the use of proprietary 
technologies and application approaches.

                 4.5(gg)--Wireless Internet Technology


                             April 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-75


Background

    On April 13, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Wireless Internet Technology.'' This 
hearing examined the future of wireless Internet technologies. 
It was intended to provide background to members on wireless 
Internet technologies as they currently exist and will develop 
in the near future. Also, this hearing discussed the important 
role of standards in developing a wireless Internet.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs, CEO, QUALCOMM 
Inc.; Richard J. Lynch, Executive Vice President and Chief 
Technology Officer, Verizon Wireless; Timothy R. Graham, 
General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Member of Board 
of Directors, Winstar Communications, Inc.; Paul Fulton, Vice 
President and General Manager, Wireless Division, 3Com 
Corporation.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs, CEO, QUALCOMM Inc., testified the 
communications industry is growing rapidly. He estimates within 
the next two years there will be one billion mobile phone 
subscribers worldwide. Dr. Jacobs described how wireless phones 
will soon act as browsers and give access to the Internet. He 
adds that QUALCOMM has been active in creating CDMA, Codivision 
Multiple Access. This technology is used in 35 countries with 
50 million subscribers. CDMA will also be involved with the 
development of Third Generation Internet. Dr. Jacobs contends 
standards for Third Generation Internet have also been set and 
he referred to it as 1X Multicarrier (MC). MC uses the same 
bandwidth carrier as radio signals and QUALCOMM voice 
communications. 1X Multicarrier also supports higher data rates 
of up to 300 kilobits per second. Another development Qualcomm 
demonstrated through CDMA is 1X HDR, High Data Rate, which 
supports 2.4 megabits again on the same radio bandwidth. Dr. 
Jacobs asserts this technology will bring wireless Internet 
access to rural areas and other areas that do not have access. 
He stressed since this technology is all wireless, it can be 
installed quickly and at low cost. He showed a movie displaying 
how mobile wireless technology worked and the capabilities of 
CDMA.
    Mr. Richard J. Lynch, Executive Vice President and Chief 
Technology Officer, Verizon Wireless, stated the importance of 
harmonizing standards in wireless communications. Verizon has 
chosen to use CDMA technology and is implementing it into all 
of their new systems. Mr. Lynch added that Verizon currently 
sells CDMA data enabled phones, however they are focusing on 
providing a more efficient wireless Internet service that will 
provide 144-kilobit data rate. Verizon is conducting field 
trials with infrastructure vendors and will have commercial 
availability of 1XRTT in the first half of 2001. In addition, 
Verizon plans to market services that will provide 2-megabit 
data rate in 2001. Mr. Lynch cited the availability of both 
advanced technology and applications support as factors that 
are important in the success of the wireless Internet industry. 
Finally, Mr. Lynch stresses the importance of an available 
spectrum to run the high data speed technology. He urged 
Congress to recognize the need to eliminate spectrum caps and 
other restrictive ownership to allow wireless Internet to 
flourish.
    Mr. Timothy R. Graham, Executive Vice President and General 
Counsel, Winstar Communications, testified Winstar is the 
largest holder of fixed spectrum in the United States. Their 
company intent has been to build a facility based on broad band 
network from the ground up. The company is aimed at helping 
small and medium-sized companies connect to the Internet and 
broad band communications. Mr. Graham discussed how fixed 
wireless networks are set up and how they work. He later 
stressed the importance of having flexible policies in spectrum 
allocations and how flexibility encourages the development of 
wireless Internet. Winstar's greatest hurdle is gaining timely 
access to buildings where customers work. Mr. Graham adds that 
this supports the digital divide and creates a situation of the 
haves and have-nots.
    Mr. Paul Fulton, Vice President and General Manager, 3Com 
Corporation, Wireless Connectivity Division stated the 3Com 
Corporation is a global networking technology company with $6 
billion dollars in annual sales with 181 offices in 49 
countries. Mr. Fulton claims 3Com is a leading provider of 
wired equipment for computer networks. 3Com is currently 
creating a high-speed in-building wireless network. 3Com 
asserts this technology will allow consumers to inexpensively 
deploy flexible computer networks and provide connectivity 
without installation fees. The wireless LAN technology was made 
possible by standards set in the private sector. Mr. Fulton 
discussed the need to let industry set standards and for the 
FCC and other government agencies to be careful not to 
undermine the private standard setting process.

    4.5(hh)--The Love Bug Virus: Protecting Lovesick Computers from 
                            Malicious Attack


                              May 10, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-76


Background

    On May 10, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Love Bug Virus: Protecting Lovesick 
Computers from Malicious Attack.'' The hearing examined the 
features of the ``love bug'' computer virus, explored its 
impact on the Federal Government and the private sector, and 
examined possible solutions and preventative actions 
individuals and organizations should take to prevent emerging 
threats from impacting information technology systems and 
networks.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Rhodes, Technical Director, 
Office of the Chief Scientist, U.S. General Accounting Office; 
Mr. Harris Miller, President, Information Technology 
Association of America; Ms. Sandra England, Senior Vice 
President, McAfee--A Network Associates Company; Mr. Peter 
Tippett, Chief Technology Officer, ICSA.net.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Keith Rhodes, Technical Director, Office of the Chief 
Scientist, stated the world does not practice safe computing. 
He described how the ``I Love You'' virus worked. He noted 
there were fourteen variances of this virus, some of which were 
even more damaging than the Love Bug. The Love Bug hit many 
large corporations such as AT&T, TWA, Ford and the Washington 
Post, ABC News, British Parliament, the IMF and at least 
fourteen other U.S. Government agencies. These viruses are 
spreading faster due to the high dependency on our network 
systems. Mr. Rhodes claims there is no silver bullet that will 
stop the infection of viruses. Therefore, agencies inside and 
outside the government must increase awareness, ensure existing 
controls are operating effectively, ensure software patches are 
brought up to date, use automated scanning and testing tools to 
quickly identify problems and be sure common vulnerabilities 
are addressed.
    Mr. Harris Miller, President, testifying as Information 
Technology Association of America, testified cybercrimes are 
given less priority to other types of crime since there is no 
actual physical violence. This attitude must change, and the 
government agencies need to make information security a much 
higher priority. He stated information sharing is the key 
challenge. He is working to create an information-sharing 
mechanism with over 100 IT companies. ITAA will host the first 
global security summit in Washington, D.C. on October 16 and 
17. He hopes to establish that same type of international 
collaboration that existed with the Y2K bug. ITAA is also 
working with the Department of Justice on the Cybercitizen 
Partnership to help promote cyberethics. He closes by stating 
cybercrime must not become an accepted practice.
    Ms. Sandra England, Senior Vice President, McAfee--A 
Network Associates Company, testified the McAfee's Emergency 
response team, AVERT, immediately responded to the outbreak of 
the ``I Love You'' virus. They were able to dispense a cure 
within a couple hours of its first detection. She went on to 
add many viruses are detected on a daily basis. She cited last 
year alone there were $12 billion in damages due to various 
viruses. Ms. England claims even though viruses are attacking 
more frequently, not much is being done in the way of internal 
policies to respond to these new attacks. The actual cost from 
the viruses is hard to assess mainly since it is a loss of time 
and productivity. The anti-virus companies alone cannot combat 
this problem. Anti-virus software must be kept up to date, and 
signature files must be updated faithfully. She agreed more 
must be done to stop virus writers, and in turn stiffer 
punishments must be enacted.
    Mr. Peter Tippett, Chief Technology Officer, ICSA.net 
discussed the costs and risks associated with electronic, 
malicious code, privacy, down time, physical and human related 
factors. He described ICSA as a new breed of Internet company 
that provides security assurances services. Mr. Tippett states 
every product that ICSA certifies can detect, prevent, and 
recover from every virus that has ever been promulgated. 
However, after these products are installed into companies' 
systems they become only 30% effective. He suggests better 
education on how to use such software. He agreed with the other 
witnesses in stating stiffer laws must be invoked on those who 
choose to write these malicious codes. ICSA estimates that 65% 
of Northern American companies were infected as well as 133,000 
desk-tops. In addition, they estimated damages to be between 
$325,000- $950,000 million dollars.

 4.5(ii)--Technology Transfer Challenges and Partnerships: A Review of 
  the Department of Commerce's Biennial Report on Technology Transfer


                              May 23, 2000


                      Hearing Volume Number 106-77


Background

    On May 23, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Technology Transfer Challenges and 
Partnerships: A Review of the Department of Commerce's Biennial 
Report on Technology Transfer.'' The hearing discussed the 
effectiveness of our federal technology transfer laws and 
methods in which they may be improved.
    Witnesses included: Ms. Kelly Carnes, Assistant Secretary 
for Technology Policy, Technology Administration, Department of 
Commerce; Dr. Randolph Guschl, Director, Corporate Technology 
Transfer & Education, DuPont Company; Mrs. Shirley Arnowitz, 
Senior Vice President, BioSpace International.

Summary of hearing

    Ms. Kelly Carnes, testifying as Assistant Secretary for the 
Technology Policy, Department of Commerce, praised the 
Technology Subcommittee for its leadership and support in the 
area of federal technology transfer. She discussed the report 
``Technology Transfer 2000 Making Partnerships Work.'' Included 
in the report were: (1) claims tech transfer is a widely 
accepted practice of getting valuable information from federal 
laboratories; (2) technology transfer did not necessarily lead 
to an increase in the number of inventions; (3) licensing has 
become an increasingly important activity for laboratories; (4) 
income from the invention patent licenses by federal agencies 
has sharply increased. She added that looking at licensing 
revenue as a measure for success is a mistake. Furthermore, the 
number of partnerships some agencies have formed with industry 
has reached a saturation point. Some of the challenges facing 
technology transfer are companies are still having a difficult 
time finding the right federal laboratory. In addition, 
intellectual property management must become a top agency 
priority.
    Dr. Randolph Guschl, Director, Corporate Technology 
Transfer & Education, DuPont Company, claimed he was speaking 
on behalf of the Industrial Research Institute (IRI). He agreed 
with the report and thinks it appropriately reflects the 
overall success the legislation has created. He added 
manufacturing requirements need to be changed, and details 
surrounding indemnification and IT rights could be simplified. 
However, this effort must include the right people on both 
sides of the negotiations regarding technology transfer and IT 
rights.
    Mrs. Shirley Arnowitz, Senior Vice President, BioSpace 
International, testified BioSpace has been a National Institute 
of Standards and Technology industry partner in the CRADA 
program since March 1998. BioSpace was created in 1997 with 
funding from Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards 
from NASA, NIH and Investments from principals. She discussed 
her various partnerships with scientists from the NIST 
laboratories to help promote their, ``Dynamically Controlled 
Crystallization System (DCCS).'' Furthermore, in just two years 
DCCS has become ``cutting edge technology.'' BioSpace has since 
moved into a 2000 square foot building located in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland and has also hired a part-time crystallographer from 
NIH to help with their commercial development. Mrs. Arnowitz 
suggested small companies in biotechnology should take 
advantage of the CRADA program.

 4.5(jj)--E-Commerce: A Review of Standards and Technology to Support 
                            Interoperability


                             June 22, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-78


Background

    On June 22, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``E-Commerce: A Review of Standards and 
Technology to Support Interoperability.'' This hearing examined 
the impact of standards and emerging technologies that support 
electronic commerce.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD; Mr. Keith Krach, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of 
the Board, Ariba, Inc., Mountain View, CA; Mr. Ken Baker, 
President, ERIM, Ann Arbor, MI.

Summary of hearing

    Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, discussed NIST's role in e-commerce, 
which is to work closely with the private sector and to provide 
tools such as: measurements and standards for the hardware, 
software and networks that comprise the e-commerce 
infrastructure; direct hands-on assistance through MEP to U.S. 
small manufactures who need help to thrive in the e-commerce 
economy; and co-funding private sector research through the ATP 
to develop new technologies that will enable future advances in 
the e-commerce infrastructure. NIST is leading the global 
effort to develop the Advanced Encryption Standard, which will 
be used to ensure encrypted sensitive material cannot be 
decoded by anyone but the intended parties. They are also 
helping to develop Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) standards 
that ensure accurate identification of the parties in an 
Internet transaction. Dr. Brown stated NIST has proposed a FY 
2001 e-commerce initiative with three components: MEP E-
commerce outreach ($9 million plus $6 million reprogramming, 
totaling $15 million), Manufacturing Interoperability ($4 
million), and Wireless Technologies ($1 million).
    Mr. Keith Krach, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of 
the Board, Ariba Inc., stated business to business e-commerce 
spending is necessary spending, not discretionary. It enables 
small companies to leverage the Internet economy by giving them 
a chance to work with larger businesses that they might have 
never encountered. Furthermore, Mr. Krach believes that the 
Federal Government could support business to business e-
commerce by becoming a broad user of e-commerce and derive many 
of the same benefits from it that businesses do. In closing, 
Mr. Krach believes government's information technology spending 
should be directed towards implementing the infrastructure that 
will enable the government to participate in the business to 
business marketplace.
    Mr. Ken Baker, President, ERIM, testified the problem of 
interoperability in the U.S. industrial supply chain costs 
American automotive industry more than $1 billion each year. 
ERIM's center for Electronic Commerce has been working on 
interoperability issues for over 10 years. They have also 
worked with the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and 
NIST to conduct pilots to improve the quality and timeliness of 
data exchange among current automotive manufactures and their 
suppliers. Mr. Baker adds the industry lacks the third party 
leadership to reach common agreement on standards.

4.5(kk)--A Review of the Morella Commission Report: Recommendations to 
   Attract More Women and Minorities into Science, Engineering, And 
                               Technology


                             July 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-83


Background

    On July 13, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``A Review of the Morella Commission Report: 
Recommendations to Attract More Women and Minorities into 
Science, Engineering, and Technology.'' This hearing examined 
the importance of fostering a high-tech workforce capable of 
competing in the 21st century and to explore the factors 
contributing to the under-representation of women and 
minorities in the science, engineering, and technology 
disciplines. The hearing also reviewed the recommendations put 
forth by the Commission on the Advancement of Woman and 
Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development.
    Witnesses included: Colonel Eileen Collins, Commander STS-
93, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. Gail 
Naughton, Ph.D., President and Chief Operating Officer, 
Advanced Tissue Sciences; Ms. Elaine Mendoza, Chairwoman, 
Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in 
Science, Engineering, and Technology Development; Ms. Danica 
McKellar, Actress, Mathematics graduate from the University of 
California.

Summary of hearing

    Colonel Eileen Collins, Commander STS-93, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), stated NASA has 
significantly improved its Education Program. The programs 
reach out to elementary, secondary, and post-secondary 
communities in all 50 states. NASA programs include the 
Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Aerospace Academy (SEMAA), 
the Summer High School Apprentice Research Program (SHARP), and 
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's). 
NASA's SHARP program involves under-represented minority high 
school students in intensive research apprenticeships with 
scientists and engineers from NASA, in industry, and in 
universities. Colonel Collins added the SEMAA program serves 
over 2,000 K-12 students. The program's primary goal is to 
excite undeserved students in the areas of science, mathematics 
and technology.
    Dr. Gail Naughton, Ph.D., President and Chief Operating 
Officer, Advanced Tissue Sciences, testified training in the 
sciences and engineering is long, expensive, and difficult. 
Starting salaries in these fields for new Ph.D.s are low, 
particularly for women and minorities. Dr. Naughton urged the 
Subcommittee to support developing grants and scholarships to 
encourage women and minorities to pursue technology careers. 
She added that financially sponsored high school and college 
internships could help to expose students to science in both 
academic and industrial environments. Dr. Naughton reiterated 
that programs to raise awareness and encourage young scientists 
are key.
    Ms. Elaine Medoza, Chairwoman, Commission on the 
Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, 
and Technology Development, stated the Commission has conducted 
a comprehensive review of existing education and work force 
data, past reports, and current trends. The outcome of the 
Commission's efforts is a carefully selected set of action-
oriented recommendations which are designed to create a 
systematic change that is national in scope and structured for 
immediate implementation. She noted barriers exist today 
throughout the science, engineering and technology (SET) 
pipeline, from early education to higher education to the 
professional workforce, that limit the number of women, 
minorities and persons with disabilities seeking and retaining 
these jobs. In closing she discussed the Commission's 
recommendations to eliminate those barriers.
    Ms. Danica McKellar, actress, mathematics graduate from the 
University of California, testified the problems with under-
representation of women in SET fields boiled down to two 
fundamental issues: students are not prepared for SET careers, 
and students are not interested in SET careers. Ms. McKellar 
indicated there is a need to find qualified pre-college 
teachers. In addition, most students do not have any real 
concept of the options or opportunities available in SET 
careers.

4.5(ll)--The Role of Technical Standards in Today's Society and in the 
                                 Future


                           September 13, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-92


Background

    On September 13, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Role of Technical Standards in Today's 
Society and in the Future.'' This hearing reviewed several 
standards and standards policy issues, including the 
development of a national standards strategy, U.S. 
participation in international standards setting organizations 
and new standards challenges caused by the evolution and 
convergence of new information technologies.
    Witnesses included: The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD; Mr. Oliver R. Smoot, Jr., Board Member, American National 
Standards Institute, Washington, DC; Dr. Carl Cargill, 
Director--Corporate Standards Sun Microsystems. Inc., Palo 
Alto, CA; Dr. Martin C. Libicki, Senior Policy Analyst RAND, 
Arlington, VA.

Summary of hearing

    The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, stated for the time, government, 
industry, standards developers and other interested parties 
have come together under the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) to develop a National Standards Strategy. He 
estimated about 80 percent of global merchandise trade is 
affected by standards and regulations that embody standards. He 
added the Administration supports industry and government 
participation in ANSI's international activities to ensure that 
the U.S. interests are represented.
    Mr. Oliver R. Smoot, Jr., Board Member, American National 
Standards Institute, presented the ``National Standards 
Strategy for the United States.'' This program will strengthen 
U.S. participation in international standardization activities 
and provide a framework that can be used to address the new 
standards challenges of emerging technologies. Implementation 
of the Strategy will significantly enhance the competitiveness 
of the U.S. ANSI has administered and coordinated the voluntary 
standardization system in the U.S. for nearly 100 years. ANSI 
accredits standards developing organizations and designates 
American National Standards that provide dimensions, ratings, 
terminology and symbols, test methods performance and safety 
requirements. ANSI is the U.S. representative to the two major, 
nontreaty international voluntary standards organizations, the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
    Dr. Carl Cargill, Director--Corporate Standards Sun 
Microsystems. Inc., spoke about how standardization is a 
constantly evolving activity. The open source movement is the 
latest evolutionary activity in Information Technology 
standardization. The IT industry is investing heavily in 
standardization. Expenditures of both financial resources and 
people in consortia, alliances and Open Source initiatives 
continue to grow as the World Wide Web and the Internet expand. 
The IT industry is a multi-national activity in which formal 
national standards organizations are playing a less significant 
role. He claims the role of government in standardizations must 
be increased to address concerns that relate to the ``web-based 
standardization environment'' including those issues of 
monopoly, anti-trust and intellectual property. Proposed 
expanded role for NIST--to coordinate consortia to talk and 
meet one another.
    Dr. Martin C. Libicki, Senior Policy Analyst RAND, said 
today the ecology of standards development is less orderly but 
nevertheless robust and variegated. Research suggests standards 
ecology is healthy and is capable of handling the foreseeable 
next steps into e-commerce. He believes NIST should keep doing 
what it traditionally does, only more so and better. Suggested 
three roles: providing an expertly facilitated neutral meeting 
ground for the development of consensus, developing test 
methods by which standards and conformance to standards can be 
measured and act as a clearinghouse for standards development, 
particularly in the e-commerce arena.

   4.5(mm)--Rural Access to Technology: Connecting the Last American 
                                Frontier


                            October 5, 2000


                       Hearing Volume No. 106-104


Background

    On October 5, 2000 the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing entitled, ``Rural Access to Technology: Connecting the 
Last American Frontier.'' The hearing discussed existing 
information technology capabilities and services in rural 
United States communities. It also reviewed and showcased new 
technologies that could be deployed to help ensure access to 
information technology in these areas.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Garen Ewbank, Executive Director, 
The National Interconnect Cooperative, Oklahoma City, OK; Mr. 
Guy Christiansen, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Sky Bridge LP, 
Bethesda, MD; Mr. William Luke Stewart, Chairman and Chief 
Scientist, Media Fusion Corporation, Dallas, TX; Mr. David 
Freeman, Chief Operating Officer, ACE Communication Group, 
Houston, Minnesota.

Summary of hearing

    Mr. Garen Ewbank, Executive Director, The National 
Interconnect Cooperative, defines rural areas as locales and 
open country with less than 2,500 people. He believes there are 
six main factors that hinder bridging the digital divide. The 
six factors include: (1) regulation limits; (2) cost 
justification; (3) infrastructure build out; (4) technical 
expertise; (5) standard cost; and (6) change in responsibility. 
Mr. Ewbank urged Congress to look seriously at the benefits of 
new patented ideas and technologies, such as the Advanced Sub-
Carrier Modulations.
    Mr. Guy Christiansen, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Sky 
Bridge LP, testified in three years Sky Bridge will deploy a 
constellation of 80 low-earth orbit satellites with one goal to 
provide broadband access to areas that are either too remote or 
too expensive to reach using terrestrial technologies. They 
also estimate there will be over 400 million broadband users 
worldwide within the next four years. A quarter of those users 
will be in the United States and beyond the reach of 
terrestrial technology. They will have to rely on satellite 
technologies to fulfill their needs. Sky Bridge claims that not 
only are the problems of broadband access a problem in remote 
areas such as Alaska and Wyoming, but it effects areas within 
the New York- Washington corridor. Sky Bridge's business plan 
is based on an end user price of thirty dollars. This will 
include access to Internet at speeds of up to 20 megabits per 
second download and 2 megabits per second upload, as well as 
voice, videoconferencing and other data services.
    Mr. William Luke Stewart, Chairman and Chief Scientist, 
Media Fusion Corporation claims the Advanced Sub-Carrier 
Modulation, which uses the electrical power grid to allow the 
transmission of duplex streaming audio, video, and data, can 
operate in any home with an electrical outlet. Furthermore, he 
stated the powergrid represents the most pervasive connectivity 
on America and the entire world. Media Fusion uses the 
electromagnetic energy, which surrounds, and is a part of the 
AC power transmission to carry out their special type of 
microwave fluctuations. Encoded within these fluctuations are 
voice, video and data signals that are sent to electrical 
outlets everywhere. Mr. Stewart adds that Media Fusion is now 
preparing for the next phase of system integration and testing, 
which involves building new prototype transmission equipment.
    Mr. David Freeman, Chief Operating Officer, ACE 
Communication Group testified the costs of providing broadband 
services to rural areas are much higher than providing the 
service to the more urban areas of the country because of the 
following: (1) rural local exchange companies serve more 
geographically dispersed population; (2) rural local exchanges 
serve smaller exchanges; and (3) rural local exchange companies 
serve few customers overall and lack economies of scale. Ace 
Communication Group is a cooperative serving over 25,000 access 
lines with fourteen exchanges in Minnesota, ten in Iowa, and 
five in Michigan. Mr. Freeman urged Congress and the FCC to 
provide incentives. Furthermore, he asked for universal service 
support for broadband on a per line basis; investment tax 
credits for installing broadband services in the rural; 
assistance or tax credits for employees education and training 
for the new technology.


