[House Report 107-809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 510
107th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 107-809

                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                    


                                    

                            JANUARY 2, 2003

January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
 State of the Union and ordered to be printedthe following is 
                           for the spine deg.
           SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 510

107th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 107-
809

                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                   0 


                                    

                            JANUARY 2, 2003

January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

             HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                RALPH M. HALL, Texas, RMM*
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       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         SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
DAVE WELDON, Florida                 NICK LAMPSON, Texas
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota**           JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   MARK UDALL, Colorado
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,           DAVID WU, Oregon
    Washington                       ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GARY G. MILLER, California           JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JOE BACA, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         JIM MATHESON, Utah
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York       MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

              HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California         LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, RMM*
KEN CALVERT, California              JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,           DAVID WU, Oregon
    Washington                       JIM MATHESON, Utah
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               NICK LAMPSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MARK UDALL, Colorado
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania**         
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
                                 ------                                

         Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards

               HON. VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan, RMM*
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            ZOE LOFGREN, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan                 MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York**     JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania        JOE BACA, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         JIM MATHESON, Utah
(VACANCY)                               
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York      +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                                 ------                                

                        Subcommittee on Research

                  HON. NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, RMM*
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             STEVE ISRAEL, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
GARY G. MILLER, California           JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               JOE BACA, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois**       DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York       MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania           
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York      +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

              HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                BART GORDON, Tennessee, RMM*
JOE BARTON, Texas                    NICK LAMPSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California              JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DAVE WELDON, Florida**               ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,           BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
    Washington                       MARK UDALL, Colorado
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID WU, Oregon
GARY G. MILLER, California           ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma                 
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

* LRanking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and 
Subcommittee assignments.
** LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee 
assignments.
+ LThe Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-
officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right 
to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all 
matters before the Subcommittees.



                            C O N T E N T S

                         Summary of Activities
                          Committee on Science
                       107th Congress, 2001-2002

                                                                   Page
History of the Committee on Science..............................     1

Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science....    11
    1.1--P.L. 107-50, Small Business Technology Transfer Program 
      Reauthorizatiion Act of 2001 (H.R. 1860)...................    11
    1.2--P.L. 107-74, To prevent the elimination of certain 
      reports (H.R. 1042)........................................    12
    1.3--P.L. 107-107, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
      2002 (S. 1438).............................................    12
    1.4--P.L. 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
      2002 (H.R. 2646)...........................................    13
    1.5--P.L. 107-231, National Construction Safety Team Act 
      (H.R. 4687)................................................    16
    1.6--P.L. 107-252, Help America Vote Act of 2002 (H.R. 3295).    19
    1.7--P.L. 107-253, Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning 
      System Act of 2002 (H.R. 2486).............................    20
    1.8--P.L. 107-277, Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 (H.R. 
      2733)......................................................    22
    1.9--P.L. 107-296, Homeland Security Act of 2002 (H.R. 5005).    23
    1.10--P.L. 107-299, National Sea Grant College Program Act 
      Amendments of 2002 (H.R. 3389).............................    30
    1.11--P.L. 107-303, Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (H.R. 
      1070)......................................................    34
    1.12--P.L. 107-305, Cyber Security Research and Development 
      Act (H.R. 3394)............................................    36
    1.13--P.L. 107-314, National Defense Authorization Act of 
      2003 (H.R. 4546)...........................................    39
    1.14--P.L. 107-355, Pipeline Infrastructure Protection to 
      Enhance Security and Safety Act (H.R. 3609)................    41
    1.15--P.L. 107-368, National Science Foundation Authorization 
      Act of 2002--Investing in America's Future Act of 2002 
      (H.R. 4664)................................................    43

Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on 
  Science........................................................    48
    2.1--Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 (H.R. 4)...    48
    2.2--To provide for the establishment of the position of 
      Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the 
      Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes 
      (H.R. 64)..................................................    90
    2.3--National Science Education Act (H.R. 100)...............    92
    2.4--Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2001 (H.R. 524)..    94
    2.5--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2001 (H.R. 1259)...    94
    2.6--National Mathematics and Science Partnership Act (H.R. 
      1858)......................................................    96
    2.7--To authorize the National Science Foundation to 
      establish regional centers for the purpose of plant genome 
      and gene expression research and development and 
      international research partnerships for the advancement of 
      plant biotechnology in the developing world (H.R. 2051)....    99
    2.8--Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001 (H.R. 2275).....   102
    2.9--Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2002 (H.R. 2426).....   103
    2.10--Comprehensive Energy Research and Technology Act of 
      2001 (H.R. 2460)...........................................   104
    2.11--Comprehensive Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 
      Act of 2001 (H.R. 2478)....................................   104
    2.12--Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001 (H.R. 
      2587)......................................................   105
    2.13--Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 2983).   106
    2.14--Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and 
      Technology Education Improvement Act (H.R. 3130)...........   107
    2.15--Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development 
      Act (H.R. 3178)............................................   111
    2.16--Networking and Information Technology Research 
      Advancement Act (H.R. 3400)................................   111
    2.17--Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 
      (H.R. 3488)................................................   112
    2.18--Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and 
      Demonstration Act (H.R. 3929)..............................   113
    2.19--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act 
      (H.R. 4966)................................................   114
    2.20--Charles ``Pete'' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act (H.R. 
      5303)......................................................   116

Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the 
  Committee on Science...........................................   117
    3.1--H.Con.Res. 27, Honoring the National Institute of 
      Standards and Technology and its employees for 100 years of 
      service to the Nation......................................   117
    3.2--H.Con.Res. 108, Honoring the National Science Foundation 
      for 50 years of service to the Nation......................   117
    3.3--H.Con.Res. 157, Recognizing and honoring Joseph Henry 
      for his significant and distinguished role in the 
      development and advancement of science and electricity.....   117
    3.4--H.Con.Res. 387, Recognizing the American Society of 
      Civil Engineers for reaching its 150th Anniversary and for 
      the many vital contributions of civil engineers to the 
      quality of life of our nation's people including the 
      research and development projects that have led to the 
      physical infrastructure of modern America..................   118
    3.5--H.Con.Res. 476, Expressing support for the goals and 
      ideas of a day of tribute to all firefighters..............   118

Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
  Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee 
  Legislative Activities.........................................   119
    4.1--Committee on Science....................................   119
        4.1(a) February 28, 2001--The Nation's Energy Future: 
          Role of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.........   119
        4.1(b) March 7, 2001--K-12th Grade Math and Science 
          Education: The View From the Blackboard................   120
        4.1(c) March 14, 2001--Climate Change: The State of the 
          Science................................................   121
        4.1(d) April 4, 2001--Space Station Cost Overruns........   123
        4.1(e) April 25, 2001--Proposed R&D Budget for FY 2002...   124
        4.1(f) May 3, 2001--Acid Rain: The State of the Science 
          and Research Needs for the Future......................   125
        4.1(g) May 22, 2001--Improving Voting Technologies: The 
          Role of Standards......................................   127
        4.1(h) May 23, 2001--National Energy Policy--Report of 
          the National Energy Policy Development Group...........   129
        4.1(i) June 21, 2001--National Energy Policy--Report of 
          the National Energy Policy Development Group--
          Administration View....................................   130
        4.1(j) October 10, 2001--Cyber Security--How Can We 
          Protect American Computer Networks From Attack?........   130
        4.1(k) October 17, 2001--Cyber Terrorism: A View From The 
          Gilmore Commission.....................................   131
        4.1(l) November 7, 2001--The Space Station Task Force 
          Report.................................................   132
        4.1(m) November 8, 2001--The Decontamination of Anthrax 
          and Other Biological Agents............................   133
        4.1(n) November 14, 2001--H.R. 3178 and the Development 
          of Anti-Terrorism Tools for Water Infrastructure.......   136
        4.1(o) December 5, 2001--Science of Bioterrorism: Is the 
          Federal Government Prepared?...........................   140
        4.1(p) February 7, 2002--The Future of DOE's Automotive 
          Research Programs......................................   143
        4.1(q) February 13, 2002--The R&D Budget for Fiscal Year 
          2003: An Evaluation....................................   145
        4.1(r) February 27, 2002--NASA's FY 2003 Budget Request..   148
        4.1(s) March 6, 2002--Learning From 9/11--Understanding 
          the Collapse of the World Trade Center.................   149
        4.1(t) March 20, 2002--The 2001 Presidential Awardees for 
          Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching: Views 
          From the Blackboard....................................   153
        4.1(u) April 17, 2002--New Directions for Climate 
          Research and Technology Initiatives....................   155
        4.1(v) May 1, 2002--The Investigation of the World Trade 
          Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next 
          Steps..................................................   157
        4.1(w) May 8, 2002--Health Effects of Particulate Air 
          Pollution: What Does the Science Say?..................   161
        4.1(x) June 3, 2002--Drought Prediction, Preparation, and 
          Response...............................................   163
        4.1(y) June 24, 2002--Homeland Security: The Federal and 
          New York Response......................................   164
        4.1(z) June 25, 2002--Science and Technology to Combat 
          Terrorism..............................................   169
        4.1(aa) June 27, 2002--Creating a Department of Homeland 
          Security...............................................   174
        4.1(bb) July 10, 2002--The Administration's Climate 
          Change Initiative......................................   178
        4.1(cc) September 24, 2002--``The State of the Nation's 
          Ecosystem,'' The Heinz Center Report and Its 
          Implications...........................................   180
        4.1(dd) October 2, 2002--Meeting the Needs of the Fire 
          Services: H.R. 3992 and H.R. 4548......................   182
        4.1(ee) October 10, 2002--Conducting Research During the 
          War on Terrorism: Balancing Openness and Security......   185

    4.2--Subcommittee on Energy..................................   188
        4.2(a) March 22, 2001--H.R. 723: Civil Penalties for 
          Nuclear Safety Violations by Nonprofit Department of 
          Energy Contractors Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.   188
        4.2(b) April 26, 2001--Department of Energy Fiscal Year 
          2002 Budget Request....................................   189
        4.2(c) May 3, 2001--Energy Realities: Rates of 
          Consumption, Energy Reserves, and Future Options.......   191
        4.2(d) May 17, 2001--Department of Energy Office of 
          Science--Issues and Opportunities......................   192
        4.2(e) May 24, 2001--Energy Conservation Potential of 
          Extended and Double Daylight Saving Time...............   193
        4.2(f) June 12, 2001--President's National Energy Policy: 
          Clean Coal Technology and Oil and Gas R&D..............   194
        4.2(g) June 14, 2001--President's National Energy Policy: 
          Hydrogen and Nuclear Energy R&D Legislation............   195
        4.2(h) November 1, 2001--U.S. Energy Security: Options to 
          Decrease Petroleum Use in the Transportation Sector....   197
        4.2(i) February 21, 2002--The Renewable Roadmap to Energy 
          Independence...........................................   198
        4.2(j) March 13, 2002--H.R. 3929, Energy Pipeline 
          Research, Development, and Demonstration Act...........   199
        4.2(k) June 24, 2002--Fuel Cells: The Key to Energy 
          Independence?..........................................   201
        4.2(l) June 26, 2002--FreedomCAR: Getting New Technology 
          into the Marketplace...................................   202
        4.2(m) July 25, 2002--Future Direction for the Department 
          of Energy's Office of Science..........................   205

    4.3--Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards..   207
        4.3(a) March 29, 2001--H.R. 64: A Proposal to Strengthen 
          Science at the Environmental Protection Agency.........   207
        4.3(b) May 9, 2001--NOAA's FY 2002 Budget: Predicting 
          Weather and Climate....................................   208
        4.3(c) May 17, 2001--Science and Technology at the 
          Environmental Protection Agency: The FY 2002 Budget 
          Request................................................   211
        4.3(d) June 14, 2001--The Future of the Advanced 
          Technology Program.....................................   213
        4.3(e) June 28, 2001--Standards-Setting and United States 
          Competitiveness........................................   215
        4.3(f) July 12, 2001--Ocean Exploration and Coastal and 
          Ocean Observing Systems (Joint Hearing with the 
          Subcommittee on Research and the Subcommittee on 
          Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee 
          on Resources)..........................................   217
        4.3(g) July 26, 2001--Combating the Invaders: Research on 
          Non-Native Species.....................................   222
        4.3(h) October 4, 2001--Arsenic in Drinking Water: An 
          Update on the Science, Benefits and Cost...............   225
        4.3(i) October 11, 2001--Weatherproofing the U.S.: Are We 
          Prepared for Severe Storms?............................   229
        4.3(j) February 28, 2002--Sea Grant: Review and 
          Reauthorization........................................   232
        4.3(k) March 14, 2002--Technology Administration: Review 
          and Reauthorization....................................   234
        4.3(l) April 23, 2002--Science and Technology Programs at 
          the Environmental Protection Agency: The FY 2003 Budget 
          Request................................................   237
        4.3(m) June 10, 2002--Homeland Security: The Federal and 
          Regional Response......................................   239
        4.3(n) June 20, 2002--Research Priorities for Aquatic 
          Invasive Species.......................................   241
        4.3(o) June 22, 2002--Environmental Contributors to 
          Breast Cancer: What Does the Science Say?..............   243
        4.3(p) June 24, 2002--Workforce Training in a Time of 
          Technological Change...................................   245
        4.3(q) July 24, 2002--Satellite Data Management at NOAA..   247
        4.3(r) November 14, 2002--Joint Hearing on H.R. 5395, 
          Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, and H.R. 5396, 
          National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002..........   249

    4.4--Subcommittee on Research................................   253
        4.4(a) March 21, 2001--Life in the Subduction Zone: The 
          Recent Nisqually Quake and the Federal Efforts to 
          Reduce Earthquake Hazards..............................   253
        4.4(b) May 2, 2001--Improving Math and Science Education 
          So That No Child Is Left Behind........................   256
        4.4(c) May 10, 2001--Classrooms as Laboratories: The 
          Science of Learning Meets the Practice of Teaching.....   259
        4.4(d) June 6, 2001--NSF FY02 Budget Request: Research 
          and Related Activities.................................   261
        4.4(e) June 26, 2001--Reinventing the Internet: Promoting 
          Innovation in IT.......................................   263
        4.4(f) July 12, 2001--Ocean Exploration and Coastal and 
          Ocean Observing Systems (Joint Hearing with the 
          Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, 
          and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 
          Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources)...........   265
        4.4(g) July 31, 2001--Innovation in Information 
          Technology: Beyond Faster Computers and Higher 
          Bandwidth..............................................   270
        4.4(h) September 6, 2001--NSF's Major Research 
          Facilities: Planning and Management Issues.............   273
        4.4(i) September 25, 2001--Strengthening NSF Sponsored 
          Agricultural Biotechnology Research: H.R. 2051 and H.R. 
          2912...................................................   275
        4.4(j) March 7, 2002--Meeting the Demands of the 
          Knowledge Based Economy: Strengthening Undergraduate 
          Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education........   278
        4.4(k) March 13, 2002--The NSF Budget: How Should We 
          Determine Future Levels?...............................   282
        4.4(l) April 22, 2002--Preparing a 21st Century 
          Workforce: Strengthening and Improving K-12 and 
          Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering Education.   285
        4.4(m) May 6, 2002--Preparing First Responders: A Review 
          of the U.S. Fire Administration Assistance to 
          Firefighters Grant Program and Post-9/11 Challenges for 
          Firefighters and Emergency Responders..................   288
        4.4(n) May 9, 2002--H.R. 4664, The National Science 
          Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2002.................   290

    4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics...................   293
        4.5(a) April 3, 2001--Vision 2001: Future Space..........   293
        4.5(b) May 2, 2001--NASA Posture.........................   294
        4.5(c) May 9, 2001--A Review of Vertical Takeoff and 
          Landing Technology in the National Airspace System.....   294
        4.5(d) May 15, 2001--The Aerospace Industrial Base.......   295
        4.5(e) June 20, 2001--Space Launch Initiative: A Program 
          Review.................................................   296
        4.5(f) June 26, 2001--Space Tourism......................   297
        4.5(g) July 12, 2001--Life in the Universe...............   298
        4.5(h) July 19, 2001--Developing the Next Generation Air 
          Traffic Management System..............................   299
        4.5(i) October 11, 2001--Space Planes and X-Vehicles.....   300
        4.5(j) March 7, 2002--A Review of Civil Aeronautics 
          Research and Development...............................   301
        4.5(k) April 18, 2002--Space Shuttle and Space Launch 
          Initiative.............................................   302
        4.5(l) May 9, 2002--NASA's Science Priorities............   304
        4.5(m) May 20, 2002--How Space Technology and Data Can 
          Help Meet State and Local Needs........................   305
        4.5(n) July 18, 2002--NASA Workforce and Management 
          Challenges.............................................   306
        4.5(o) October 3, 2002--The Threat of Near-Earth 
          Asteroids..............................................   307

                                Appendix

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2002......   312

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2003......   330

List of Publications of the Committee on Science (107th Congress)   343


                                                 Union Calendar No. 510
107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-809

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

 
              SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                               __________

January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               __________

              Mr. Boehlert, 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 (NASA) 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\1\, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Council, and the National Science Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Now named the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) (P.L. 100-418, Title V, Part B, Subpart A, Sections 5111 through 
5163, enacted August 23, 1988.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 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 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 nine very talented and distinctly 
different chairmen, each very creative in his own way in 
directing the Committee's activities.
    Representative 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 
Representative 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, Representative 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 assuming 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 and 
was succeeded as chairman by Representative Don Fuqua of 
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 
        Ranking Minority Member Robert Roe, 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.
    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 research 
programs for renewable and alternative energy sources, a 
national hydrogen research and development program was 
established. The mission of the program was to foster the 
economic production of hydrogen from renewable resources to 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.
    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 and 
he tenaciously stuck to those 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 as the starting point for a comprehensive 
review and revision of federal science policy currently in the 
planning stage.
    The 1994 congressional elections turned over control of the 
Congress to the Republican Party. The House Republican 
Conference acted to change the official name of the Committee 
from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to the 
Committee on Science. Representative 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 its ranking minority 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 the 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 another change in 
leadership to the Committee. Representative F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican from Wisconsin, became the 
eighth chairman after Chairman Walker retired from Congress. 
Sensenbrenner had been a Member of the Committee since 1981 and 
prior to his appointment as Committee head, he served as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
    At the start of the 105th Congress, the Speaker of the 
House charged the Science Committee with the task of developing 
a long-range science and technology policy. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner appointed the Committee's vice chairman, 
Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, to lead a study of 
the current state of the Nation's science and technology 
policy. The National Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our 
Future: Toward A New National Science Policy, was unveiled in 
September 1998 and was endorsed by the House on Oct. 8, 1998. 
The Science Policy Study continues to serve as a policy guide 
to the Committee, Congress and the scientific community.
    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 (December, 1997), Buenos Aires 
(November, 1998), and The Hague (November, 2000) global warming 
conferences. Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership, the 
Committee examined the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol 
and the economic impacts the treaty could have on the Nation.
    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 
Representative Constance Morella of Maryland, 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. 
Thankfully, the U.S. and the world experienced very minor 
problems associated with the Y2K rollover.
    Over many years, and during the tenure of several chairmen, 
the Science Committee closely monitored development of the 
International Space Station. In October of 2000, a crew of 
American and Russian astronauts became the first inhabitants of 
the space station.
    One of Chairman Sensenbrenner's priorities was to achieve a 
steady and sustained growth in Federal R&D investments. During 
his tenure, funding for civilian Federal R&D increased by 39 
percent. Funding for the National Science Foundation increased 
23 percent, including its highest ever appropriation in FY 
2001.
    The start of the 107th Congress brought another change in 
the Committee's leadership. Representative Sensenbrenner was 
elected Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and on January 3, 
2001, Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert from New York's 23rd 
Congressional District became the new chairman of the Committee 
on Science.
    Boehlert had served on the Science Committee since first 
taking office in 1983 and had earned a reputation for 
independence, moderation and thoughtful leadership. In his 
first speech as chairman, Boehlert pledged to ``build the 
Science Committee into a significant force within the 
Congress,'' and ``to ensure that we have a healthy, 
sustainable, and productive R&D establishment--one that 
educates students, increases human knowledge, strengthens U.S. 
competitiveness and contributes to the well-being of the Nation 
and the world.''
    With those goals in mind, Boehlert laid out three 
priorities for the Committee--the Three E's: science and math 
education, energy policy and the environment--three areas in 
which Boehlert believed the resources and expertise of the 
scientific enterprise could be brought to bear on issues of 
national significance. Under Boehlert's leadership, the 
Committee succeeded in getting important legislation on these 
and other priority areas signed into law.
    Boehlert also reorganized the Subcommittees to reflect 
these new priorities. The four Subcommittees became Research; 
Energy; Environment, Technology, and Standards; and Space and 
Aeronautics.
    In the energy realm, the Committee unanimously approved the 
research and development portions of the House-passed Energy 
bill (H.R. 4). Committee provisions were designed to reduce 
U.S. dependence on foreign oil by investing in energy 
efficiency, renewable energy technologies, improved nuclear 
energy technologies, and new fossil fuel technologies, 
including clean coal.
    On education, the Committee saw its major initiatives in 
both K-12 and undergraduate education signed into law as part 
of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 
of 2002. Among the education initiatives were the Committee's 
version of President George W. Bush's proposal to establish 
National Mathematics and Science Partnerships that will put our 
nation's universities and businesses to work to help improve 
science and math education.
    On the environment, the Committee passed legislation 
strengthening science at the Environmental Protection Agency 
and brought attention to the science behind several 
controversial issues, including arsenic in drinking water, 
particulate air pollution and global climate change.
    After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, 
terrorism moved to the forefront of the Committee's agenda. 
Heeding Chairman Boehlert's admonition that ``the war on 
terrorism will be won in the laboratory as much as on the 
battlefield,'' the Science Committee worked to ensure that the 
Federal Government was investing in the science and technology 
necessary to combat terrorism over the long-term.
    The Committee first turned its attention to cyberterrorism. 
Boehlert's legislation to address these challenges had broad 
bipartisan support in Congress, and on November 27, 2002, the 
Cyber Security Research and Development Act was signed into 
law.
    Under Boehlert's leadership, the Committee also took the 
lead in responding to the concerns of family members of 
September 11th victims, regarding the investigation into the 
collapse of the World Trade Center. After two high-profile 
hearings into the matter, the Committee introduced legislation 
to enable the government to respond more quickly to building 
failures and to overcome the problems that plagued the World 
Trade Center investigation. Signed into law on October 1, 2002, 
the legislation gives the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology jurisdiction over all future building failure 
investigations and the requisite authority to conduct such 
investigations unimpeded.
    The Committee also played a key role in the development of 
legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, 
and led the push to make science and technology a priority in 
the new department. Committee proposals creating an Under 
Secretary in charge of science and technology, and a Homeland 
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency were included in the 
final legislation, signed into law on November 22, 2002.
    The Committee also held hearings on how to strike the 
proper balance between the need for openness to conduct 
research successfully and the need for secrecy to protect 
homeland security.
    Finally, continuing the six-decade commitment of the 
Science Committee ``to maintain American preeminence in science 
and technology,'' the Committee successfully enacted 
legislation that sets the National Science Foundation (NSF) on 
a path to doubling its budget over five years. Chairman 
Boehlert and Subcommittee on Research Chairman Nick Smith of 
Michigan led the bipartisan, bicameral effort to ensure that 
future generations will continue to reap the benefits of NSF's 
invaluable basic research.

   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 Nation's Energy Future: Role of Renewable Energy and 
                           Energy Efficiency

                           February 28, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-24

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to address three questions: 
(1) What are the current and projected near- and mid-term 
contributions of renewable energy and energy efficiency to the 
Nation's energy mix? (2) Have renewable energy and energy 
efficiency initiatives performed as expected, and if not, why 
not? (3) What programs and/or policies are needed to ensure 
that renewable energy and energy efficiency achieve their 
potential?
    The witness panel included: (1) Ms. Mary J. Hutzler, 
Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy 
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. 
John P. Holdren, Harvard University, Chair, President's 
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Energy 
Research and Development Panel; (3) Mr. Kenneth K. Humphreys, 
Senior Staff Engineer, Energy, Science and Technology Division, 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; and (4) Mr. Joel 
Darmstadter, Senior Fellow, Energy and Natural Resources 
Division, Resources for the Future.
Summary of Hearing
    Ms. Hutzler testified that EIA's twenty-year forecasts 
project continued increases in energy efficiency and in the use 
of renewable resources, whose market penetration is slowed by 
the competitive low cost of fossil fuels and related 
technologies. Many cases were examined, and the historical 
record proves that increased oil prices lead to reduced 
consumption. Mr. Humphreys testified that 50 to 100 year 
planning horizons are required to determine which large-scale 
technologies should be implemented, and that his forecasts show 
40 percent of U.S. energy use being supplied by renewable 
energy sources by 2100, assuming a carbon-constrained economy 
and a doubling of overall energy use, even providing for large 
efficiency increases. Professor Holdren testified that the 
country faces challenges of imported oil dependence, air 
pollution and greenhouse effect that require private market and 
public policy actions to greatly increase energy efficiency and 
renewable energy use. He estimated that the recommended actions 
could be funded by two cents per gallon from the federal 
gasoline tax. Professor Holdren stated that increased 
efficiency standards and a carbon tax are needed. Mr. 
Darmstader testified that the percentage of electric power 
generated by renewable energy sources is expected to increase 
but to remain low in the next several decades. The cost of 
electric power from renewable energy has decreased more than 
expected in the past 30 years due to technological improvement, 
but so has the cost of the competing energy from conventional 
sources, forestalling greater market penetration by renewables.

     4.1(b)_K-12th Grade Math and Science Education: The View From 
                             the Blackboard

                             March 7, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-3

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to get teachers' 
perspectives on how the Federal Government can help improve K-
12th grade science and math education. Four teachers 
representing elementary, middle, and secondary math and science 
educators testified before the Committee. Three members of the 
panel received the 2000 Presidential Award for Excellence in 
Science and Mathematics Teaching, and the fourth was a 
volunteer for Teach for America, a national ``teacher corps'' 
that places recent college graduates into K-12th grade teaching 
positions.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Ms. Julia Anne Lewis, an 
elementary mathematics teacher at the Academy School in 
Brattleboro, Vermont; (2) Mr. Jonathan Brenner, a former middle 
school science teacher at the Eleanor Roosevelt Intermediate 
School 143 in Washington Heights, New York; (3) Ms. Felicity 
Messner Ross, a secondary mathematics teacher at Robert Poole 
Middle School in Baltimore, Maryland; and (4) Mr. Michael 
Stephen Lampert, a secondary science teacher at South Salem 
High School in Salem, Oregon who is also a Presidential 
Awardee.
Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting the extent 
to which progress depends on an informed and intellectually 
curious citizenry, and the common link of education in helping 
create this type of society. He stated that people in 
Washington spend a lot of time talking about teachers, but not 
enough time talking to them, and that the purpose of the 
hearing was to begin to correct that imbalance. The Chairman 
also noted that he intended to make this hearing an annual 
event.
    Ms. Lewis discussed ways to assess children and noted that:

         Spending a year out of the classroom to 
        provide staff development helped tie together different 
        parts of her career.

         Knowing how to reach every child means 
        working with families, extra assignments, networking, 
        and perseverance.

         Federal funding provides wonderful 
        opportunities for both students and teachers.

         Students benefit from the programs that 
        teachers take part in.

    Mr. Brenner stated that the following must be done in order 
to put quality people in schools:

         A systemic review of the quality of education 
        programs.

         Financial incentives offered to educators 
        willing to teach in under served areas.

         Provide science teachers with the appropriate 
        tools to teach.

         Fostering the development of partnerships 
        between universities and local schools.

    Ms. Ross noted that external funding sources increase 
teacher performance in the classroom and said that:

         Many inner city teachers felt overwhelmed 
        with demands and exceptional students may fall through 
        the cracks.

         Teachers must be flexible, know their 
        students, and be dedicated to being a life-long 
        learner.

         Teachers can use their experiences to train 
        others.

         The Federal Government should support 
        mentoring and professional development opportunities 
        for math and science teachers.

    Mr. Lampert stated that school children should have math 
and science role models and noted that:

         Teaching affects many people's lives.

         The Federal Government needs to keep funding 
        the National Science Foundation and the National 
        Science Bowl program.

         Support for the Eisenhower program, which 
        provides professional development for science teachers, 
        should continue.

         Support programs that intervene directly with 
        classrooms and students.

            4.1(c)_Climate Change: The State of the Science

                             March 14, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-13

Background
    The federal climate change research program has been the 
recipient of much scrutiny lately as the Administration moves 
to formulate its policy on dealing with the threat posed by 
climate change. The Committee is contemplating reauthorizing 
the 10-year-old U.S. Global Change Research Program and this 
hearing was held to help the Committee assess whether it needs 
to be restructured and/or redirected and whether its funding is 
adequate. The hearing examined: (1) the state of our 
understanding of climate science, (2) the gaps in our 
understanding that limit our ability to detect, attribute, and 
predict climate change, and (3) the adequacy of the Federal 
Government's approach to filling these gaps.
    The Committee heard from three witnesses: (1) Dr. Daniel L. 
Albritton, Director, Aeronomy Lab, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Berrian Moore, Director, 
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University 
of New Hampshire; and, (3) Dr. Charles Kennel, Director, 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Albritton, who helped write the recent 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, testified 
that:

         Science holds with very high certainty that 
        there is a greenhouse effect due to water vapor, 
        CO2, and methane keeping our planet warmer 
        than it otherwise would be, and that the concentration 
        of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. 
        The causes of the increase in greenhouse gases are 
        largely human in origin. Over the industrial era the 
        concentration of CO2 has increased about 30 
        percent and that of methane has doubled. The question 
        for science to answer about climate change is whether 
        our changes to the concentration of these gases are 
        altering the greenhouse effect.

         Global temperatures have increased about 0.4 
        to 0.8 degrees centigrade (0.7 to 11/2 degrees 
        Fahrenheit) over the last century. This conclusion is 
        drawn from surface temperature readings in the northern 
        hemisphere, ice cores, corals, tree rings and other 
        historical measurements.

         There is new and stronger evidence that most 
        of the observed warming over the past 50 years is due 
        to human activities. Climate models cannot reproduce 
        the temperature record of the past 100 years based on 
        the current understanding of natural variability alone. 
        Only when the increase in greenhouse gases are included 
        do the models match the temperature record closely.

         A continued increase in greenhouse gases is 
        projected, although with some degree of uncertainty, to 
        lead to very significant increases in global 
        temperatures and global sea level, based on a range of 
        plausible future scenarios of economics, technology, 
        and population growth.

         If the climate is affected by the increasing 
        concentrations of greenhouse gases, the extremely long 
        half-life of those gases in the atmosphere and the 
        extremely large heat capacity of the world's oceans 
        will prevent any hope of quick recovery.

    Dr. Moore outlined the key scientific challenges in order 
to better understand the nature of climate and climate change:

         We must halt and reverse the decline in our 
        observational systems throughout the world, especially 
        in the developing world and we must expand the kinds of 
        climate-related data collected, for example by 
        monitoring carbon dioxide in the oceans, from space and 
        in the atmosphere.

         We understand better how different gases trap 
        or reflect heat.

         We must unlock the secrets of how clouds, ice 
        and snow affect the climate.

         We must better understand the natural 
        variability and probabilistic nature of the earth's 
        climate.

         We must improve the computer resources 
        available to climate researchers.

         We must better understand climate and climate 
        change at the regional scale, linking climate to its 
        effects on human activities.

         We must improve international cooperation 
        because climate change is a global problem.

    Dr. Kennel advocated the creation of an environmental 
information system that integrates the physical and social 
sciences and relevant information for the public and private 
sectors.

         While scientists now study climate mostly at 
        the global scale, if we are to put the science to use 
        we must endeavor to focus on smaller scales, first at 
        the continental level, then the national and finally 
        the regional.

         We must also have a firm understanding of how 
        the various ecosystems on the land function.

         Finally, we must link regional climate models 
        with ecosystem function to form a comprehensive 
        environmental information system.

    Creation of this system will require a high-level 
governmental authority to ensure the focused dedication of 
resources and to foster interagency cooperation.

                   4.1(d)_Space Station Cost Overruns

                             April 4, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-8

Background
    The hearing reviewed NASA's management of the Space Station 
program, the status and underlying causes of recent cost 
growth, risks associated with increased reliance on 
international partners, the re-prioritization of planned 
science, and actions NASA is taking to address these issues.
    The hearing consisted of two panels of witnesses. The first 
panel included: (1) Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist, Aerospace and 
Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service; (2) 
Mr. Robert J. Polutchko, Member, Cost Assessment and Validation 
(CAV) Task Force; and (3) Mr. Russell A. Rau, Assistant 
Inspector General for Audits, NASA. The second panel included 
Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of Hearing
    Ms. Smith provided testimony on the history of the Space 
Station program since its inception, including a history of 
cost growth and program delays.
    Mr. Polutchko provided testimony on the findings and 
recommendations of the 1998 Cost Assessment and Validation 
(CAV) Task Force; his assessment of the current cost overrun in 
light of the recommendations of the CAV Task Force; and 
recommendations to minimize the probability of further 
unforeseen cost growth. Mr. Polutchko concluded that NASA must 
take a fresh look at conservative planning and that the program 
will require significant additional funding to fully realize 
its potential as a research laboratory.
    Mr. Rau provided testimony on the overall management and 
adequacy of cost and schedule reporting on the Space Station 
program; NASA's management of Space Station contracts; and the 
adequacy of NASA's independent review process and cost 
estimating capabilities. Mr. Rau concluded that NASA must 
strengthen its program management practices and improve its 
oversight of contracts.
    Mr. Goldin provided testimony on the current status and 
cost growth on the Space Station program; the underlying causes 
of the cost growth; and the steps NASA is taking to control 
cost growth and schedule slippage, manage risks associated with 
increased reliance on international partners, and address the 
re-prioritization of planned science. Mr. Goldin highlighted 
the extraordinary technical accomplishments of the Space 
Station program and provided an overview of actions the agency 
is taking to address cost control and management problems. 
Specifically, he testified to actions to improve cost 
estimating quality, management reporting, and the increase in 
use of civil servants while examining options with the 
International Partners.

                 4.1(e)_Proposed R&D Budget for FY 2002

                             April 25, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-14

Background
    The hearing was held to consider President Bush's budget 
request for research and development. Four witnesses reviewed 
their agencies' budget requests in the context of the 
Administration's overall priorities in science and technology. 
In addition, the witnesses described the mechanisms that 
agencies use to determine priorities across scientific 
disciplines and the mechanisms that are used to coordinate 
scientific research and technical development activities with 
other federal agencies.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) The Honorable Dan 
Goldin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; (2) The Honorable Rita Colwell, Director, 
National Science Foundation; (3) The Honorable James Decker, 
Acting Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and 
(4) The Honorable Scott Gudes, Acting Administrator, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Goldin praised the President's proposed funding level 
of $14.5 billion, a two percent increase over FY01. He said 
that it contained a disciplined budget plan for Space Station 
development and operation including management reform and 
budget restructuring. In addition, the budget would advance the 
privatization of Space Shuttle activities, create a more robust 
Mars Exploration Program and increase funding for a second 
generation Earth Observing System. Science and technology 
funding would make up 42 percent of NASA's overall funding.
    Dr. Colwell stated that NSF requested $4.47 billion, which 
is $56 million more than last year. Highlights include: the 
Math and Science Partnerships, a $200 million initiative which 
will join states and local school districts with institutions 
of higher learning; $8 million to increase the stipends in its 
graduate research fellowships; and $20 million for the 
Interdisciplinary Mathematics Research Program. Four areas of 
emerging opportunity are also emphasized--biocomplexity in the 
environment, information technology, nanoscale science and 
engineering, and learning for the 21st century.
    Dr. Decker described their $3.16 billion request to support 
the basic research that underpins the science, energy, 
environment and national security missions of the DOE. He 
addressed how the DOE determines priorities across scientific 
disciplines, how they coordinate their scientific research with 
that of other federal agencies, and he gave some examples of 
promising areas of research in their budget request (including 
Genomes to Life, Physics of the Standard Model and beyond, and 
Nanoscale Science).
    Mr. Gudes described NOAA's budget request of $3.152 
billion, a decrease of $61 million from current levels. The 
primary focus of the budget is investing in people ($60 
million) and infrastructure. Other important programs included 
Severe Weather Forecasts, U.S. Weather Research Program, the 
national Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, climate 
forecasting and ocean exploration.

     4.1(f)_Acid Rain: The State of the Science and Research Needs 
                             for the Future

                              May 3, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-5

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the progress that 
has been made in the reduction of acid rain and its harmful 
effects on the environment, as well as to identify the problems 
that still persist today. The Committee heard testimony 
regarding what types of research and monitoring networks were 
necessary to preventing the harmful effects of air pollution.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Charles Driscoll, 
University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at 
Syracuse University; (2) Dr. Ellis Cowling, University 
Distinguished Professor at Large at North Carolina State 
University; (3) Dr. Jill Baron, Research Ecologist of the 
Biological Research Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and 
Senior Research Ecologist at the National Resources Ecology 
Laboratory at Colorado State University; (4) Dr. Jerry Keeler, 
Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at 
the University of Michigan.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Driscoll summarized the research of the past decade 
documenting the damage acid rain has caused to sensitive 
ecosystems like those that occur throughout the Northeast. He 
noted that:

         Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides strip 
        critical nutrients like calcium and magnesium from the 
        soil, which can make trees vulnerable to frost.

         In sensitive ecosystems, such as those in the 
        Adirondack Mountains of New York, recovery has been 
        slow or non-existent. More extensive control efforts 
        are necessary if those ecosystems are to recover within 
        our lifetimes.

         Human exposure to mercury primarily comes 
        from eating fish; mercury bioconcentrates up to ten 
        million times greater in fish than in water. Mercury 
        deposition in the sediment cores of the Adirondack 
        lakes peaked in 1980, but has slightly declined since 
        then. Still, acid rain exacerbates the mercury problem, 
        as the metal becomes more ``bioavailable'' in acidic 
        conditions.

         More extensive monitoring efforts are 
        necessary if we are to understand how ecosystems, 
        especially living things in the ecosystems, recover 
        from acid rain.

    Dr. Cowling testified that, unlike other parts of the 
country, the South has not seen improvements in air quality. He 
recommended improving the dependability of monitoring programs 
like the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP).
    Dr. Baron outlined the sources and effects of atmospheric 
deposition in the Western United States regarding nitrogen. He 
believes that the environmental community and the U.S. 
Geological Survey need better measurement of, long-term 
monitoring and research about atmospheric deposition. He 
explained that:

         Nitrogen, which makes up 80 percent of the 
        atmosphere, needs combustion for it to release the 
        nitrogen oxide that eventually comes down in the form 
        of acid rain. However, nitrogen can come from 
        agricultural sources, such as fertilized fields or 
        large manure piles, as well.

         The West also suffers from substantial 
        nitrogen deposition, due to high population density and 
        high agricultural activity. Because cleaner sources of 
        energy, such as low sulfur coal and hydroelectric 
        power, are used in the West acid rain is less of a 
        problem.

         Ecosystems respond to nitrogen increases in 
        unexpected ways. In Colorado, increasing rates of 
        nitrogen cycling have been linked to better forest 
        growth. However, higher elevation Rocky Mountain 
        ecosystems that are accustomed to low levels of 
        nutrients can respond negatively to excess nitrogen.

    Dr. Keeler believes that the causes of acid and mercury 
deposition are similar, though he concentrates more 
specifically on the nature and causes of mercury deposition. He 
explains that, while recent studies have yielded new 
information about mercury contamination, these threats are 
still not fully understood. He says that:

         Mercury, a dangerous toxin especially to 
        children and fetuses, is most exposed to humans through 
        fish. Consequently, mercury has a disproportionate 
        effect on low economic status groups such as Native 
        Americans who rely heavily on fish in their diet. 
        Mercury-related fish consumption advisories have been 
        issued in 39 states, which have affected recreational 
        and commercial fisheries across the country.

         A decade ago, alarming levels of mercury 
        contamination in Florida were attributed to runoff and 
        natural processes. Studies by the EPA have shown that 
        theory to be incorrect; 95 percent of the mercury in 
        the Everglades and 90 percent of the mercury in Lake 
        Michigan is from atmospheric sources.

         More information is needed on the different 
        forms of mercury emitted from all types of sources. For 
        example, natural sources in the western part of the 
        country could have a significant impact on the mercury 
        in aquatic ecosystems.

         Since it has been established that mercury is 
        locally, regionally, and globally transported, it is 
        necessary to determine how a specific ecosystem is 
        affected by each of these modes of transport.

         Mercury II is a highly reactive mercury 
        compound that deposits more readily than the other 
        forms of mercury. Studies indicate that Mercury II may 
        be responsible for much of the local and regional 
        contamination in the Great Lakes and Florida.

      4.1(g)_Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of Standards

                              May 22, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-20

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the role of 
standards in voting technology, keeping in mind the number of 
issues brought to light by the 2000 presidential election. The 
House Science Committee focused specifically on voting 
technology as part of a larger congressional effort to pass 
legislation reforming the voting process.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, 
Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology and the Project Manager of the CalTech-MIT Voting 
Project; (2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Assistant Professor of 
Computer Sciences at Bryn Mawr College; (3) Dr. Doug Jones, 
Associate Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of 
Iowa and Chairman of the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting 
Machines and Electronic Voting Systems; and (4) Mr. Roy 
Saltman, consultant and retired employee of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Ansolabehere believes that there are several 
fundamental problems with current voting technology. Referring 
to a number of studies undertaken in the months following the 
2000 presidential election by a team of MIT and CalTech 
specialists, Dr. Ansolabehere notes:

         Punch cards and electronic equipment have 
        higher rates of uncounted, unmarked, and spoiled 
        ballots than do hand-counted, lever machined, and 
        optically scanned ballots.

         Voter registration databases pose a 
        management and technical problem because of their large 
        size. According to the 2000 census, 7 percent of voters 
        who did not vote reported registration problems as the 
        reason.

         The accessibility of voting equipment for use 
        by the disabled is an issue.

         Electronic equipment poses new problems for 
        ensuring the security and integrity of the count.

    In terms of standards, Dr. Ansolabehere suggests that:

         Minimum criteria standards implemented by the 
        National Association of State Elections Directors 
        covering equipment durability and accuracy should be 
        extended to the areas of usability, accessibility, and 
        auditability.

         Federal agencies should compile and 
        distribute information about equipment performance, 
        cost, and administration.

         Uniform specifications for voting technology, 
        such as electronic and Internet security, must be made 
        available by NIST and the House Science Committee.

    Dr. Mercuri identifies a number of inherent flaws in the 
application of computer technology to the voting process. She 
believes that these flaws are both technologically and 
sociologically based, making both short and long-term solutions 
difficult. She points out:

         Electronic systems of voting do not allow the 
        voter to independently verify that the ballot they 
        filled out was actually recorded, transmitted, or 
        tabulated.

         No encryption programs can be relied on to 
        provide total privacy assurance.

         Internet voting raises new concerns about 
        ballot authentication and vote selling.

         In the case of an election challenge, 
        electronic balloting and tabulation does not allow poll 
        workers or election officials to perform bipartisan 
        checks. Since no clear audit trail exists, a manual 
        hand-count of the ballots is impossible.

         Newer electronic voting systems can make the 
        balloting process more lengthy, tedious and confusing.

         Technology does not, at present, provide a 
        comprehensive solution to the problems of ballot 
        tabulation.

    Mr. Saltman, the author of two NIST reports in the 1980s on 
the problems caused by advanced voting technology, believes 
that the Federal Government should play a leading role in 
voting reform without conducting the elections themselves. He 
urges that the Federal Government:

         Undertake data collection, data analysis and 
        reporting, accreditation of independent laboratories, 
        and documentation of voting equipment performance.

         Support statewide voter registration programs 
        and encourage grant programs for states and local 
        governments.

         Make research into voting technology a 
        primary objective, especially in the areas of voter 
        usability of different vote-casting methods, new types 
        of voting systems, techniques to help the sight-
        impaired and new methods of vote identification. In all 
        cases, however, the auditability of non-ballot voting 
        systems must be maintained.

    Dr. Jones believes that setting strong standards on voting 
technology is necessary and that the FEC Voluntary 
Certification Process standards are not stringent enough. He 
argues that:

         Electronic voting lacks an independent, 
        verifiable record of the voter's actions. It is for 
        this reason that he feels that the country should not 
        rush towards making the transition to computerized 
        voting systems.

         Internet voting should be forbidden until 
        truly solid standards are in place and audit 
        requirements are met.

         The country should work to slowly phase out 
        poor voting systems, such as the punch card, and move 
        cautiously toward using the newer voting technologies 
        available. He stresses that there is no perfect voting 
        technology, and that the Nation must not yet abandon 
        ``old tech'' voting systems.

      4.1(h)_National Energy Policy_Report of the National Energy 
                        Policy Development Group

                              May 23, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-42

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the 
National Energy Policy Development Group's May 16 report to 
President Bush, National Energy Policy--Report of the National 
Energy Policy Development Group.
    The panel of outside witnesses, who represented industrial 
and environmental organizations, consisted of: (1) The 
Honorable William F. Martin, Chairman, Washington Policy and 
Analysis, Inc., who testified on behalf of the Alliance for 
Energy and Economic Growth; (2) Ms. Katherine H. Hamilton, Co-
Director American Bioenergy Association; and (3) Mr. David G. 
Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 
Climate Center.
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Martin testified that the industrialized world's 
dependence on imported oil is a major security concern, and if 
nothing is done will lead to shrinking economies as oil prices 
increase. He supported government action to spur markets toward 
energy efficiency and believes in the use of all our resources 
through application of science and technology. He stated that 
consumers have no expectation of rising energy prices, so that 
they have no incentive to invest in energy efficiency. Ms. 
Hamilton testified that DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy (EERE) needs much more support and stimulus 
from the government. Her coalition criticized the President's 
Energy Plan as relying too much on conventional sources and 
slighting EERE. Mr. Hawkins testified that NRDC has published 
its own energy plan for the 21st Century and provided a 
critique of the Administration's plan.

      4.1(i)_National Energy Policy_Report of the National Energy 
              Policy Development Group_Administration View

                             June 21, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-44

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony from 
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on the National Energy 
Policy Development Group's May 16, 2001 report to President 
Bush.
Summary of Hearing
    The Secretary's testimony expanded upon the NEPD Report by 
stressing the importance of science and technology in meeting 
today's energy challenges. He stated, ``Promising developments 
in science and technology encourage us to believe that we can 
address this Nation's serious energy challenges in a way that 
balances our concerns for environmental protection with our 
needs for enhanced domestic supplies of energy.''

      4.1(j)_Cyber Security_How Can We Protect American Computer 
                         Networks From Attack?

                            October 10, 2001

                         Hearing Volume 107-41

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the vulnerability 
of our nation's computer infrastructure as well as research-
related challenges and opportunities facing the Nation's 
computer networks. Witnesses representing industry, academic, 
government and non-profit organizations testified before the 
Committee. They commented on gaps in research and education in 
the computer security field. Since most of the infrastructure 
in the United States is owned and controlled by the private 
sector, witnesses also commented on ways to encourage 
collaborative approaches to shore up our ability to predict, 
prevent, and mitigate attacks.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. William Wulf, 
President, National Academy of Engineering; (2) Dr. Eugene 
Spafford, Director of the Center for Education and Research in 
Information Assurance and Security; Professor of Computer 
Sciences and Professor of Philosophy, Purdue University; (3) 
Ms. Terry Benzel, Vice President of Advanced Security Research, 
Network Associates, Inc.; and (4) Mr. Robert Weaver, Director, 
New York Electronic Crimes Task Force; Assistant Special-Agent-
in-Charge, U.S. Secret Service, New York, New York.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Wulf discussed the problem of the minuscule size of our 
research base in computer security. This may be due to the fact 
that there has never been a funding agency that believed that 
it was its responsibility to develop the community of scholars 
researching in this area, he suggested. Because there is little 
funding, research is very conservative. Dr. Wulf stressed that 
we need money to fund out-of-the-box thinking.
    Dr. Spafford focused his testimony on the important role 
that university researchers bring to information security and 
some of the challenges they have faced. Investing in computer 
security education and research is vital to securing the 
information infrastructure of the Nation. He then described 
challenges in five critical areas affecting university 
research: support, infrastructure, real-world data, personnel, 
and legal impediments.
    Ms. Benzel stated that the threats to computer systems and 
networks are extensive and serious. These challenges will 
require federal funding and policy changes. We need to perform 
an in-depth vulnerability analysis in order to have a more 
complete understanding of the threats so that we can construct 
an R&D map. Three areas that need to be investigated are 
interdependencies, converged networks, and control systems.
    Mr. Weaver reiterated the vulnerability of our critical 
infrastructure and financial payment systems and described the 
work of the Task Force. He stressed the importance of 
partnerships.

       4.1(k)_Cyber Terrorism: A View From The Gilmore Commission

                            October 17, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-40

Background
    The hearing was the Committee's second examining of the 
vulnerability of our nation's computer infrastructure as well 
as research-related challenges and opportunities facing the 
Nation's network security infrastructure and management.
    The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia and Chairman of the Advisory Panel to 
Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving 
Weapons of Mass Destruction, testified. Governor Gilmore 
assessed the threats to our nation's information 
infrastructure, described the level of preparedness to address 
these threats, and described steps that need to be taken to 
ensure that Federal, state, and local governments are prepared 
to respond.
Summary of Hearing
    Governor Gilmore summarized the key recommendations of the 
Advisory Panel. He emphasized the need for a national strategy 
including all levels of government, the private sector and 
universities. To safeguard our information networks, we need to 
protect both hardware from a physical attack and software and 
Internet controls from a cyber attack. Protection against 
physical attacks will be primarily conventional procedures; 
security against cyber attacks will require far greater 
coordination and cooperation. He then discussed Virginia as a 
case study for both vulnerability and model response. Some of 
the Panel's recommendations included: the creation of an 
interagency cyber security panel and Congressional independent 
advisory board to conduct a thorough review of federal statutes 
and to update statutes; unprecedented partnership between the 
public and private sectors; the establishment of a special 
cyber court patterned after the court established in the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; the creation of an 
entity to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for 
research, development, test and evaluation of processes to 
enhance cyber security; and, the continuation of the Y2K 
offices as cyber security offices in all government agencies.

               4.1(l)_The Space Station Task Force Report

                            November 7, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-49

Background
    The hearing reviewed the findings and recommendations of 
the International Space Station (ISS) Management and Cost 
Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force report, the credibility of NASA's 
cost estimates and program plan, and whether the Space Station 
as currently planned will be able to achieve meaningful 
scientific objectives. In addition, the Administration 
presented its assessment of the management challenges facing 
the Space Station program.
    Witnesses for the hearing were: (1) Mr. A. Thomas Young, 
Chairman, IMCE Task Force; and (2) Mr. Sean O'Keefe, Deputy 
Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Young provided testimony on the findings and 
recommendations of the IMCE Task Force Report. The Task Force 
found that the program was ``not credible.'' They found 
deficiencies in management structure, institutional culture, 
cost estimating, and program control. The Task Force 
recommended that NASA overhaul program management, clearly 
define the science goals, and significantly reduce workforce 
levels to keep the planned three-person U.S. core program 
within the projected budget. In addition, the Task Force 
recommended that the Shuttle flight rate be reduced to four 
flights per year to save funds which could be used to offset 
increased Space Station costs. The Task Force recommended a 
performance-based approach whereby NASA must demonstrate 
credibility over a sustained period of time as a prerequisite 
to proceeding beyond the U.S. core. The Task Force did caution 
that it would be very difficult for NASA's culture to change to 
the degree required to make the program succeed.
    Mr. O'Keefe provided testimony on the Administration's 
strategy to ensure that NASA fully implements the 
recommendations of the IMCE Task Force. Mr. O'Keefe stated that 
OMB agreed in general with the findings and recommendations of 
the Task Force, but had yet to review all of the 
recommendations in detail. He did state, however, that it would 
be a big mistake to begin adding content back to the program 
now, when nobody has confidence that NASA can manage to finish 
the core complete Station and operate it within the available 
budget. He testified that Space Station capabilities should be 
driven by research priorities and that a change in NASA's 
management culture is essential for the station program and the 
agency to succeed.

      4.1(m)_The Decontamination of Anthrax and Other Biological 
                                 Agents

                            November 8, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-39

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony 
regarding the decontamination of anthrax and other biological 
agents from public facilities. Specifically, this hearing 
explored the challenges of decontaminating civilian facilities, 
the experience gained by the U.S. Army in decontaminating 
property at Fort Detrick, and the potential of new 
decontamination technologies and methods.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. James Baker, Jr., 
Director of the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology and 
Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan; (2) Mr. 
Manuel Barbeito (retired), Chief of Aerobiology Section, Agent 
Control Division, U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, 
Fort Detrick; (3) Dr. Charles Haas, Professor of Environmental 
Engineering, Drexel University; and (4) Dr. Lynn Goldman, 
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, John Hopkins 
University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert stated that there is much to be learned 
regarding the decontamination of buildings. The efforts to 
decontaminate the Hart Building illustrate that we need to 
develop an ongoing, coordinated way to evaluate different 
decontamination strategies. We need to know how clean a 
building needs to be to prevent disease when re-occupying the 
facility, and how to better communicate with the American 
people. With regards to decontamination of buildings, the 
Federal Government needs a more coordinated emergency response, 
improved research and development (R&D) programs and improved 
communications with the public.
    Dr. Goldman testified that knowledge about decontamination 
for infectious agents has been developed for concerns such as 
drinking water, food safety, medical facilities, and industrial 
applications. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have responsibility for 
approving and regulating disinfecting agents. Very little 
proactive disinfectant R&D has been done by these agencies. She 
noted that prior to October 2001, there was no incentive for 
the private sector to engage in research in this area, and 
coupled with the fact that little research was ongoing in 
government agencies, we are now in a situation where nobody has 
given it much thought. She also noted that:

         The need for disinfection is immediate, and a 
        fundamental understanding of the infectious organisms 
        is crucial in selecting what kind of disinfectant to 
        use. To kill anthrax, radiation, heat, and other 
        various disinfectants may be used but none have been 
        tested in contaminated civilian buildings.

         She called for a safety assessment to look at 
        three factors: (1) the efficacy of the treatment 
        options; (2) the side-effects and risks to health and 
        the environment from using certain treatment options; 
        and (3) feasibility in terms of the time, cost, and 
        destruction of property that might occur from various 
        treatment options.

         The government needs to develop a clear 
        method of assessing the safety of buildings and 
        protection of people, and managing the risks. We need 
        to develop a clear rationale for assessing buildings 
        and we need statistically based sampling protocols for 
        decontaminating these buildings.

         We also need a set of rapid and reliable 
        laboratory assays with good sensitivity and 
        specificity.

         The decontamination strategies need to take 
        into account the safety needs of the public and 
        decontamination personnel.

         She also suggested that the Centers for 
        Disease Control (CDC) should be responsible for the 
        issue of public health pesticides.

         We also need to have a better understanding 
        about exposures to people in the postal system that may 
        handle contaminated mail.

         Officials need to better communicate these 
        risks to the public in a straightforward fashion that 
        provides facts, but does not contribute to undo fear or 
        terror.

         It is critical to strengthen our nation's 
        public health system, including the areas of 
        epidemiology, laboratory capacity, data-tracking 
        systems, and the training and development of the public 
        health workforce.

    Dr. Baker testified that biological decontamination is 
simply defined as removing organisms that are potentially 
infectious or dangerous from the building. However, in order to 
do this, you have to analyze the type of organism, the residual 
risk and/or the chronicity of exposure. He noted that:

         We need to develop an understanding for what 
        is needed to carry out a decontamination and what would 
        be a medically acceptable residual level of 
        contamination. This is important in determining when 
        people can safely return to decontaminated buildings. 
        We do not know what a safe level is for residual 
        anthrax contamination in a building.

         Every anthrax spore will not be removed from 
        a contaminated building. Therefore, standards need to 
        be set in terms of anthrax exposure that take into 
        account variables such as immuno-compromised persons, 
        pregnancy, or underlying respiratory conditions.

         Due to the varying designs of buildings, it 
        is difficult to develop a general approach to 
        decontamination. Different technologies will need to be 
        used in different circumstances.

         We need to learn and understand from our 
        decontamination experience of the Hart Senate building, 
        and apply this knowledge when decontaminating other 
        buildings in the future.

         Individuals who return to decontaminated 
        buildings need to be given complete medical and 
        psychiatric support, and followed prospectively once 
        returning to the building.

         He suggested that a commission should be set 
        up to review data, provide protocols and advice on how 
        to move forward with the decontamination process.

    Dr. Haas testified that chlorine dioxide has been 
disinfecting drinking water for over 50 years and is known to 
be effective against viruses, bacteria and protozoa. He noted 
that:

         While the mechanism of how chlorine dioxide 
        kills microorganisms is well understood, relatively 
        little is known about how it kills bacterial spores. It 
        is clear that spores are among the most resistant 
        organisms to chlorine dioxide.

         Chlorine dioxide gas has been used as a 
        disinfectant for over 20 years. However, there have 
        been no studies pertaining to its use as a disinfectant 
        for buildings or for the specific efficacy against 
        anthrax spores.

         A basic task in developing a decontamination 
        strategy is setting a target clean up level. It must be 
        recognized that it is impossible to be absolutely 
        certain that all anthrax spores will be destroyed after 
        any decontamination efforts.

         A second task is to set technical 
        specifications for the amount of reduction that needs 
        to occur if the initial contamination and the pathogen 
        dose response characteristics are known.

         The time required for decontamination using a 
        gas will be determined by factors such as the rate of 
        decay during application and time of removal of the 
        residual disinfecting gas.

         Four important knowledge bases to better 
        understand this problem are: (1) analytical 
        microbiology, the ability to measure the organism in 
        the state in which they occur; (2) chemical analysis of 
        the disinfectants and of the byproducts that may 
        result; (3) the modeling of air movement and movement 
        of contaminants through the indoor environment; and (4) 
        the health effects from inhaled chemical byproducts.

         There needs to be a degree of coordination 
        between multiple federal agencies and multiple 
        disciplines outside the Federal Government.

    Mr. Barbeito testified that the Safety Division at Fort 
Detrick, a highly regarded biological warfare laboratory, 
needed to periodically decontaminate facilities because of 
yearly maintenance, major renovations, changing research 
agents, and following exposure incidences. He noted that:

         The importance of selecting the most 
        effective decontaminant. Some possible techniques 
        include the use of liquid disinfections, vaporization 
        of formalin, ethylene oxide, vaporization of peracetic 
        acid, vaporization of beta-propriolactone, and the 
        depolymerization of paraformaldehyde for the formation 
        of formaldehyde gas.

         The last of these techniques was the 
        preferred method for large building decontaminations. 
        It is easy to use, however it is a potential cancer 
        hazard and is highly irritating.

         3/10 of a gram of paraformaldehyde per cubic 
        foot of space in an open container with a heat source 
        needs to be depolymerized, in a room with a temperature 
        of 75 5 degrees Fahrenheit and relative 
        humidity to 75 percent. Time of contact should be 24 
        hours.

         The residual gas can be neutralized using 
        ammonium bicarbonate.

         By using a surrogate Bacillus subtilis 
        variety Niger spores instead of an actual Bacillus 
        anthracis spores, it can be determined whether or not 
        the decontamination process was effective.

         Anthrax is present in 43 states. The Public 
        Health Service has reported nine deaths between 1948 
        and 1964.

         Activities in contaminated postal buildings 
        should be terminated, an irradiation program on the 
        incoming mail should be in effect, and a comprehensive 
        quality-qualitative environmental surveillance program 
        needs to be set up.

     4.1(n)_H.R. 3178 and the Development of Anti-Terrorism Tools 
                        for Water Infrastructure

                           November 14, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-29

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 
3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research 
Development Act. The September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation 
highlighted the critical need for increased research on and 
development of technologies and techniques to prevent, 
mitigate, and respond to physical and cyber threats facing 
drinking water and wastewater systems.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. James Kallstrom, Director 
of New York State's Office of Public Security; (2) Dr. Richard 
Luthy, Silva H. Palmer Professor of Engineering, Stanford 
University, and Chair of the National Research Council's Water, 
Science, and Technology Board; (3) Mr. Jeffrey Danneels, 
Department Manager, Security Systems and Technology Center, 
Sandia National Laboratories; and (4) Mr. Jerry Johnson, 
General Manager of the District of Columbia's Water and Sewer 
Authority, representing the Association of Metropolitan Water 
Agencies and the American Water Works Association Research 
Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by addressing the 
vulnerability of our water supplies and sewage systems to 
cyberterrorism and bioterrorism. Based on the Committee's 
review, we know that we are not yet equipped with the knowledge 
or tools to respond adequately to the threat of terrorism. To 
fill in these gaps, we need to learn more about how to assess 
and prevent terrorist threats, how to respond to terrorist 
incidents, and how to remedy any damage terrorists might cause. 
At present, however, we do not invest enough in research and 
development to meet these needs.
    Mr. Kallstrom testified that New York State strongly 
supports H.R. 3178. Governor Pataki has charged him with 
developing a comprehensive statewide strategy to secure New 
York State from acts and threats of terrorism. He noted that:

         The Office of Public Security will tie 
        together all state efforts to detect, identify, 
        address, respond to, and prevent terrorist attacks in 
        New York.

         The risk to New York's drinking water 
        supplies or wastewater treatment facilities is small, 
        but real enough to justify implementation of H.R. 3178.

         H.R. 3178 authorizes funding for research 
        that would help find new means to protect the drinking 
        water supplies at more than 4,000 community water 
        systems serving approximately 17 million New Yorkers 
        daily.

         Physical destruction of a drinking water or 
        wastewater system could deprive a population of its 
        essential water supply, as well as cause severe 
        secondary effects, such as the inability to ensure 
        sanitation or to provide protection to the affected 
        population. It could also deprive manufacturers and 
        other businesses of water, resulting in serious 
        consequences for local economies.

         Although all water systems in New York State 
        are on alert for catastrophic terrorist attacks, we 
        need to improve analytical testing methodologies, to 
        identify possible biochemical threats, and enable a 
        rapid response to them.

         The Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and 
        Research at the New York State Department of Health, 
        among others, has begun to research new methodologies 
        that could help rapidly identify a contaminant 
        introduced into a water supply.

    Dr. Luthy testified that he supports H.R. 3178 and the 
development of anti-terrorism tools to protect the Nation's 
water supply, but that funding level needs to be at least $50 
million to start to address these problems. He noted that:

         Top priority should be given to protection of 
        physical structures for water storage and transmission 
        that serve large populations and would be very 
        difficult to replace, and to maintaining water quality 
        through better monitoring, new treatments, and 
        incorporating the concept of multiple barriers.

         Since many components of our water systems 
        are aging and need repairs, new approaches to increase 
        security should also look to enhance the reliability 
        and the capability of such systems.

         We need to understand (1) what elements of 
        the water system are most vulnerable to physical damage 
        and how we can protect them; (2) what chemicals or 
        biological agents, and in what amounts, may do the most 
        harm; (3) how we can achieve early detection of 
        chemical or biological agents in time to take 
        corrective action; (4) how operations can be 
        reconfigured to provide greater interconnectedness 
        among source supplies and among water distribution 
        systems; (5) how multiple barriers may be incorporated 
        in treatment plant operations and in the distribution 
        system to ensure greater safety, and (6) how vulnerable 
        our water systems are to cyber attack.

         Any new research program must be organized 
        and administered with great rigor and include a peer-
        review process.

    Mr. Danneels testified that the steps already taken to 
improve security, such as adding guards and additional water-
testing protocols, are neither sustainable, nor provide a 
balanced approach for improving security in all parts of the 
water infrastructure. Research should begin immediately on 
intermediate and long-term solutions that will significantly 
reduce risk to America's water infrastructure. He noted that:

         H.R. 3178 should support security risk 
        assessment methodology for water systems being 
        developed by Sandia Laboratory, new security 
        technologies, real-time monitoring, Supervisory Control 
        and Data Acquisition system research (SCADA), and 
        advanced treatment techniques.

         The security risk assessment methodology 
        being developed by Sandia will require significant 
        improvement in coming years to both reduce the cost of 
        performing the assessments and incorporate new features 
        into the methodology.

         New security technologies are needed for 
        specific infrastructure threats. Examples for water 
        utilities include on-line radiation monitors to detect 
        radiation contamination in large flows and active 
        access delay systems for remotely controlled 
        facilities.

         A significant effort will be required to 
        design, integrate, miniaturize, and cost-effectively 
        produce a knowledge-based, real-time monitoring system.

         Most basic research on new identification 
        schemes is scattered around the country at numerous 
        institutions, resulting in the need for a new model of 
        cooperation to develop integrated sensors into real-
        time water quality monitoring capability.

         Research and development of standards, 
        security and operation protocols, and secure platforms 
        is needed to protect the current computerized control 
        systems like SCADA.

         H.R. 3178 provides flexibility in approaches 
        and funding to support this type of effort. Current 
        water protection programs, such as the Safe Drinking 
        Water Act, may need to be extended or altered to meet 
        the new enhanced security requirements.

         H.R. 3178 provides accountability, focus, and 
        structure for a security program for water 
        infrastructure.

    Mr. Johnson testified that the drinking water community 
supports H.R. 3178 and similar bills that provide for improved 
security of our drinking water facilities. Additionally, he 
identified a strong need for more research and development in 
the area of water infrastructure security. He noted that:

         Since September 11, the Nation's drinking 
        water utilities have been on a heightened state of 
        alert, but prior to the terrorist attacks, the water 
        supply community was already at work with the EPA, the 
        FBI, and other federal agencies to develop new methods 
        and tools to protect water systems and facilities, and 
        ultimately, consumers.

         The water security research bill provides up 
        to $12 million a year for five years, which would 
        substantially improve the investment in water 
        infrastructure, security, research, and development.

         The EPA needs to place anti-terrorism 
        research among its top research goals, and the passage 
        of H.R. 3178 would accomplish this most effectively.

         More knowledge must be ``gained and 
        disseminated'' on the characteristics of possible 
        biological and chemical toxins, instantaneous and on-
        line probes that detect contaminants, and remedial 
        preventive actions to neutralize those contaminants.

         The American Water Works Association Research 
        Foundation, the EPA, and other water organizations have 
        sponsored a number of research and development projects 
        addressing water system security issues.

         Rapid development of additional tools, 
        technologies, and processes is needed to help water 
        systems, especially on the local level, where water 
        systems are stretching very limited resources to 
        safeguard the delivery of water to consumers.

         Increased computerization has increased 
        efficiency, but also creates vulnerabilities to cyber 
        attacks that could disrupt water systems and operations 
        on a broad scale.

       4.1(o)_Science of Bioterrorism: Is the Federal Government 
                               Prepared?

                            December 5, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-51

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony 
regarding the role of federal agencies in responding to 
bioterrorism. Specifically, this hearing explored the research 
and development underway at various federal agencies to improve 
our nation's ability to detect, prevent, respond to, and 
remediate bioterrorist attacks. In addition the hearing 
explored the relationship and information sharing among federal 
agencies and what efforts the Administration has underway to 
better coordinate the response to bioterrorism, particularly in 
the area of research and development.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. 
Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, Executive Office of the President, (2) Hon. Linda 
Fisher, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 
(3) Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, Deputy Assistant to the Secretary 
of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, Department of 
Defense, and (4) Dr. Donald A. Henderson, Director, Office of 
Public Health Preparedness, Department of Health and Human 
Services.
Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened this hearing by stating that it is 
the Science Committee's responsibility to ensure that America 
is investing in the research and development (R&D) needed to 
combat terrorism and that the war against terrorism will be won 
in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. And in order 
to accomplish this victory, we need a clearly led, well-
organized, well-planned R&D effort. He stressed that while the 
Federal Government has done a remarkable job in responding to 
terrorism, by necessity this response has been ad hoc and put 
together on the fly. However, if this is still true six months 
from now, then we will have failed to respond adequately to the 
terrorist threat.
    Dr. Marburger testified that the Office of Science 
Technology and Policy (OSTP) has broad mandates from both the 
Congress and the Executive Branch to coordinate scientific 
activities within the federal agencies. And in particular, OSTP 
can play an important role in coordinating the various science 
and technology activities related to antiterrorism. He 
indicated that he will draw upon the technical expertise housed 
in our science and technology agencies, making sure that 
relevant information and test results are disseminated to the 
appropriate parties, preventing unproductive duplication of 
effort and identifying opportunities for collaboration. 
Specifically, he testified that:

         The National Security Council under this 
        Administration established the Policy Coordinating 
        Committee on Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass 
        Destruction. The R&D subgroup of this committee will 
        continue under a new National Science and Technology 
        Council forum.

         Under the structure of the National Science 
        and Technology Council, OSTP is establishing an 
        Interagency Task Force with several working groups. The 
        fifth working group, a Technical Response Team, will 
        establish subgroups on an ad hoc basis to serve as a 
        clearinghouse for technical reviews of the incoming 
        proposals on technologies related to homeland security. 
        The goal of this subgroup is to review all proposals 
        for scientific merit, and refer them as necessary to 
        the appropriate agency for further review.

         He stressed that as we fight this war against 
        terrorism, we need a taxonomy and a common language to 
        assess threats, avoid duplication and facilitate 
        interagency cooperation and coordination.

         OSTP has sought assistance from the National 
        Academies and the RAND Corporation to develop such a 
        taxonomy. The RAND Corporation's database, called 
        Radius, is proving to be useful in this endeavor.

         He also highlighted an ongoing interagency 
        effort to address mail security issues. Following a 
        request from Governor Ridge, OSTP convened an 
        interagency meeting to ascertain the technical issues 
        the U.S. Postal Service was encountering with regards 
        to anthrax contaminated mail. Dr. Marburger met with 
        chief science officials from 15 different federal 
        agencies to create an interagency technical team to 
        evaluate irradiation facilities in Lima, Ohio and 
        Bridgeport, New Jersey.

    Deputy Administrator Fisher testified that the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has several specific 
missions regarding their role in counter-terrorism activities. 
These missions are a result of Presidential Decision Directives 
and include assisting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
during crisis management in threat assessments and determining 
the types of hazards associated with releases of materials in a 
terrorist incident. Also, the EPA should provide environmental 
monitoring, decontamination and long-term cleanup at the site 
of an attack. And the EPA must help ensure the safety and 
security of America's drinking water. Specifically, she 
testified that:

         Administrator Whitman has made reliance of 
        sound science one of her highest priorities and despite 
        the need for rapid response following the September 11 
        attacks, the EPA has continued to adhere to this goal.

         In response to killing anthrax spores in 
        buildings, the EPA has established a hotline for 
        vendors who believe they have a product that can 
        effectively kill anthrax, and the EPA is working 
        quickly to verify these claims. In addition the EPA is 
        conducting a review of specific cleanup technologies 
        for anthrax and has determined that a number of liquid 
        and foam applications, including Sandia foam and liquid 
        chlorine dioxide, are effective in killing the spores. 
        Also, the EPA has found that high efficiency 
        particulate air (HEPA) filters are effective in 
        removing anthrax spores. However, it is clear that many 
        science and technology issues still remain unresolved.

         The EPA is expanding their biological testing 
        capabilities, and are in the process of modifying an 
        EPA lab in Cincinnati, Ohio so that tests involving 
        anthrax and other biological agents can be done.

         The EPA, along with the Centers for Diseases 
        Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal agencies 
        are developing a state-of-the-knowledge report that 
        will address the chemical and biological threats to our 
        water supply, the capabilities of detecting these 
        threats, and the ability to mitigate these threats.

         The EPA is also working closely with the 
        Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in areas 
        of sampling strategy, remediation processes, and 
        criteria for judging remediation processes to be 
        effective.

         She noted that the working relationship 
        between EPA and the National Institute for Occupational 
        Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety 
        and Health Administration (OSHA) was invaluable as 
        remediation of the anthrax-contaminated buildings 
        progressed.

         The formation of the Homeland Security 
        Working Group within EPA will develop a strategic plan 
        describing the Agency's effort at preparedness and 
        resource needs. The plan will be shared with other 
        federal agencies that are part of the Office of 
        Homeland Security.

    Dr. Johnson-Winegar testified that while the primary 
mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is to ensure that 
the war-fighter is protected, DOD is working with other federal 
agencies so as to provide technologies that can protect all 
U.S. citizens. The DOD has been addressing the use of 
biological weapons as a means of trying to counter America's 
overwhelming conventional war-fighting strength, and that much 
of this investment should be helpful to the civilian community. 
Specifically, she testified that:

         Within the program for biological defense, 
        the DOD's efforts are categorized into three 
        operational principles. These include contamination 
        avoidance, protection of the war-fighter and 
        restoration capabilities.

         The DOD currently uses a biological 
        integrated detection system mounted on a military 
        vehicle. This technology is capable of detecting a 
        number of different biological warfare agents in a 
        relatively short period of time. However, DOD is 
        working to reduce the time required for these systems 
        to work, as well as increasing the specificity and 
        sensitivity of these devices.

         Other technologies currently in use by the 
        DOD are the M99 Portal Shield that uses an immuno-based 
        system to detect eight biological agents and the M291 
        skin decontamination kit that uses a resin-based 
        material to remove chemical and biological agents from 
        the skin.

         In closing, Dr. Johnson-Winegar gave her 
        commitment that DOD will continue to work closely with 
        other federal agencies to develop and provide anti-
        bioterrorism technologies.

    Dr. Henderson testified that the newly created HHS Office 
of Public Health Preparedness has been charged with providing 
direction to the many different HHS programs dealing with 
bioterrorism, and serving to direct and coordinate these 
activities with other federal agencies. He stressed that there 
is much we must still learn about bioterrorism and that R&D 
pertinent to bioweapons is desperately needed. Specifically, he 
testified that:

         We do not as yet have an overall anti-
        bioterrorism research strategy and program, although 
        activities with OSTP, the National Academy of Sciences, 
        and others are playing an important role in beginning 
        to move toward that important and much needed 
        blueprint.

         Until very recently, most academic 
        institutions excluded anything to do with biological or 
        chemical weapons from their educational and research 
        programs. Because of this, there is little bioweapons 
        expertise currently in academia.

         There has been little support for research in 
        the diseases and agents that might be used in a 
        biological attack. Moreover, research biologists, 
        academia and the biotechnology industry have had 
        relatively little contact with the biological defense 
        programs. Thus the development of new and creative 
        research programs, involving particularly HHS and DOD, 
        with academia and biotechnology firms, are needed.

         HHS has identified several especially urgent 
        R&D needs, which are all being pursued very 
        aggressively. These include the development of a 
        smallpox vaccine from tissue cell culture origin, 
        development of a second-generation recombinant anthrax 
        vaccine, development of antiviral drugs for treatment 
        of complications from smallpox vaccination, and the 
        development of reasonably priced diagnostic instruments 
        capable of being used in field situations.

         HHS has placed contracts to provide enough 
        smallpox vaccine to vaccinate all U.S. citizens, and is 
        anticipating that a second-generation anthrax vaccine 
        will come online within 18 months.

         In closing, Dr. Henderson stated that after 
        many years of permitting our public health 
        infrastructure to deteriorate, we cannot expect to 
        recover the level of competency and control that we 
        need in one or two years. But certainly, a good 
        beginning has been made in recent months.

        4.1(p)_The Future of DOE's Automotive Research Programs

                            February 7, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-82

Background
    The hearing addressed the Administration's newly announced 
FreedomCAR program, and its similarities and differences with 
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) 
program. PNGV was established and operated as a joint 
cooperative research and development (R&D) program between the 
Federal Government and the United States Council for Automotive 
Research (USCAR), which was formed by the ``Big Three'' auto 
manufacturers (Chrysler [now Daimler Chrysler], Ford and 
General Motors).
    Witnesses included: (1) The Honorable David K. Garman, 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Vernon P. Roan, Vice Chair, 
National Research Council Panel on the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles, and Professor and Director, Fuel Cell 
Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of 
Florida at Gainesville; (3) Dr. Daniel Sperling, Director, 
Institute of Transportation Studies and Professor of Civil & 
Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis; 
and (4) Mr. Ross Witschonke, Vice President of Electrics and 
Power Electronics, Ballard Power.
Summary of Hearing
    The hearing helped to flesh out the FreedomCAR proposal and 
how it differs from PNGV while addressing other, more 
philosophical questions, i.e., what is the proper goal for 
government in automotive research. The Administration made 
clear that FreedomCAR will continue much of the research that 
began under PNGV, will focus on hydrogen fuel cells, and will 
drop vehicle-specific goals while creating technical milestones 
for components and subsystems.
    Mr. Garman gave the Committee little new detail about the 
FreedomCAR program, but pointed out that the appropriate role 
for government was higher risk, longer-term basic research. 
Hydrogen fuel cells meet the Administration's goal of providing 
an alternative to petroleum-based fuels.
    Dr. Roan discussed the NRC panel report findings that PNGV 
was largely successful in achieving its goals, but would have 
fallen short in producing a pre-production prototype at a 
reasonable cost by 2004.
    Dr. Sperling agreed with the change of emphasis from 
vehicle-based technology goals in PNGV to the component and 
subsystem emphasis in FreedomCAR. Dr. Sperling felt that 
incentives and regulations will be essential to the future of 
hydrogen and drew attention to the need to increase hydrogen-
related engineering training in universities and resolve 
hydrogen infrastructure questions.
    Mr. Witshonke discussed Ballard's role in PNGV and was 
upbeat about the potential for FreedomCAR. He also indicated 
that the government should avoid duplicating fuel cell research 
and focus instead on hydrogen supply and infrastructure 
questions.
    Questioning revolved around the broad themes of defining 
research needs and goals, the appropriate role for government 
and industry research and the fate of PNGV research. Chairman 
Boehlert asked the panel how to maintain research focus without 
strict goals. Mr. Garman responded that FreedomCAR will have 
goals but they will be on the component level and will be 
applicable to all vehicles. He added that DOE is ``not good at 
putting things together'' and should focus instead on 
developing breakthroughs in components and subsystems.
    Dr. Roan, Dr. Sperling and Mr. Witshonke discussed the 
difficulty of bringing new technologies to market in response 
to a question from Representative Nick Smith. Dr. Roan said 
that there were no real breakthroughs in vehicle technology 
short of fuel cells. Dr. Sperling spoke several times about 
Detroit having plenty of innovation and research--``garages 
full of concept cars''--but little of that innovation making it 
to production. Mr. Witshonke said that many good ideas fall 
short in the real world of production constraints and costs, 
for example both Dr. Sperling and Mr. Witshonke agreed that 
without a hydrogen infrastructure, hydrogen research would be 
meaningless.
    Representative John Larson asked about the appropriateness 
of using buses and trucks as platforms for nearer term 
deployment of fuel cells. The panel agreed that these larger 
vehicles, mostly operated from depots would be ideal.
    Chairman Boehlert asked what guarantees exist that new 
technologies would be adopted once developed. Dr. Sperling 
responded that incentives and regulation are necessary 
technology drivers. Mr. Witshonke stated that Ballard ``is 
totally committed'' to making its hydrogen fuel cells 
commercially viable.
    Representative Vernon Ehlers asked where the hydrogen 
needed for fuel cells will come from, and, if the hydrogen 
comes from hydrocarbons, what happens to all of the carbon. Mr. 
Garman responded that there are several DOE programs looking at 
sequestering carbon from the production of hydrogen.

       4.1(q)_The R&D Budget for Fiscal Year 2003: An Evaluation

                           February 13, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-57

Background
    The hearing was held to consider President Bush's budget 
request for research and development. Four witnesses reviewed 
their agencies' budget requests in the context of the 
Administration's overall priorities in science and technology. 
In addition, the witnesses were asked to describe the 
mechanisms that the agencies use to determine priorities across 
scientific disciplines and the mechanisms that are used to 
coordinate scientific research and technical development 
activities with other federal agencies.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. 
Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Samuel W. 
Bodman, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce; (3) Dr. Rita 
R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; and (4) Dr. 
Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Marburger testified that the Administration's R&D 
budget is the largest in U.S. history. In his testimony, he 
noted that:

         At $111.8 billion, the budget represents an 
        eight percent increase over the FY02 budget--the 
        largest requested R&D budget increase in more than a 
        decade.

         The Administration's greatest priority in 
        drafting the budget was combating terrorism. Funding 
        for anti-terrorism programs, including homeland 
        security and critical infrastructure protection, is 
        tripled from $1 billion in FY02 to $3 billion in FY03.

         Nanotechnology, another priority of the 
        Administration, would increase by 17 percent under the 
        President's proposed budget. At $679 million, this 
        multi-agency initiative focuses on long-term research 
        on molecular- and atomic-sized matter.

         Networking and information technology R&D is 
        funded in the budget at $1.9 billion, an increase of 
        three percent over FY02.

         The budget meets the President's commitment 
        to double the FY98 budget of the NIH by FY03.

         Climate change research was also an important 
        priority in drafting the budget with two new 
        initiatives receiving $40 million each: the Climate 
        Change Research Initiative, and the National Climate 
        Change Technology Initiative.

         It is a goal of the Administration to measure 
        the effectiveness of R&D programs, but such a ``score 
        card'' approach is still in the development stage.

    Dr. Bodman provided a brief overview of specific budgetary 
items within the President's proposed budget pertaining to 
science programs and agencies within the Department of 
Commerce. He noted in his testimony that:

         The budget for the Technology Administration, 
        which is responsible for technology policy and 
        partnerships between government and industry, remains 
        unchanged for FY03 at $8 million.

         At $577 million, total requested funding for 
        NIST represents a $116 million decrease from FY02. Dr. 
        Bodman attributed this decrease to a change in 
        administrative procedure: beginning with FY03, employee 
        retirement benefits will be included in the 
        departmental budgets rather than the NIST budget.

         Funding for NIST laboratories is increased 
        $60 million to $396 million, of which $50 million is 
        for the completion of the Advanced Measurement 
        Laboratory.

         NIST's nanotechnology program receives a $4 
        million funding increase to a total of $40 million.

         Dr. Bodman stated that the Administration has 
        serious concerns with the Advanced Technology Program 
        and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This is 
        reflected by a substantial decrease in proposed funding 
        from over $100 million to $13 million.

         Proposed funding for NOAA is $3.3 billion, a 
        decrease of $136 million.

         Specific areas deemed ``critical'' by the 
        Administration would receive increased funding under 
        the President's proposed budget--homeland security: 
        $26.4 million, an increase of $23 million; extreme 
        weather forecasting improvements: $766 million, an 
        increase of $84 million; and climate services: $137 
        million, an increase of $36 million.

    Testifying on the National Science Foundation's budget 
request, Dr. Colwell stated that NSF's use of public funds 
hinges on two conditions: its research and educational 
investments are aimed at ``the frontiers of understanding,'' 
and all awards are competitive and merit-based, with clear 
criteria for measuring success. The total budget request for 
the NSF is $5,036,000,000, a five percent increase over FY02 
funding levels. Dr. Colwell testified that the total proposed 
budget includes:

         The second $200 million installment of the 
        five-year, $1 billion Math and Science Partnership, a 
        program aimed at improving K-12 education in 
        disciplines of math and science.

         A $37 million investment that would increase 
        annual stipends for graduate fellows to $25,000 in an 
        effort to attract the Nation's most talented students 
        to the fields of science and engineering.

         Funding levels of $221 million for 
        nanotechnology research, $286 million for information 
        technology research, $185 million for the NSF Learning 
        for the 21st Century Workforce initiative, and $75 
        million for research on biocomplexity in the 
        environment, including microbial genome sequencing and 
        ecology of infectious diseases.

    Dr. Carnes testified that funding for the Department of 
Energy in the Administration's proposed FY03 budget totals 
$21.9 billion, of which $8.3 billion is appropriated for R&D. 
He further asserted that the budget is focused on the central 
mission Secretary Abraham set for the Department: national 
security. In accordance with this mission, Dr. Carnes told the 
Members of the Committee that the budget:

         Focuses on programs that increase energy 
        supply through an increase in domestic production, 
        conservation and efficiency, as well as an expanded 
        array of energy resource options.

         Seeks to develop the potential of hydrogen/
        fuel cells as a viable fuel by requesting $150 million 
        for the FreedomCAR initiative.

         Recognizes as high priority areas the 
        President's Coal Research Initiative and a new 
        generation of nuclear energy systems.

         Focuses the Nation's research in areas such 
        as energy, threat detection, and climate change.

         Funds research in the cutting-edge areas of 
        nanoscience, microbial science, and ``the fundamental 
        understanding of matter.''

    Dr. Carnes further stated that DOE programs and 
laboratories are being examined to determine the extent to 
which they further the central mission established by Secretary 
Abraham. DOE, he said, is also working toward integrating R&D 
performance measurements in an effort to evaluate these 
programs throughout the government.

                  4.1(r)_NASA's FY 2003 Budget Request

                           February 27, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-58

Background
    The hearing addressed NASA's scientific priorities as 
reflected in the budget request, the criteria by which these 
priorities were established, the high priority technologies 
proposed, and the program and management changes contemplated 
to support the President's Management Agenda. NASA 
Administrator Sean O'Keefe was the only witness.
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. O'Keefe provided testimony on NASA's FY 2003 budget 
request and several initiatives he is undertaking to set 
priorities for NASA. Mr. O'Keefe testified that his first 
priority is a vigorous and aggressive implementation of the 
President's Management Agenda with special focus on management 
of human capital, competitive sourcing, e-government, financial 
management, and integration of budget and performance. Mr. 
O'Keefe highlighted the new Nuclear Systems Initiative as a 
major new program aimed at improving power and propulsion 
technologies to enable more capable solar system exploration 
programs. He also highlighted the increased focus on education 
initiatives.
    Mr. O'Keefe endorsed the Young Commission's report as a 
blueprint on how to proceed with reforming the International 
Space Station (ISS) program. He identified the following five 
major areas that NASA will focus on for the Space Station: (1) 
ISS must be science-driven and have a clear set of science 
priorities; (2) address the engineering challenges to 
assembling and operating Space Station; (3) establish an 
independent cost estimate; (4) comply with the international 
agreements; (5) examine the operational requirements to support 
Space Station.
    Mr. O'Keefe testified that NASA failed its audit this year. 
The auditors were unable to give NASA a clean opinion because 
there was insufficient documentation to support a clean 
opinion. While there is nothing NASA can do to change this 
audit, Mr. O'Keefe assured the committee that NASA would 
provide the documentation required to perform a complete audit 
next year.
    Mr. O'Keefe would not give a definitive answer on whether 
the U.S. Core Complete Space Station would fulfill the U.S. 
obligation under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). 
Instead, O'Keefe stated that NASA would comply with the IGA 
over the next two years and assess, in consultation with the 
partners, whether to move forward beyond U.S. Core Complete. 
U.S. Core Complete was defined as the successful integration of 
Node 2 to the Space Station.
    Mr. O'Keefe testified that NASA was investigating various 
alternatives to the Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV). He stated that 
the probability of a CRV's use would be extremely remote and 
implied that it would not justify the expense. He indicated 
that a better solution might be to pursue a Crew Transfer 
Vehicle (CTV), which could perform the CRV mission and replace 
the Shuttle for other manned missions.
    Mr. O'Keefe also provided testimony on Space Shuttle safety 
and upgrades, Space Shuttle privatization, NASA's aeronautics 
program, proposed space science missions to Pluto.

      4.1(s)_Learning From 9/11_Understanding the Collapse of the 
                           World Trade Center

                             March 6, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-46

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to analyze the investigation 
into the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC). Witnesses 
from industry, academia, and government testified on the 
catastrophic collapse of the WTC complex and subsequent efforts 
by federal agencies and independent researchers to understand 
how and why the structures failed. Witnesses described why it 
was important to scrutinize the steel and other debris, 
blueprints and other documents, and recorded images of the 
disaster, so that engineers, designers, and construction 
professionals could learn valuable lessons that could 
ultimately improve the safety of buildings. Witnesses also 
described the many impediments they encountered, such as: no 
federal agency believed it was clearly charged with 
investigating building failures; nothing ensured that an 
investigation would begin quickly enough to preserve evidence; 
no federal agency had the investigative authority, akin to that 
of the National Transportation Safety Board, to ensure access 
to all needed information; and no one kept the public informed 
of the progress of the investigations.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Shea, 
Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
accompanied by Mr. Craig Wingo, Director, Division of 
Engineering Science and Technology, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency; (2) Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E., S.E., American 
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Chair of the Building 
Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) reviewing the WTC disaster; 
(3) Mr. Glenn Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Science, 
John Jay College, City University of New York; (4) Dr. 
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor, Department of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; 
and (5) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST).

Summary of Hearing
            Leading investigations of building failures:
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by recognizing that 
reviewing how the Federal Government investigated the collapse 
of the WTC was both a sensitive and difficult topic. However, 
he stated that it was the Committee's duty to do so for two 
fundamental reasons. First, the families of the victims had a 
right to know how the Federal Government investigated the 
collapse. Second, the Committee must assess how the Federal 
Government, as a matter of course, investigates building 
failures to determine if changes are necessary. He noted that 
the investigation of the WTC collapse ran into a number of 
troubling obstacles. Obstacles identified by the Committee 
include: federal agencies did not coordinate sufficiently, and 
some were slow to react; no organized team was at the site for 
weeks; potentially valuable evidence had been lost 
irretrievably; and blueprints were unavailable for months. 
Finally, he stated that the Federal Government must have 
standard protocols for conducting investigations to overcome 
many of the obstacles encountered during this investigation. He 
also added that it was the Committee's intent to work toward 
achieving this goal and to thoroughly review other matters 
relevant to this issue.
    Witnesses testified as to the confusion that characterized 
the Federal Government's efforts to investigate the collapse of 
the WTC buildings. It became clear that while the federal 
agencies represented at the hearing tried to respond to the 
disaster in some fashion, no agency believed it had the 
authority to lead an investigation of a major building failure.
    During the hearing when the witnesses were asked to 
indicate who was in charge of the investigation of the WTC 
collapse, several witnesses raised their hands. FEMA clearly 
believed it was initially in charge because it deployed the 
BPAT. However, Mr. Shea testified that FEMA did not have the 
authority to investigate the building disaster, but only to 
study it. Dr. Bement also appeared unclear as to where 
authority lay to conduct an investigation of the collapses. 
While he testified that he was acting as though NIST was in 
charge, it is clear that NIST initially took no action to 
conduct an investigation in response to the collapse of the 
WTC.
    Ultimately, Mr. Shea concurred with the Chairman that for 
several months after the attacks it was uncertain who was in 
charge of investigating this disaster. In addition, Mr. Shea 
testified that FEMA turned to NIST to lead an investigation 
because FEMA does not have the technical capability or 
resources to conduct investigations of major building failures. 
Mr. Shea said that based on his experience, an overall Federal 
Government strategy for responding to building failures is 
needed and NIST should be vested with this authority.

            Preserving evidence and gaining access to critical 
                    information:
    Witnesses testified that confusion regarding who was in 
charge of the investigation and the BPAT's lack of 
investigative authority led to delays in deploying the BPAT 
team, problems in gaining access to the WTC site, an inability 
to preserve valuable steel evidence from the site, and problems 
gaining access to information the BPAT requested.
    During the hearing, Members voiced concern about why the 
BPAT had not been deployed immediately after the attacks and 
whether the delay had hindered the team's ability to preserve 
important evidence. Dr. Corley testified that immediately 
following the attacks, ASCE began assembling a team of experts 
to study the disaster. Although this team later became part of 
the official BPAT that FEMA created, that official designation 
did not occur until late September, 2001. Furthermore, it was 
only at that time that the team was able to gain access to the 
disaster site. Dr. Corley believed that one possible reason for 
this delay was the uncertain relationship between the BPAT and 
ongoing search and rescue efforts, as well as the criminal 
investigation. During the time the team was not present on 
site, the City of New York decided to haul away and recycle the 
steel, which could have been useful as evidence for the 
investigation.
    Even after the BPAT was on site and had actively assumed 
its duties, there was still confusion abut whether the BPAT had 
the authority to preserve evidence. Mr. Shea said that the BPAT 
was in charge of gathering the necessary evidence for an 
investigation. However, Dr. Corley, who led the BPAT team, said 
that he did not know whether anyone had the authority even to 
ask the City of New York to stop recycling the steel. When Dr. 
Bement was asked if NIST could presently sequester evidence for 
its investigation, he said that NIST could request that 
evidence be preserved, but that it had no power to enforce the 
request.
    Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who was funded by the National Science 
Foundation to study the collapse, testified that he experienced 
the same problems that Dr. Corley's team faced in terms of 
gaining access to the site, and studying and preserving the 
steel evidence. He testified that he had, without any 
assistance from any federal agency, directly negotiated with 
the plants recycling the steel, and it was only because of 
their cooperation that he was given access to the steel.
    Professor Corbett described the consequences of losing 
pieces of steel evidence. He said with steel from critical 
areas of the building (such as where the planes hit the 
building) would help the BPAT make more definitive statements 
as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse.
    Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in 
gaining access to information it required as part of its 
investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building 
blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It 
planned to use these to validate physical and photographic 
evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how 
the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided 
in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the 
full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to 
intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a 
significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo 
testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York 
and New Jersey for blueprints and design specifications for the 
buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the 
disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not 
receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until 
January 8, 2002.
    In addition to the structural records, the BPAT team 
requested video footage from the television networks and tapes 
of 911 calls from the New York City Police Department. Dr. 
Corley testified that the BPAT team was only able to obtain 
from TV networks video footage of the collapse that had been 
played on air; the networks would not release unaired footage. 
The BPAT ultimately gave up on attempting to obtain the 911 
tapes. During the May 1 follow up hearing held by the Science 
Committee (later described herein), Dr. Jonathan Barnett, 
Professor, Center for Fire Safety Studies, Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, who was also a 
BPAT member, said that after being denied access to the 911 
tapes for several months, he withdrew the request for the tapes 
because the computer modeling that would have used the 911 
tapes would not be completed in time for the BPAT report.
    Dr. Bement explained that NIST's planned investigation 
could run into the same impediments as the BPAT in terms of 
gaining access to this information. Dr. Bement explained that, 
while NIST could request information, it lacked the power to 
issue subpoenas for information it deemed critical to its 
investigation, and that he therefore could not ensure that NIST 
would have total access to this information.

            Informing the public:
    Members expressed great concern about the lack of regular 
public briefings by FEMA, as well as the status of the BPAT 
investigation and its factual findings. Witness generally 
agreed that briefing the public was an important component of 
any investigation, but the hearing revealed that there were 
problems with how FEMA handled communications with the public 
during the BPAT study. While Mr. Shea testified that he 
believed FEMA did try to respond to inquiries from the public, 
he also said that BPAT participants were asked to sign 
confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from publicly 
disclosing the conversations and opinions discussed during the 
course of the team's deliberations. He said this was standard 
practice with BPATs in order to protect the scientific 
integrity of the process. However, several Members point out 
that much of the public criticism and leaks to the press 
regarding the BPAT initial findings could have been prevented 
by regular public briefings.

            Funding investigations:
    Witnesses and Members expressed concern about the resources 
federal agencies were able to commit to investigate the WTC 
building collapses. Dr. Corley testified that the total amount 
of money (both public and private) supporting the BPAT study 
was about $1 million, and that, in his opinion, $40 million 
would be required to conduct a comprehensive study of the WTC 
disaster. Dr. Bement concurred with this figure by stating that 
$40 million ``wasn't too far out of the ballpark'' of what NIST 
would need to complete its proposed investigation. Professor 
Corbett summarized the general funding problems of this effort 
by saying that, ``a disaster of such epic proportions demands 
that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed 
investigation.'' He further emphasized that ``instead, we are 
staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a 
shoestring budget.''

        4.1(t)_The 2001 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in 
      Mathematics and Science Teaching: Views From the Blackboard

                             March 20, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-55

Background
    As demonstrated by the results of the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1994, and the repeat 
study in 1999, while fourth grade students in the United States 
perform above the international average in science and 
mathematics, U.S. middle school students perform at the 
international average and high school students perform well 
below their international peers. Perhaps even more disturbing, 
when the cohort of students who performed well at the fourth 
grade level in 1994 were tested as eighth graders in 1999, 
there was a marked drop in performance despite an increased 
focus on improving math and science instruction in the wake of 
the 1994 TIMMS results. Factors believed to contribute to poor 
student performance in math and science include: limited 
uninterrupted time-on-task in class, limited access to high-
quality curricular materials, a shortage of teachers with solid 
academic preparation in math and science, insufficient faculty 
planning time, and a lack of stimulating, long-term 
professional development opportunities for teachers.
    In this hearing, the Committee on Science heard testimony 
from the Nation's best math and science teachers--recipients of 
the 2001 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and 
Mathematics Teaching--on how to improve mathematics, science 
and technology education in the U.S. In addition to an open-
microphone session in which all Presidential Awardees were 
invited to participate, the Committee heard testimony from: (1) 
Ms. Susan Kielb, a 7th grade mathematics and life science 
teacher at Tappan Middle School; (2) Ms. Jana D. Rowland, a 5th 
grade science teacher at Hydro-Eakly Elementary School; (3) Mr. 
Bill H. Schrandt, a math teacher at Valley High School; and (4) 
Dr. Frances Hess, a science teacher at Cooperstown Central 
School.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that there 
is no issue within the Committee's jurisdiction that he cares 
about more deeply than science and math education. None of the 
other things the Committee wants to do--whether it's 
understanding global climate change or completing the 
International Space Station--none of these things can be done 
unless we have the scientists and engineers to do the work and 
a scientifically literate citizenry who will support it and 
learn from it. And, of course, there's only one way we can 
create those scientists and engineers and educated citizens, 
and that's through education--starting from earliest childhood. 
The Chairman asked panelists to provide their reaction to H.R. 
1858, House-approved legislation authorizing programs designed 
to create partnerships between universities, businesses and 
school systems, and to attract more top college students into 
teaching.
    Ms. Keilb testified that in order to provide high quality 
math and science education to students, teachers must have a 
firm foundation in mathematics and science themselves. She 
credited her own training and experience as a scientist for her 
success as a math and science teacher and made the following 
recommendations:

         Top graduates of mathematics and science 
        degree programs should be encouraged to pursue careers 
        in teaching and should be given grants to earn teaching 
        credentials;

         Educators must have high-quality professional 
        development opportunities throughout their careers and 
        must have time during the regular work day to 
        collaborate and share new ideas about teaching;

         Educators must be exposed to the outside 
        world of science and mathematics so they can understand 
        advances in science and mathematics; and

         Students should be challenged to utilize 
        reasoning and problem-solving skills in math and 
        science rather than demonstrating knowledge solely 
        through multiple choice tests.

    Ms. Rowland commented that her training as a medical 
laboratory technologist helped her become a capable science 
teacher and that a primary concern for teachers in rural areas 
is the number of non-English speaking, transient students who 
don't stay in one school long enough to master basic skills. 
She made the following comments and recommendations:

         There are inadequate resources for high 
        quality teacher training and professional development 
        in mathematics, science and technology;

         Test scores may not reflect a school's real 
        progress in improving math and science education when 
        the school has a large number of non-English-speaking, 
        transient students who are not in a single school long 
        enough to gain the fundamental skills and knowledge 
        required to be successful;

         Programs need to be implemented to encourage 
        college students in the science fields to consider 
        entering the teaching profession;

         Students at the K-12 level need to be shown 
        that the job opportunities in the future will be from 
        the math and science fields; and

         The Federal Government needs to support 
        regional science resource centers.

    Mr. Schrandt discussed the need to provide teachers with 
the same opportunities that other professionals are routinely 
provided in the area of continuing education, professional 
development, and ongoing collaboration. He testified that:

         Teachers need to teach content in the context 
        of applications that students value and understand so 
        that students can see why learning math is useful and 
        important;

         Teachers need to be provided with regular 
        opportunities to work together, formally or informally, 
        so they don't feel isolated from one another in their 
        professional lives;

         Teachers are not perceived as professionals, 
        largely because of low salaries; this leads to low 
        expectations.

         The government needs to promote the role and 
        importance of teachers and to support workshops and 
        collaborations among teachers to increase the degree of 
        professionalism; and

         Professional development opportunities, such 
        as the ones provided by the NSF, should be expanded.

    Dr. Hess noted the need for continued professional growth 
among teachers and better curricula for students. She 
recommended that:

         Additional federal funding should be provided 
        to help teachers grow professionally, develop better 
        curriculum, purchase science equipment for classrooms 
        and ease budget tensions among local school districts;

         Teachers should be compensated for the money 
        and time they invest in professional development 
        programs; and

         More programs should be created to encourage 
        businesses to contribute resources and expertise to 
        local schools.

       4.1(u)_New Directions for Climate Research and Technology 
                              Initiatives

                             April 17, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-56

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive suggestions on 
how to focus the Federal Government's climate change research 
and technology programs. The hearing assessed how the new 
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), intended to 
complement ongoing federal global change research activities, 
could be structured to yield more useful information for 
decision-makers and how the new National Climate Change 
Technology Initiative (NCCTI) can be designed to be more 
effective than past programs at developing technology options 
that can assure our future energy security and at delivering 
those technologies to the marketplace.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Radford Byerly, Jr., Visiting 
Scholar, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, 
University of Colorado; (2) Dr. Eric Barron, Director, Earth 
Systems Science Center, Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment 
Institute, Pennsylvania State University; (3) Dr. Edward Miles, 
Principal Investigator, Pacific Northwest RISA, JISAO Climate 
Impacts Group, University of Washington; (4) Dr. James Edmonds, 
Senior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 
Battelle Memorial Institute; and (5) Mr. Scott Bernstein, 
President, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that this 
is a critical moment for global change research programs. While 
in many ways, the successes of these programs are inarguable, 
their future contours have never been more uncertain. Some 
experts suggest that the science program is focused on the 
wrong issues entirely, paying too much attention to long-range 
questions that will always be hard to resolve, while resource 
managers who raise shorter-range climate questions go begging 
for answers. Others suggest the need for heightened attention 
to a small set of long-range questions, such as the nature of 
the carbon cycle, and to providing the modeling and 
observational tools needed to answer them. Similar issues have 
been raised about focusing the government's technology 
programs, which have led to significant incremental technical 
improvements, but haven't usually been as successful at ``great 
leaps forward'' or market penetration.
    The Chairman asked the witnesses to explain what they would 
do if they were put in charge of the science and technology 
programs. What research goals would they set out and how would 
they set up an agenda to achieve them? We will then follow up 
on today's hearing with a hearing in late May or in June to 
hear from government witnesses to learn exactly how the 
Administration plans to proceed with the climate program.
    Dr. Byerly began his testimony by telling the committee 
that having the data to make accurate climate change 
predictions does not make policy decisions easier.

         CCRI will not help make better policy 
        decisions on climate change because its data collection 
        process was not designed with the needs of end users in 
        mind.

         Legislation should focus on developing 
        research programs that cater to the needs of data 
        users.

    Dr. Barron took the view that the United States' Global 
Climate Research Program (USGCRP) and the development of (CCRI) 
are steps towards developing an ``Environmental Intelligence 
Center'' that should centralize climate data for decision-
makers.

         Multiple stresses and environmental factors 
        affect climate and research should focus on the impact 
        of a variety of human activities.

         Collaboration across agencies will allow 
        climate data sets to be analyzed for other 
        environmental assessment programs, especially for 
        evaluating health threats.

    Dr. Miles provided testimony on behalf of Regional 
Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program.

         While climate data is recorded annually, this 
        data is used on the regional level for more seasonal 
        predictions, such as expected monthly rainfall.

         The climate change data that is most useful 
        for decision-making varies by region, whether it is 
        interdecadal Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the Pacific 
        Northwest, or the El Nino Southern Oscillation data for 
        Florida.

    Dr. Edmonds testified that stabilizing the concentration of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere requires carbon dioxide 
emissions to peak and then decline indefinitely, effectively 
falling to zero.

         Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in 
        the atmosphere will require a revolutionary change in 
        the global energy system, which would be extremely 
        expensive if undertaken with present technology. 
        Scientific developments are needed to facilitate new 
        technologies.

         Significant advances must be made in 
        hydrogen, fuel cells, carbon capture and disposal 
        technologies.

         Biotechnology investments have the potential 
        to return great dividends in terms of energy security 
        and clean fuel production.

         Since all technologies are unlikely to be 
        successfully developed and deployed into the 
        marketplace, it is critical to maintain a broad 
        portfolio of investments in new technologies

    Mr. Bernstein testified about steps the Federal Government 
could take to better align energy technology programs with 
climate and economic goods, total household energy consumption 
trends and their effect on greenhouse emissions.

         Mitigation efforts would be enhanced if the 
        federal R&D programs were focused more on deployment of 
        technology and projects were organized by community 
        needs rather than technologies or sectors.

         Because building turnover is slow, (80 years 
        on average for houses) programs should be shifted to 
        focus on retrofitting buildings instead of just 
        building efficient new ones.

         Real-time information on consumption, demand 
        and prices would create positive incentives for 
        reducing energy consumption, lowering demand at peak 
        usage times.

     4.1(v)_The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: 
               Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps

                              May 1, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-61

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the key findings 
and recommendations of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's (FEMA) investigation into the collapse of the World 
Trade Center (WTC). The hearing also reviewed the plans of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
conduct a more extensive follow-up investigation and to 
establish a comprehensive research and development plan to 
improve standards, practices, and codes for buildings and fire. 
In addition, the witnesses were asked to comment on H.R. 4687, 
a bill that would confer to NIST additional investigative 
powers.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Shea, 
Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency; (2) Dr. W. 
Gene Corley, P.E., S.E., American Society of Civil Engineers, 
Chair of Building Performance Assessment Team reviewing the 
World Trade Center disaster; (3) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology; and (4) Mr. 
Glenn Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Science, John Jay 
College, City University of New York.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by describing the 
Committee's findings from the March 6, 2002 hearing that 
examined the Federal Government's investigation of the WTC 
collapse. The main findings were that the study of the collapse 
had been hampered by: bureaucratic confusion, hesitation and 
delay; a lack of investigative tools; and excessive 
restrictions on the flow of information. He then described how 
legislation he had introduced with Representative Weiner (the 
National Construction Safety Team Act, H.R. 4687) would solve 
each of those impediments for future investigations.
    The Chairman stated that the three main goals of the 
hearing were to: examine the findings of the American Society 
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that was responsible for 
studying the collapse of the WTC; discuss the NIST plan for a 
follow-up investigation of the ASCE study; and facilitate a 
public discussion of the National Construction Safety Team Act. 
Finally, he declared that it was the Committee's intent to push 
for enactment of the National Construction Safety Team Act and 
to secure funding for NIST's follow-on investigation of the WTC 
collapse.
    Mr. Shea introduced the report of the Building Performance 
and Assessment Team, entitled: ``World Trade Center Building 
Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, 
and Recommendations'' (FEMA publication #403). He commended the 
team's work, and expressed his sense of the human tragedy.
    Dr. Corley described the building performance team, the 
tools they used to evaluate eight buildings in the World Trade 
Center complex, and the findings and recommendations of the 
report. He noted that:

         The team comprised 25 people including 
        structural engineers, designers, analysts, professors, 
        firemen, investigators, etc.

         The scope of the BPAT's work included 
        collecting and preserving data, undertaking preliminary 
        analyses, recommending areas for further work, and 
        offering suggestions that might improve the performance 
        of buildings in the future. The BPAT was not intended 
        to make final conclusions.

         The impacts of the aircraft were not 
        sufficient on their own to bring down either of the 
        towers. Because of the buildings' redundant design, the 
        loads were redistributed to intact columns after the 
        impact, enabling the buildings to stand for nearly an 
        hour. The collapse occurred because of the compounding 
        effects of the ensuing fire.

         The impacts dislodged some of the 
        fireproofing from the steel, and also damaged the stair 
        enclosures, thereby blocking all three stairwells in 
        Tower 1 and two of the three in Tower 2.

         Several lessons can be learned from the 
        performance of the WTC buildings. For all buildings: 
        elements that connect beams and columns should be fire-
        rated. For buildings identified as potential terrorist 
        targets:

                1. Redundancy (buildings being able to 
                transfer loads to other structural elements 
                should some fail) and robustness (designing 
                elements in a manner in which they can carry 
                additional loads in extreme circumstances) are 
                necessary to avoid collapse;

                2. Fireproofing should better adhere to the 
                steel, making dislodgement in an impact less 
                likely;

                3. The sprinkler systems in buildings should 
                have redundant water supplies; and

                4. Redundancy, distribution, and impact 
                resistance of exit pathways should be improved.

         Additional research is needed to understand 
        the performance of structural connections under fire 
        conditions, why Building 7 collapsed as a result of 
        fire alone (not physical damage), and the human 
        elements of the evacuation.

    Dr. Bement testified on NIST's proposed follow-on 
investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings. He said 
that the plan consists of three key program elements:

         A 24-month building and fire safety 
        investigation into the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, 
        and 7 that will look at building construction, 
        materials used, and technical conditions after the 
        impacts;

         A multi-year research and development program 
        (examining fire safety, prevention of progressive 
        collapse, and equipment standards for first responders) 
        to provide the technical basis for improved building 
        and fire codes, standards, and practices; and

         An industry-led program to provide practical 
        technical guidance for facility owners, contractors, 
        designers, and emergency personnel in preparation for 
        responses to future disasters.

    Dr. Bement further testified that:

         All of the BPAT recommendations map into the 
        three elements of the NIST response plan, which has 
        been shared with public and private organizations.

         NIST continues to revise the plan as more 
        technical information becomes available and in response 
        to the suggestions of stakeholders.

         NIST believes strongly that the lessons 
        learned from the investigation will be applicable to a 
        broad range of building types.

         NIST will liaise with professional 
        communities and families of victims, consult with local 
        authorities in New York, and share the details of the 
        plan with the public.

         The Administration has expressed a strong 
        commitment to the plan and has asked for $16 million as 
        a part of FEMA's FY 2002 supplemental budget request to 
        support the NIST investigation.

         The President's FY 2003 budget request 
        includes $2 million in base funding for the plan, and 
        $2 million of existing base NIST funds have been 
        redirected toward this effort as well.

    Professor Corbett argued that the generalized nature of the 
BPAT's recommendations and the limited scope of its assessment 
leave us with little hard evidence with which to make specific 
improvements to codes, design practices, and emergency response 
procedures. He said that:

         The report recommendations are a useful 
        starting point, but much work remains to be done.

         The proposed NIST investigation is the type 
        of large-scale forensic inquiry the Federal Government 
        should have launched in September 2001.

         He has reviewed the plans for the NIST 
        investigation and identified three areas of concern: 
        the need for rapidly assembling individuals to form the 
        core Federal Advisory Committee; the need for subpoena 
        power; and the need to develop defensible and detailed 
        proposals for changes to building and fire codes, 
        response procedures, and emergency response 
        technologies.

         The Federal Advisory Committee's oversight is 
        important because of the multidisciplinary nature of 
        the investigation, which involves some issues that are 
        outside NIST's traditional realm of expertise.

         The Federal Advisory Committee should contain 
        a variety of individuals from different disciplines in 
        order to avoid making the same mistakes as the BPAT 
        team.

         A legal means for obtaining information that 
        would otherwise be unavailable (subpoena power) is 
        necessary in order to conduct a complete investigation 
        from which conclusions may be drawn.

         NIST must make recommendations to specific 
        sections of model building codes accompanied by the 
        corresponding supporting evidence in order for the 
        lessons learned to ultimately be applied in building 
        codes, standards, and practices.

         It is critical that the investigation be as 
        comprehensive as planned and be funded at appropriate 
        levels so that the lessons of the WTC disaster may be 
        learned and applied.

    When asked to comment on a draft of H.R. 4687 during the 
question and answer period, the witnesses made the following 
observations:

         Professor Corbett suggested that the bill's 
        use of ``building failure'' be altered so that it also 
        includes failures of design in cases not involving 
        collapse. He felt that the bill should also apply to 
        situations involving chemical or biological attacks on 
        buildings. Additionally, he argued that there should be 
        a formalized relationship between code-writing 
        organizations and the Construction Safety Teams.

         Dr. Corley commented that the bill addresses 
        many of the difficulties he encountered in the BPATs in 
        which he has participated. He suggested that the bill 
        be clarified with regard to its coverage of building 
        damage due to earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes. 
        Additionally, he suggested that the teams contain a 
        minimum of ten members in order to cover various fields 
        of engineering expertise. And finally, he felt that the 
        section about changes in building codes should be 
        worded more carefully.

         Mr. Shea explained that he met with the 
        leadership of the National Transportation Safety Board 
        (NTSB) to discuss whether their authorizing legislation 
        provides them with the range of authority they require. 
        NTSB indicated that it does, and Mr. Shea noted that 
        H.R. 4687 parallels the NTSB legislation. He also 
        expressed support for the bill's inclusion of the U.S. 
        Fire Administration in the teams' efforts.

     4.1(w)_Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: What Does 
                            the Science Say?

                              May 8, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-60

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine what is known 
about the impact of small particle air pollution on human 
health. The hearing assessed the state of our scientific 
knowledge about small particle air pollution and its effects on 
health and asked how we should go forward with a research 
agenda to address outstanding questions.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. Daniel S. Greenbaum, 
President, Health Effects Institute; (2) Dr. Ron Wyzga, 
Technical Executive, Air Quality, Health, Risk and Electric 
Power Research Institute; (3) Dr. Joel Schwartz, Associate 
Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, Harvard School of 
Public Health; and (4) Dr. Praveen K. Amar, Director of Science 
and Policy, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
Management.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Greenbaum summarized the current scientific literature 
linking particulate air pollution to premature mortality. He 
noted that:

         In 1997, EPA promulgated ambient air quality 
        standards based on epidemiological studies that 
        suggested a correlation between daily levels of air 
        pollution and hospitalization and found that the risk 
        of premature death was elevated 17 to 24 percent for 
        residents of the most polluted cities.

         Since then, more comprehensive studies have 
        corroborated these initial findings. Although the 
        influence of particulate matter on mortality may be 
        smaller than the initial data suggested, there is solid 
        evidence that the effect is real.

         There is a need for research on what types of 
        particulate pollution are most toxic. Several such 
        studies are underway, but would benefit from a boost in 
        resources from EPA.

    Dr. Wyzga's testimony focused on the need to determine 
which categories of particulate air pollution present health 
risks and the current research conducted by the Electric Power 
Research Institute (EPRI) in this field. He noted that:

         While ample evidence suggests that 
        particulate air pollution contributes to adverse health 
        effects, there is a dearth of knowledge about the 
        biology of this interaction and the types of 
        particulate matter which pose the greatest risk.

         Research conducted by EPRI suggests that 
        different types of air pollution differentially affect 
        respiratory and cardiovascular health, and that fine 
        particulates containing carbon are an important player. 
        By contrast, there is little evidence that acid 
        aerosols, soluble metals, ultrafine particles or 
        sulfates pose a health risk.

         Pollution controls need to be targeted at 
        those pollutants which present real health risks.

    Dr. Schwartz used his testimony to refute claims which 
question the link between health and particulate matter and the 
quality of research. He noted that:

         Particulate matter is strongly correlated 
        with premature mortality, even when gaseous pollutants 
        and seasonal effects are controlled for.

         The premature mortality is not a ``harvesting 
        effect,'' that is, the deaths do not occur exclusively 
        in a population of individuals who would have soon died 
        anyway. Studies that control for this effect, rather 
        than relying on day-to-day comparisons of ambient air 
        quality and mortality, actually find a substantially 
        larger correlation between mortality and particulate 
        air pollution.

         Studies suggest that there is not a threshold 
        of air quality beneath which further reductions have no 
        beneficial consequences.

         Since 1997, a number of careful studies have 
        begun to establish the precise biological links between 
        particulate air pollution and adverse respiratory and 
        cardiovascular effects.

         Multiple studies indicate that an 
        individual's exposure to particulate matter is well 
        correlated with ambient air quality.

    Dr. Amar testified on the current extent of particulate air 
pollution, the available control technologies, and the barriers 
to their deployment. He noted that:

         Both the East and West coasts have major air 
        quality problems, and often are not in attainment of 
        the national ambient air quality standards.

         Particulate pollution is often formed from 
        gaseous pollutants (such as NO and 
        SO) components that we have been regulating 
        for years and for which good control technologies 
        exist.

         Combinations of control technologies--such as 
        electrostatic precipitators with baghouses and 
        scrubbers with selective catalytic reduction--are often 
        very effective. Baghouse and scrubber use needs to be 
        increased.

         Vehicles burning diesel gas should be 
        equipped with filter systems.

         Setting clear emissions targets without 
        specifying control technologies is the best way to 
        control pollution, as evidenced by the success in 
        controling power plant emissions of NO and 
        SO.

          4.1(x)_Drought Prediction, Preparation, and Response

                              June 3, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-77

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to 
drought prediction, preparation and response in Utah. Drought 
is a normal part of the climate cycle and occurs throughout 
many regions. The impacts of drought on our economic, 
environmental and social systems are significant. The Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated annual losses 
attributable to drought in the U.S. were $6-$8 billion in 1995.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. Mark Eubank, 
meteorologist, Channel 5, KSL TV; (2) Dr. Thomas D. Potter, 
Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for Regional Prediction, 
University of Utah; (3) Mr. David G. Ovard, General Manager, 
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District; (4) Mr. Leon Bowler, 
Farmer and Rancher; (5) Dr. Michael J. Hayes, Climate Impacts 
Specialist, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln; and (6) Mr. Robert Morgan, Executive 
Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Potter provided some historical data on droughts in the 
Western United States and compared those incidences with the 
current drought. He indicated that much of the Western United 
States is experiencing a drought with consequences reaching 
into agriculture, water resources and fire risk. He also 
suggested the global climate change may make drought conditions 
both more common and more severe.
    Mr. Eubank addressed short- and long-term weather 
prediction systems. He noted that:

         Better assessments of soil moisture are 
        needed to compliment precipitation data.

         Better predictions of the intervals between 
        precipitation events are necessary.

         Global and solar climate patters correlate to 
        drought incidence; more data is needed to pursue these 
        long-term predictors, especially for mid-range 
        latitudes.

         The Federal Government should promote 
        research into long-term drought prediction, perhaps by 
        giving grant money or prize money.

    Mr. Morgan summarized the current drought conditions in 
Utah as well as the government's response. He noted that:

         Governor Leavitt's water conservation 
        initiative is an important step towards responsible 
        water use.

         Better data on snowpack and hydroclimatic 
        variables are necessary.

    Mr. Bowler provided a rancher's perspective, characterizing 
this year's drought as the worst in living memory. He and other 
ranchers are being forced to sell cattle at severely reduced 
prices, and some ranchers are being driven out of business.
    Mr. Hayes addressed issues related to long-term water and 
drought planning. He noted that:

         It is very difficult to assign specific 
        dollar values to the economic losses associated with 
        drought.

         The National Drought Mitigation Center has 
        made important progress in working with States to 
        prepare for droughts and minimize their consequences.

         A difficult but important step will be to 
        move from drought response to drought preparedness.

      4.1(y)_Homeland Security: The Federal and New York Response

                             June 24, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-71

Background
    The hearing was the third in a series of hearings examining 
the vulnerability of our nation's computer infrastructure. The 
Committee also examined research and education challenges and 
opportunities in computer and network security, as well as the 
connections between the Nation's science and technology 
enterprise and U.S. law enforcement and other first responders 
in the fight against cyberterrorism. Witnesses from government, 
academia, and industry testified on issues such as the 
potential ramifications of a cyber attack, as well as the steps 
that could be taken to improve the research and development of 
the United States' computer infrastructure.
    The Committee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses. 
Panel 1: (1) Dr. John Marburger, Science Advisor to the 
President, Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, The White House; (2) Mr. James K. Kallstrom, Special 
Advisor for Public Security to Governor George S. Pataki; (3) 
Mr. John S. Tritak, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance 
Office (CIAO), The White House; and (4) Dr. James Engle, Deputy 
Undersecretary for Science and Technology, United States Air 
Force. Panel 2: (1) Mr. Robert Weaver, Deputy Special Agent-in-
Charge, New York Field Office, Director, New York Electronic 
Crimes Task Force, United States Secret Service; (2) Dr. Yacov 
Shamash, Dean of Engineering, State University of New York at 
Stony Brook; and (3) Mr. Michael Miravalle, President & CEO, 
Dolphin Technologies, Inc., Rome, New York.

Summary of Hearing
            Panel 1:
    Dr. Marburger discussed the newly created Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Board and its standing committees. In 
his oral statement, he explained that:

         The standing Committee for Research and 
        Development (CR&D), which he chairs, is responsible for 
        coordinating a program of Federal Government R&D for 
        the protection of critical infrastructure as well as 
        ensuring coordination of government activities with 
        corporations, universities, and federally funded 
        research centers.

         CR&D's goal is to create a national critical 
        infrastructure that is trustworthy and resilient.

         The two primary objectives of the federal 
        program in critical infrastructure technology are the 
        promotion and coordination of research to reduce 
        vulnerabilities in the critical infrastructure, and the 
        promotion of R&D technologies that will detect, 
        contain, and mitigate attacks against infrastructure 
        failures.

         In order to cover all of the areas that are 
        affected by critical infrastructures, CR&D has created 
        eight working groups: (1) Information and 
        Communication; (2) Banking and Finance; (3) Energy; (4) 
        Transportation; (5) Vital Human Services; (6) 
        Interdependencies; (7) Outreach; and (8) Physical Asset 
        Protection.

    Mr. Kallstrom explained the efforts of Governor Pataki and 
the Office of Public Security to neutralize security breaches 
throughout New York State. He testified that:

         The threats posed to networks and systems are 
        related to a deficiency in systems redundancy and 
        physical security standards of critical cyber 
        infrastructure sites, as well as a lack of surplus 
        generators, transformers, and other infrastructures, 
        which would result in prolonged system outages in the 
        event of an attack.

         The State's cyber security task force is 
        tasked with evaluating the state's critical cyber 
        infrastructure, identifying potential means of cyber 
        attack, and devising security practices for private 
        industry, State-operated information systems, and the 
        general public.

         Government and academia must communicate with 
        the private sector to avoid duplication of efforts 
        resulting from federal grants and development projects.

         Outdated public disclosure laws at the State 
        and federal level hinder homeland security efforts, 
        causing public and private infrastructure operators to 
        be unwilling to share information with the government 
        because of fear of public exposure under the Freedom of 
        Information Act. Mr. Kallstrom hopes the passage of the 
        President's Homeland Security measure will rectify the 
        problem.

    Mr. Tritak spoke of the ways in which cyber attacks can be 
just as dangerous as physical attacks. In his testimony he 
noted that:

         National security and economic security are 
        now interconnected in such a way that the Federal 
        Government cannot provide adequate safeguard merely on 
        its own; our economy and infrastructure are largely 
        privately owned and operated.

         The successful actions of the State and local 
        governments in coordinating response efforts during and 
        after the 9/11 attacks provide a case study in what 
        critical infrastructure assurance is all about.

         Cyber attacks are often thought to be less 
        hazardous because they are more removed from the 
        public. In pointing out the dangers of such an attack, 
        Mr. Tritak wondered what could have happened had 
        emergency services communications been disrupted on 9/
        11.

         Information sharing between the private 
        sector and the government needs to improve because 
        critical infrastructure security needs to be analyzed 
        by using a business-type model of examining 
        capabilities and potential vulnerabilities--how 
        disruptions in one area can create disruptions in other 
        areas.

    Dr. Engle explained the Air Force's reliance on critical 
information infrastructures in combating terrorism. He noted in 
his oral testimony that:

         The Air Force needs assured and dependable 
        information for war fighters, requiring strong 
        investments in science and technology.

         Air Force investments are focused on the 
        highest priorities needed at a given time as the Air 
        Force works with the intelligence community, 
        universities, and industry on a number of leading edge 
        activities to secure information networks.

         In terms of cyber security, the Air Force 
        system requires the following capabilities and focuses 
        its research on these areas: the ability to transfer 
        information across coalition networks; the ability to 
        test and exercise information operation of personnel, 
        equipment, etc. in a realistic setting; the ability to 
        assess the risk of information systems; and the 
        automatic ability to globally correlate attack 
        information.

         Even before 9/11, the Air Force directed much 
        of its science and technology research toward cyber 
        security.

    During the question and answer period, the following issues 
were discussed:

    Role of DOD laboratories:

         Dr. Marburger said that DOD laboratories have 
        enormous capabilities in terms of investing in vital 
        technologies and training professionals. Other 
        laboratories can look to labs such as AFRL, which have 
        reoriented themselves with modern needs, including 
        those of the military and the Nation as a whole.

         Dr. Marburger concurred with Chairman 
        Boehlert that the coordination of cyber protection will 
        be problematic, but he believes that consolidation 
        under the Department of Homeland Security could address 
        many problems.

    Relationship between the government and the private sector:

         Mr. Kallstrom agreed with the other witnesses 
        in describing the difficulties in getting private 
        operators of critical information infrastructures, such 
        as operators of power grids, to openly discuss cyber 
        security laws with the government because of freedom of 
        information laws. He believes that these laws need to 
        be modified accordingly.

         Mr. Tritak concurred with Mr. Kallstrom, and 
        went on to testify that industry and government need to 
        be co-partners in dealing with cyber protection because 
        homeland security relies on both working together.

    Secrecy and Overspending:

         Dr. Marburger acknowledged Representative 
        Nick Smith's concerns about wasteful spending on 
        protection and the secret nature of some research and 
        development activities. He testified, however, that 
        expenditures on cyber security could serve a dual 
        purpose of providing protection and of creating 
        economic competitiveness because research expenditures 
        made by the private sector could add value to products 
        and make them more desirable to a larger market. Also, 
        he testified that the Department of Homeland Security 
        would narrowly identify the kinds of information that 
        needs to be protected so that secrecy is not rampant.
            Panel 2:
    Mr. Weaver explained the role of the Secret Service in 
protecting against a cyber attack. He noted in his testimony 
that:

         The Secret Service fights cyber crime as part 
        of its core mission to protect the Nation's financial 
        payment systems through its working relationship with 
        the banking and financial sectors as well as the 
        telecommunications industry.

         The partnership between law enforcement, 
        industry, and academia has a demonstrated importance 
        because law enforcement is not sufficiently equipped to 
        face cyber security unaided.

         The Secret Service provides physical 
        assistance to other government departments for training 
        and for performing computer-related analysis or 
        technical consultation.

         A well-placed cyber attack against a weak 
        technology or support infrastructure system can render 
        an otherwise sound physical plan vulnerable or 
        inadequate.

    Dr. Shamash discussed the activities of New York State's 
higher education and information technology industry sectors, 
as well as ways in which the State's resources may be used to 
address cyber threats. He specifically noted that:

         The shutdown of New York stock exchanges last 
        fall provided a brief glimpse of what could happen if 
        critical information systems are not protected in the 
        near future.

         Among other resources, the State is home to 
        five national security agency centers for academic 
        excellence and information assurance, and two federal 
        research labs including the Air Force Research Facility 
        in Rome, NY. These resources combine the efforts of the 
        government and the private sector in researching the 
        security of information systems.

         A national cyber security center should be 
        created to mobilize the best academic, research, and 
        industry resources of the State and the Nation to 
        define cyber threats, to develop effective solutions 
        through new countermeasures and strengthened systems, 
        and to use its expertise in assisting in the 
        implementation of those solutions.

    Mr. Miravalle discussed the importance of giving 
researchers the freedom to collaborate on the issues raised by 
cyber terrorism. In his testimony, he noted that:

         In much the same way that the private sector 
        approaches R&D, cyber security R&D needs to develop a 
        business-type model that would create a research agenda 
        and connect private, public, and academic 
        organizations.

         Along with fulfilling long- and short-term 
        cyber security objectives, the research agenda needs a 
        technology transition process to ensure that new 
        knowledge emerges from the research community and 
        enters a process of implementation.

         It is important to allow government agencies 
        to work in conjunction with each other and the private 
        sector to maximize the information learned from 
        research activities. If the government creates products 
        that it will not utilize, the knowledge should be made 
        available to private industry, where it could be used 
        in the development of cyber security innovations.

    During the question and answer period, the following issues 
were discussed:

    Potential for growth in Central New York:

         Mr. Miravalle testified that the existence of 
        the Air Force Research Lab and the National Institute 
        of Justice (NIJ) Cyber Science Lab, as well as local 
        academic institutions, could create a Cyber Security 
        Valley similar to a Silicon Valley. The fragmented 
        nature of the research in Central New York is similar 
        to the splintered nature of information assurance in 
        the economic community, an area that needs to come 
        together somewhere.

         Mr. Weaver testified that because 80 percent 
        of cyber crime occurs on the State and local level, the 
        role of labs such as the NIJ Cyber-Science Lab has 
        become more significant.

    Creating a national cyber security research center:

         Dr. Shamash testified that business and 
        software companies, academia, and labs such as the Air 
        Force facility in Rome are already engaged in cyber 
        security research. The intellectual and financial 
        capabilities of these institutions need to be brought 
        together in creating a national center.

         Mr. Miravalle testified that all parties 
        engaged in cyber security research must be brought 
        together as a team. A system of incentives and rewards 
        for work based on partnering could be offered.

    Computer and information systems education:

         Dr. Shamash acknowledged Representative Nick 
        Smith's concern that INS's tougher enforcement of 
        immigration laws could cause a shortage of workers in 
        math, science, and engineering in the U.S. However, he 
        hopes that if a student graduates and has a job in 
        industry, the individual would still be eligible for 
        employment, pending necessary security and background 
        checks.

           4.1(z)_Science and Technology to Combat Terrorism

                             June 25, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-68

Background
    The House Science Committee and the Subcommittee on 
Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a joint hearing to 
examine how science and technology can best be utilized to 
defend our nation against the threat of terrorism. The hearing 
focused on a comprehensive study by the National Academy of 
Sciences (that was released on the day of the hearing) on 
science and technology to counter terrorism. The two Co-chairs 
of the study--entitled Making the Nation Safer: Science and 
Technology for Countering Terrorism--testified at the hearing. 
The hearing addressed questions over the types of research 
programs needed to combat terrorism, harden civilian 
infrastructure systems, and understand terrorist motives as 
well as the impact of the threat of terrorism on research.
    In December 2001, the National Academy of Sciences, using 
its own funds, initiated a study of science and technology to 
counter terrorism with the purpose of helping the Federal 
Government effectively mobilize the Nation's scientific and 
technical resources to respond to the threat of terrorism. The 
focus of the Committee's work was on improving our nation's 
resilience to likely or emerging terrorist threats. The 
Committee's approach was to identify current and likely threats 
to the Nation, understand the most likely vulnerabilities in 
the face of these threats, and identify opportunities for 
science and technology to contribute to counter-terrorism in 
both the near- and long-term.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, 
Emeritus Aetna Professor of Public Policy and Corporate 
Management and Emeritus Director of the Science, Technology, 
and Public Policy Program in the Center for Science and 
International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of 
Government; (2) Dr. Richard D. Klausner, Executive director, 
Global Health Programs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; (3) 
Dr. John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University; (4) Mr. 
Paul H. Gilbert, Director Emeritus, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.; 
and (5) Dr. William Happer, Professor, Department of Physics, 
Princeton University.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Branscomb discussed the recommendations and themes 
inherent in the National Academy of Sciences Report, Making the 
Nation Safer: Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. 
In his oral statement he explained that:

         There are three types of recommendations 
        included in the report: those which do not require 
        research, but rather seek to reorganize existing 
        technologies to improve our security; those which 
        recommend available technologies to be deployed and new 
        research activities to be undertaken; and those which 
        deal with the deployment, construction, and funding of 
        such activities.

         The report is not a catalogue of the Nation's 
        vulnerabilities, but in some cases identifies 
        vulnerabilities to encourage investment.

         Nuclear issues were largely dealt with in a 
        classified report available to government employees 
        with adequate clearance.

         The report covers nuclear threats, biological 
        threats, chemical issues, information technology, 
        energy infrastructure, transportation, and complex 
        systems, but it is very difficult to prioritize without 
        knowledge of terrorist capability and intent.

         The report lists seven things that could be 
        done now with existing technologies and seven research 
        activities that ought to be undertaken immediately.

         There are many areas with overlapping 
        problems and technologies that can be, and should be, 
        addressed at one time.

    Dr. Klausner spoke about the concept of ``dual use,'' or 
the integration of civil society and government research and 
development. He explained that:

         An integrated approach is the most productive 
        and beneficial approach to research and development.

         One of the strong recommendations is the 
        development of a Homeland Security Institute, to advise 
        the Federal Government at the highest levels on 
        vulnerabilities through independent analytical work.

         The Government must engage the universities 
        that are so vital to research and development, without 
        compromising the independence and functionality of such 
        institutions.

         We need to focus on the introduction of new 
        individuals to the fields of science and technology, 
        particularly women and minorities.

    During the question and answer period the following issues 
were discussed:

    New Technology and Innovations:

         Dr. Branscomb agreed with Senator Wyden that 
        we need a strategy for new technologies, particularly 
        those intended to thwart terrorism, to cut through the 
        bureaucratic mess. A process is needed for deciding 
        what arm of the Federal Government will purchase and 
        coordinate the development of the technologies, and 
        another process is needed for implementing said 
        technologies.

         Dr. Klausner emphasized the points raised by 
        Dr. Branscomb regarding the daunting confusion 
        associated with Government bureaucracy. He pointed out 
        that a solution to this problem was an intention of the 
        report, or at the least an initiation of a process to 
        resolve this issue.

    Under Secretary for Research and Development:

         In response to a question from Chairman 
        Boehlert, Dr. Klausner pointed out that the proposed 
        Department of Homeland Security is going to have to 
        deal with a broad range of technical information. In 
        his opinion an Under Secretary for R&D is needed to 
        coordinate this massive effort. The Under Secretary 
        might also serve as the logical office to which the 
        Homeland Security Institute reports.

         Dr. Branscomb addressed this issue in his 
        personal opinion, as it was not a concern of the 
        report. The proposed Under Secretary would be the 
        senior technical officer for the Federal Government and 
        should be in control of the entire budget allotted to 
        R&D within the proposed Department of Homeland 
        Security.

    Cyber Security:

         Dr. Hennessy acknowledged that cyber security 
        research is lagging. Standards need to be set for cyber 
        security throughout the Federal Government, and 
        adequate support needs to be given to local agencies to 
        survive a terrorist attack to their computer systems.

    Security of the Energy Sector:

         In response to questioning from Ranking 
        Minority Member Hall, Mr. Gilbert mentioned that the 
        energy sector is broken into several sections, each 
        regulated differently. With these differences (between 
        for example, a regulated utility and a private sector 
        company), it is hard to have a standard of redundancy 
        and security in the system as a whole. The report 
        addresses this issue and recommends some actions to 
        prevent a cascading failure of systems across broad 
        areas.

    NIST and Information Security:

         Dr. Hennessy reiterated that the important 
        step in cyber security is setting standards, 
        particularly for computer systems on the local level. 
        In response to a question from Congresswoman Morella, 
        he stated that he did not believe NIST should be moved 
        to the proposed Department of Homeland Security.

         Dr. Branscomb agreed to the latter, but 
        emphasized that NIST and the private sector do not 
        provide for adequate research.

         Mr. Gilbert added that fire codes, such as 
        those brought to light in the wake of the WTC collapse, 
        are outdated, and NIST should be the lead agency in 
        reworking standards to current science.

    Recruitment/Retention of Science and Technology 
Professionals:

         Dr. Hennessy agreed with Representative Lynn 
        Woolsey that we are lacking sufficient interest in the 
        physical sciences and engineering. He attributed a 
        large part of this to little recruitment of women and 
        minorities.

    First Responders:

         Mr. Gilbert testified that the real 
        importance of first responders lay in the cities. He 
        also testified that sufficient protection and training 
        need to be distributed to local officials for regular 
        use, so as to pre-empt the harm caused to unsuspecting 
        first responders.

    Public/Private Research Partnerships:

         Dr. Klausner, when questioned by 
        Representative Nick Smith over the coordination of 
        NGO's such as NSF with the government, responded that 
        it is hard to predict what science may reveal in the 
        future and science may be stunted by direction. He 
        proposed research investment aligned with a subject 
        rather than a goal.

    Quick Response Capacity:

         Dr. Branscomb, when questioned by 
        Representative Brian Baird over the ability of the 
        science community to study tragedies such as the WTC 
        attacks immediately, responded that the NSF, had in 
        fact responded within days to the eruption of Mt. St. 
        Helens. He suggested special rules for extenuating 
        circumstances and said that the report laid out a plan 
        for an expedited scientific review leading directly to 
        the production of new technology.

         Dr. Klausner added that the agencies in 
        question often rely on Congress, and that it is not 
        that the agencies do not wish to move quickly, but that 
        government often restrains them. He suggested this 
        might be a goal of the Committee.

    Psychological Aspects of Terrorism:

         Dr. Branscomb commented that while he felt 
        concerned about psychological factors, this was not 
        included in the report, much to the chagrin of Rep. 
        Baird.

    Science and Technology in Identifying Priorities:

         Dr. Branscomb, responding to Representative 
        Roscoe Bartlett's question over the role of science and 
        technology in determining the most likely terrorist 
        targets, said he intended for the Institute of Homeland 
        Security to do just that. Also in the field of war 
        gaming, Dr. Branscomb suggested more use of the private 
        sector.

    Women and Minorities in Science and Technology:

         Representative Sheila Jackson Lee commented 
        on the need to expose minorities to science and 
        technology.

    Local Responses:

         Rep. Jackson Lee commented on the need to 
        coordinate even the simplest responses in local 
        communities, for protection against mass confusion.

         Representative Vernon Ehlers commented that 
        he thought the Homeland Security Institute to be a very 
        important step.

    Eliminating the Source of the Threat:

         Dr. Happer testified that steps we can take 
        proactively to prevent terrorism include hastening the 
        reduction of nuclear arms in Russia and undermining the 
        teaching of hatred.

    Openness of Information and Security Concerns:

         Senator Wyden asked what one might recommend 
        for maintaining secrecy in National Security Research 
        without slowing scientific progress. He asked to apply 
        the debate over security and freedom to the scientific 
        realm.

         Dr. Klausner replied that this is of concern 
        and he believes that the steps need to be taken in 
        coordination rather than unilaterally by a government 
        agency.

         Dr. Hennessy cautioned the security move as 
        to not constrain current Research Centers.

         Returning to this issue, Representative Zoe 
        Lofgren asked how we can conserve and share information 
        at the same time, and inquired as to whether the 
        proposed Homeland Security Institute would resemble the 
        DARPA.

         Dr. Klausner replied that he did not believe 
        the proposal would follow a DARPA model in that it 
        would repeat its imperfections.

         Dr. Branscomb testified that we must be 
        careful to only restrict information that might be used 
        by would be terrorists.

    Roadblocks to Sensor Research, Development, and Deployment:

         Representative Felix Grucci sought an 
        explanation of the roadblocks to Sensors from those 
        testifying.

         Dr. Klausner answered that technology has not 
        yet solved the dilemma of recognizing a particular 
        object. He also said that the Homeland Security 
        Institute is designed to solve these types of problems.

    Information Sharing and Foreign Scientists:

         Dr. Klausner, after being pressed by Rep. 
        Grucci, testified that we must be careful not to impede 
        the very important work of foreign scientists.

    DOE Labs and The Department of Homeland Security:

         When asked about this topic by Chairman 
        Boehlert, Dr. Happer testified that if done carefully 
        he foresaw a workable relationship created by the new 
        proposed department.

    Information Sharing:

         Dr. Klausner, responding to Senator Wyden's 
        question, testified that standards need to be set in 
        order to achieve the level of information sharing we 
        are planning for in the creation of the proposed 
        Department of Homeland Security. He added that the 
        proposed new department has to embrace innovation for 
        it to function as proposed, but also for the standard 
        to be raised throughout the Federal Government.

    The Marketplace and Homeland Security:

         Dr. Klausner pointed out that a priority of 
        the proposed Institute of Homeland Security is to set 
        standards to eliminate the marketing of scientifically 
        inferior products to the emotional fervor surrounding 
        terrorism of all kinds.

    Protecting Communities:

         Dr. Klausner testified that communication 
        between communities was one of the Committee's top 
        seven priorities, and something the government should 
        take action on immediately.

         Dr. Branscomb added that technology has to be 
        distributed in collaboration with local officials in 
        order to best integrate technology and the education 
        level of the community.

    The Role of NASA in Combating Terrorism:

         Dr. Branscomb testified that the proposed 
        Institute would be a think tank and acknowledged that 
        NASA is a valuable resource.

           4.1(aa)_Creating a Department of Homeland Security

                             June 27, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-73

Background
    The hearing examined the President's proposed legislation 
creating a Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The hearing 
focused on issues within the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee including the organizational structure for research 
and development (R&D) within the new department, and the 
transfer of functions from existing agencies to it. The hearing 
helped guide the Committee in drafting its legislative proposal 
regarding the establishment of a Department of Homeland 
Security. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy testified along with officials representing the 
Departments of Commerce and Energy.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, 
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 
Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, 
Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and (3) Mr. 
John S. Tritak, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance 
Office (CIAO), Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department 
of Commerce.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Marburger discussed the role of science and technology 
in the new department. He said:

         President Bush's vision is that the 
        Department of Homeland Security will have four primary 
        missions: 1) it will control our borders and prevent 
        terrorists and explosives from entering the country; 2) 
        it will work with state and local authorities to 
        respond quickly and effectively to emergencies; 3) it 
        will analyze intelligence and law enforcement 
        information from all government agencies; and 4) it 
        will bring together scientists and engineers to develop 
        technologies that detect and protect against 
        biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

         The Under Secretary for Chemical, Biological, 
        Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Countermeasures would 
        be responsible for coordinating the science and 
        technology element of the new department.

         There would be four priorities for this Under 
        Secretary: 1) securing the U.S. from acts of terrorism 
        involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and 
        other emerging threats; 2) conducting homeland 
        security-related R&D as well as developing a national 
        policy for coordinating federal efforts to counter 
        threats; 3) establishing priorities for directing 
        funding, and conducting R&D and procurement of 
        technology related to countering weapons of mass 
        destruction; and 4) establishing guidelines for State 
        and local government efforts to counter these threats.

         The new department would enjoy maximum 
        flexibility to quickly adapt to new and changing 
        threats, something the current homeland security 
        infrastructure does not allow.

    Dr. Orbach explained that the proposed changes in the 
Office of Science will allow for more efficient protection of 
the homeland. He noted in his testimony that:

         The program in pathogenic microbes would be 
        transferred to the new department and would be involved 
        in DNA sequencing, technology development, 
        computational tools, and databases.

         The new department needs the in-house 
        capability to understand the nature of this type of 
        threat and the ability to respond to the threat.

         A director of homeland security has been 
        appointed in each of DOE's ten national laboratories. 
        Through Dr. Orbach's office, each director will serve 
        as a single point of contact for both universities in 
        the surrounding region and DHS.

    Mr. Tritak discussed the transfer of the Department of 
Commerce's Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) 
Computer Security Division (CSD) into DHS. He noted:

         The responsibilities of CIAO are to promote 
        national outreach with the private sector and State and 
        local government, to assist federal agencies in 
        analyzing their dependencies on critical 
        infrastructures, and to coordinate the preparation of a 
        national strategy for critical infrastructure 
        assurance.

         Because a majority of critical 
        infrastructures are privately owned and operated, the 
        government cannot secure them alone. CIAO attempts to 
        translate the concerns of critical infrastructure 
        assurance into terms that business leaders understand.

         An Information Integration Program Office 
        within CIAO would serve to improve the coordination of 
        information sharing that is essential to combating 
        terrorism.

         The CSD works with industry and government to 
        establish secure interoperable information technology 
        systems and networks.

         NIST has statutory responsibilities under the 
        ``Computer Security Act'' and the ``Government 
        Information Security Reform Act'' for developing 
        standards to assist federal agencies in the protection 
        of sensitive and classified systems. In support of this 
        mission, the CSD conducts research to help industry 
        produce more secure, yet cost effective products for 
        the marketplace.

         The President's homeland security proposal is 
        an attempt to balance consolidating multiple functions 
        under one agency and coordinating the remaining 
        agencies in their efforts.

    During the question and answer period, the following issues 
were discussed:

    Need for a DHS Under Secretary for R&D:

         Dr. Marburger testified that the assignment 
        of responsibilities under Title III to the Under 
        Secretary for CBRN effectively provides leadership for 
        R&D.

         Chairman Boehlert advocated the Committee's 
        recommendation that an Under Secretary for Science and 
        Technology was needed in the new department to provide 
        a focal point for guiding key R&D programs across the 
        new department, and to maintain a degree of involvement 
        with agencies from the major science, engineering, and 
        medical fields that will not be a part of DHS.

    Transfer of NIST Computer Security Division to DHS:

         In response to Representative Zoe Lofgren's 
        concern that moving CSD to DHS would damage the 
        agency's relationship with the private sector and NIST, 
        Mr. Tritak testified that the new department would be a 
        civilian agency whose structure would encourage a 
        collaborative relationship with private industry.

         Mr. Tritak testified that a decision had not 
        yet been made to physically move CSD from NIST. The 
        focus was to develop a transition process that looks at 
        bringing groups together organizationally. At the same 
        time, CSD will retain its close relationships with 
        private industry in the field of computer security.

    Setting the Homeland Security Research Agenda:

         According to Dr. Marburger, the research 
        agenda for Homeland Security is the responsibility of 
        the Undersecretary for CBRN. OSTP would continue to 
        provide interagency coordination of research and would 
        continue to provide technical support to the Office of 
        Homeland Security.

    Creating a Modern, Agile Department:

         Dr. Marburger concurred with Representative 
        Vernon Ehlers that an objective of the new department 
        is agility and rapid response. The objective is not 
        merely to collect departments; rather, it is to give 
        DHS certain capabilities so that it can be responsive 
        to the needs of Homeland Security.

         Dr. Marburger testified that the decision to 
        pull certain units into the new department while 
        leaving others out (like the FBI and CIA) is a judgment 
        call; the desire is to establish a capability that 
        permits the translation of science into action.

    Cyberspace Capabilities:

         Mr. Tritak testified that there is increased 
        awareness that harms in cyberspace don't necessarily 
        remain in cyberspace; rather, in certain situations, 
        these attacks can do serious physical harm. The U.S. 
        depends on information systems and networks to operate 
        physical assets. Part of the goal of DHS will be to 
        make the owners and operators of these infrastructures 
        aware of that dependency and to manage that risk 
        accordingly in a collaborative fashion.

    Timeline for Establishing DHS:

         Dr. Marburger testified that the President 
        would like a one year transition period between passage 
        of the bill and activation of DHS. The hope is that the 
        integration of a number of agencies into the new 
        department will not be especially difficult or time 
        consuming.

    Protecting Our Critical Infrastructure from Cyberterrorism:

         Dr. Marburger concurred with Representative 
        Roscoe Bartlett's concerns that the opportunities for 
        cyber attacks outnumber the capability of addressing 
        them all simultaneously. DHS will accept the 
        responsibility for prioritizing threats and presenting 
        them to the President, as well as proposing a budget 
        that addresses those threats by utilizing threat 
        assessments and scenarios produced by other agencies 
        and departments, such as the Department of Defense and 
        DOE laboratories.

    Broadening the Scope of DHS:

         In response to Representative Nick Smith's 
        concerns about over emphasizing protection against an 
        outside attack at the expense of an inside problem 
        (such as a natural disaster), Dr. Marburger testified 
        that DHS can perform double duties in many areas. In 
        making systems for everyday life more robust and less 
        vulnerable to terrorist attacks, these systems will 
        also be more useful and less vulnerable in general.

         Dr. Orbach concurred on the duality of 
        purposes by discussing the research of pathogens, which 
        can be introduced by an enemy or merely exist in 
        nature, and which can cause severe diseases and 
        epidemics.

    Openness of the Administration to Outside Suggestions 
Regarding DHS:

         Dr. Marburger testified that the President's 
        proposal is intended to set a general framework that 
        embraces certain principles but provides flexibility 
        for modification. His office has been working with the 
        National Academies on the proposal and will consider 
        using some of the Academies' recommendations, which are 
        more detailed. The Academies' report will not be 
        ignored nor its recommendations rejected without having 
        been thoroughly examined.

         4.1(bb)_The Administration's Climate Change Initiative

                             July 10, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-75

Background
    The hearing reviewed the Administration's climate change 
research and technology programs. The hearing assessed the 
goals of the President's Climate Change Research Initiative 
(CCRI), how it relates to ongoing federal climate change 
research activities, and how it could be structured to yield 
more useful information for decision-makers. The hearing also 
assessed the goals of the President's National Climate Change 
Technology Initiative (NCCTI), how it relates to existing 
climate technology programs, and how federal climate technology 
investments could do more to enhance our energy security and 
ensure that new technologies are deployed in the marketplace.
    This hearing built on an April 17, 2002 hearing, at which 
the Committee heard from climate change science and technology 
experts outside the government about possible new directions 
for the Nation's climate change science and technology 
programs.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. 
Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, Executive Office of the White House; (2) Dr. James R. 
Mahoney, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce; (3) Mr. Robert G. Card, Under Secretary for Energy, 
Science, and Environment, Department of Energy.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that it's 
been extremely hard to figure out what the Administration is 
doing in, or planning for its climate change science and 
technology programs. We have had trouble getting answers to our 
questions, we've heard contradictory descriptions of programs 
from different agencies and even from different parts of the 
White House, we've had trouble learning how the Administration 
plans to spend the $80 million for its initiatives, and the 
list goes on and on.
    He continued, stating that we want to get on the record a 
clear sense of what the Administration intends to be the focus 
of the Climate Change Research Initiative and the National 
Climate Change Technology Initiative, and how those relate to 
each other and to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 
which this Committee created in 1990. We want to know how the 
Administration's new organizational structure can enhance the 
coordination of the programs. And finally, we want to know how 
we will finally get a coherent, cohesive budget for climate 
change programs.
    Dr. Marburger started by reaffirming the President's 
commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and its 
central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas 
concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human 
interference with the climate.

         The Administration's position is that the 
        policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible 
        way, given the limits of our knowledge. While 
        scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to 
        address the factors that contribute to climate change.

         Much of the climate change discussion and its 
        impacts centers on the use of computer models, but 
        today's climate models cannot be used for definite 
        predictions of regional or local conditions.

         The Administration established a new 
        management structure to advance and coordinate climate 
        change science and technology research, including a 
        Cabinet level Committee on Climate Change Science and 
        Technology Integration to oversee the effort.

    Dr. Mahoney stated that the status of the earth system, 
including potential impacts of climate and ecosystem 
variability, is a capstone issue for our generation and will 
continue to be so for our children.

         Much scientific progress has been made since 
        1990, but substantial uncertainties remain to be 
        addressed. Resolving this scientific uncertainty in 
        global climate models will have a major impact on 
        determining the optimal types, amounts and schedules of 
        greenhouse gas emission management.

         An interagency group is currently developing 
        a fully updated strategic plan for the United States 
        Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate 
        Change Research Initiative (CCRI) activities. The 
        updated draft proposal will be posted on the USGCRP/
        CCRI website by November 1, 2002, with a workshop to be 
        held in early December 2002, and a final plan will be 
        published in March 2003.

         The Administration wants to initiate a new 
        three-tiered research strategy: (1) continued 
        scientific inquiry; (2) increased emphasis on 
        measurements and monitoring systems for climate and 
        ecosystem information; and (3) substantially increased 
        focus on providing information useful to decision-
        makers.

    Mr. Card testified that a number of technologies exist that 
may be used to mitigate climate change options, though they are 
currently prohibitively expensive for broad use.

         Greenhouse gas reduction has been used as an 
        explicit and top tier funding criteria for making R&D 
        investment decisions.

         Tax incentives are being used to pull 
        technology forward such projects as high graded and 
        fuel cell vehicles.

         The Department of Energy is committed to 
        meeting the President's commitment of 18 percent 
        greenhouse gas intensity reduction by 2012.

      4.1(cc)_``The State of the Nation's Ecosystem,'' The Heinz 
                   Center Report and Its Implications

                           September 24, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-87

Background
    The hearing examined the key findings and recommendations 
of The Heinz Center's report on The State of the Nation's 
Ecosystems. The Committee heard testimony regarding what is 
known and, in many cases, still unknown about the condition of 
our ecosystems, and received recommendations for filling data 
gaps and ensuring the ongoing collection of scientifically 
credible information.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. William Clark, 
Chair, Design Committee and member of the Senior Advisory Group 
of the Heinz Center Report, and Professor, John F. Kennedy 
School of Government; (2) Ms. Kim Nelson, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; (3) Ms. Lynn Scarlett, 
Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Department 
of Interior; (4) Mr. Fred Krupp, Executive Director, 
Environmental Defense; and (5) Ms. Kim Coble, Maryland Senior 
Scientist and Assistant Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by praising the report 
for being the only recent effort to develop a compendium of 
available data on ecosystems, as well as for pointing out how 
far we have to go to fill in incomplete or missing data. He 
warned, however, that more data is not a panacea and that 
decision-makers in both the Executive and Legislative branches 
have some tough decisions to make about what data we want to 
gather and how much we want to spend to do so. Which data we do 
collect will shape policy decisions, though it is not likely to 
be the ``Holy Grail'' of environmental policy. We know that 
good economic data has not put an end to debates on fiscal 
policy, and good quality environmental data on air quality that 
we now collect has not ended debates on clean air policy.
    Dr. Clark began his testimony by outlining the importance 
of identifying a set of scientifically credible and well-
respected national environmental indicators in order to frame 
policy debates.

         The report details the current condition and 
        historical trends of the Nation's coasts and oceans, 
        farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and 
        shrublands, and urban and suburban lands.

         It identifies 103 indicators--statistics that 
        represent the health of ecosystems. However, there are 
        complete data for only 32 percent of the indicators, 
        and partial data for another 24 percent. It is not 
        possible to report nationally on close to 45 percent of 
        the indicators, because either the data is unavailable, 
        or the indicator itself needs further scientific 
        development.

         Experts from the business community, 
        environmental organizations, all levels of government, 
        and academia developed the reporting framework, 
        selected the ecosystems, identified the key 
        characteristics of those ecosystems, and chose the 
        measurable indicators included in the report.

         The report presents data and trends but does 
        not draw conclusions about the meaning of the data or 
        evaluate specific policy choices.

         The Nation needs a place to collect and 
        report on national environmental indicators over time, 
        much the same way the Nation collects data on economic 
        indicators.

         The Heinz Center plans to produce annual web-
        based updates of the data in the report, and prepare a 
        second written report in 2007.

    Ms. Nelson emphasized the importance of scientifically 
valid and measurable indicators, and reminded the committee 
about EPA's ``State of the Environment'' report, expected to be 
released in November 2002.

         EPA strongly supports the Heinz Center effort 
        and provided technical and financial resources to 
        prepare it.

         In addition to reporting on ecosystem 
        conditions (though in a more streamlined way than the 
        Heinz report), EPA's upcoming study will report on (1) 
        the impact of environmental quality on air, water and 
        land and public health, and (2) the stressors affecting 
        environmental quality.

         The Heinz report is significant for bringing 
        a variety of representatives and viewpoints together to 
        agree on indicators.

    Ms. Scarlett outlined the Department of Interior's role in 
preparing the report, emphasizing the data provided by the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS).

         The Department sees the development of 
        national indicators as a step towards establishing 
        stronger accountability through the Government 
        Performance and Results Act.

         The USGS and other divisions of the 
        Department are available for future partnerships with 
        State and private organizations in order to further the 
        development of indicators for policy-making.

    Mr. Krupp praised the collaborative approach that made the 
selection of indicators for the report possible and added that 
the transparency and objectivity of the report will make it a 
useful tool for policy-making.

         The Heinz Report sends an important message 
        that we do not have a sufficient picture of the health 
        of our nation's ecosystems.

         Many of the indicators are not well 
        established enough to be reported nationally.

         However, incomplete national information 
        should not hinder important local actions, where 
        sufficient data often exists.

         The most surprising finding of the Heinz 
        Center report is that nearly all the monitored streams 
        in the United States show contamination from one or 
        more pollutants.

    Ms. Coble briefly described the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's 
experience developing a ``State of the Bay'' indicators.

         The Foundation has developed 12 quantitative 
        and qualitative indicators, organized in three 
        categories that impact habitat, fisheries and pollution 
        and reflect the effects of stressors on the health of 
        the bay.

         The Foundation's indicators provide a 
        quantitative score for the state of the Bay, and help 
        inform environmental and economic policy and 
        legislation.

         The Heinz Report is important on a local 
        level because it will raise awareness of specific 
        indicators and may assist in the development of new 
        regional measures.

     4.1(dd)_Meeting the Needs of the Fire Services: H.R. 3992 and 
                               H.R. 4548

                            October 2, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-88

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to: receive testimony on 
H.R. 3992, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 
Response Act of 2002; and H.R. 4548, concerning the Assistance 
to Firefighters grant program.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Steve Williams, 
President, Houston Professional Firefighters Association 
(testifying on behalf of Harold Schaitberger, General 
President, International Association of Firefighters); (2) Mr. 
Randy Bruegman, President, International Association of Fire 
Chiefs and Chief, Clackamas County, Oregon Fire District; (3) 
Mr. Jim Monihan, Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council 
Legislative Committee and Director, Delaware Volunteer Fire 
Council; (4) Mr. David James, Chief, Weedsport, New York Fire 
Department; and (5) Mr. William Antilla, Director of Maritime 
Science and Fire Science, Clatsop Community College, Astoria, 
Oregon.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened this hearing by noting that most 
of us think of fire as a distant, perhaps even archaic threat, 
yet it kills about 4,000 Americans each year. Since the Federal 
Government began investing in fire protection in 1974, the 
number of fire deaths has dropped by two-thirds, but we need to 
do better. While firefighting is, and should remain, a local 
responsibility, the Federal Government also has a role to play 
in saving lives and property.
    Chairman Boehlert also stressed the long history of the 
Science Committee's role in helping to improve fire safety in 
the United States, noting that the Hotel-Motel Fire Safety Act 
was one of the first bills he sponsored as a Member of 
Congress. He described his legislation, the SAFER Act, and 
stated that he saw this hearing as a first step in our 
continuing effort to ensure that the Federal Government does 
its part in seeing that our nation's fire departments are 
adequately trained, equipped, and staffed.
    Mr. Williams discussed the effect of September 11, 2001 on 
the Nation and on the International Association of Fire 
Fighters, noting that the IAFF lost 343 members that day. He 
testified that 9/11 was a defining moment for IAFF, and that 
H.R. 3992 represents the most significant contribution that the 
Federal Government could make toward building a living memorial 
to those firefighters that died on 9/11. He also stated that:

         2/3 of all fire departments in America lack 
        adequate personnel, and the problem is growing. He 
        cited several examples of municipalities that have had 
        to eliminate firefighter positions for various reasons.

         Several studies exist showing a direct 
        correlation between staffing levels and the safety and 
        effectiveness of emergency response operations.

         The need for adequate fire services personnel 
        has been recognized by both Federal Government 
        standards (Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration), as well as fire service industry 
        standards (National Fire Protection Association).

         The events of 9/11 and the new threat of 
        terrorism should eliminate any question regarding 
        whether the Federal Government should be involved in 
        fire protection.

         Federal Government grant programs work best 
        when funds are directly awarded to local fire 
        departments, best exemplified by the successful FIRE 
        Act grants.

    Mr. Bruegman declared the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs support of H.R. 3992, noting the legislation has 
garnered bipartisan support in both house of Congress, as well 
as the support of all the major fire service organizations. He 
testified that:

         Hiring additional firefighters will (1) 
        enhance on-scene efficiency; (2) increase safety for 
        both firefighters and victims; and (3) enhance planning 
        and training to protect both firefighters and the 
        communities they serve.

         While most jurisdictions require four 
        firefighters to staff a single piece of fire apparatus, 
        most staff with only three.

         H.R. 3992 will help fire departments meet 
        nationally recognized standards for operating 
        procedures.

         The FIRE Act grant program is an example of 
        good government: targeted, efficient, and effective. 
        The only problem with the program as it is currently 
        administered is the size of the funding. It is also 
        important that the program is not consolidated into the 
        President's proposed first responder initiative, per 
        the language of H.R. 4548.

    Mr. Monihan testified that nearly 75 percent of all 
firefighters are volunteers, who save taxpayers amounts 
estimated to be as much as $40 billion annually. He noted that 
today's fire departments are being asked to respond to 
emergency calls involving hazardous materials, wildland fires, 
search and rescue, natural disasters, clandestine drug labs, 
and terrorism. He praised the Assistance to Firefighters grant 
program's (FIRE Act) effectiveness in helping volunteer fire 
departments meet equipment, apparatus, and training needs to 
better meet these new challenges. He also testified that:

         The Assistance to Firefighters grant program 
        is successful because it is the only federal program 
        that provides funding to fire departments, and that far 
        too often funds intended to aid fire departments are 
        diverted to other uses by state and local officials.

         The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) 
        supports H.R. 4548, and believes that Assistance to 
        Firefighters grant funds should remain separate and 
        distinct from the President's new counter-terrorism 
        initiative.

         The NVFC supports passage of H.R. 3992, but 
        believes that any initiative by Congress to address 
        personnel shortfalls should include a significant 
        recruitment and retention component, which is the 
        number one challenge facing volunteers, whose ranks 
        have decreased by ten percent in the last 20 years. The 
        biggest factor in this decrease has been increased time 
        demands on volunteers.

    Mr. James discussed his experiences as Chief of a small 
volunteer fire department in upstate New York. He noted that 
his department is also experiencing personnel shortfalls. He 
discussed the proud tradition held by America's firefighters, 
but noted that time and money have become the two worst enemies 
of the fire service, and most people are now simply too busy to 
get involved. He also testified that:

         The Assistance to Firefighters grants have 
        allowed many departments across the country to update 
        old equipment and purchase new equipment that was not 
        possible before, certainly improving their ability to 
        respond to incidents.

         Volunteer departments are challenged with 
        maintaining the same standards of training and 
        preparedness that career departments are. While career 
        personnel often receive their training on the job, 
        volunteers have to do this at night after completing a 
        full day's work.

         The shortage of manpower is putting 
        firefighters lives at risk. Mr. James's fire department 
        recently had to activate six different departments to a 
        fire so an incident could be handled effectively.

    Mr. Antilla discussed the challenges associated with 
maritime firefighting. He noted that each year, 60,000 ships 
traverse the Nation's waterways (20,000 of which carry 
petroleum or other chemicals), and that fire departments tasked 
with fire protection in such areas often lack the resources and 
training to handle a major shipboard fire without significant 
assistance. He also discussed:

         The unique dangers incurred when land-based 
        firefighters are asked to respond to incidents on 
        ships, noting they have no personal knowledge of the 
        vessel's design, layout, or cargo.

         He stressed that, without a financial 
        incentive to provide an increased scope of maritime 
        firefighting training, many departments will not go 
        forward until a response to a fire reveals the need.

       4.1(ee)_Conducting Research During the War on Terrorism: 
                    Balancing Openness and Security

                            October 10, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-90

Background
    The hearing was held on balancing the need for greater 
security with the need for open scientific communication. Since 
the September 11th attacks and subsequent anthrax incidents, 
Congress, the executive branch, and the scientific and 
technical communities have begun discussions on how to prevent 
scientific research results and information from becoming 
national security risks. This hearing focused on the treatment 
of sensitive information and of foreign faculty and students.
    The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. 
Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Ron Atlas, 
President, American Society for Microbiology and Dean of the 
Graduate School and Professor of Biology, University of 
Louisville; (3) Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor, University of 
California-Santa Cruz; and (4) Dr. Sheila Widnall, Institute 
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting that this 
was the first hearing Congress has held since September 11th on 
the central question of balancing security and openness in the 
conduct of research. He stressed that the war on terrorism 
would be won in the laboratory just as much as on the 
battlefield. Since war demands secrecy and science thrives on 
openness, it is important that we determine how a free society 
balance those competing demands.
    Chairman Boehlert noted that today's enemy is more 
insidious and dispersed than that of the Cold War days. Further 
complicating matters, in fields such as biology, the exact same 
research could be used for both benign and malevolent purposes. 
A balance must be struck however, and it must be finely tuned 
and constantly recalibrated. The Chairman stated that he sees 
the Committee as an ``honest broker'' in those important 
discussions.
    Dr. Marburger updated the Committee on three topics 
relevant to balancing scientific openness and national 
security: 1) biosecurity, 2) international students, and 3) 
homeland security.

         Biosecurity--Progress has been made towards 
        creating safeguards for select biological agents and 
        the laboratories that have them. P.L. 107-188 requires 
        the Department of Health and Human Services to update 
        registration of select biological agents and create a 
        process to register the possession and use of such 
        agents.

         International students--The Interagency Panel 
        on Advanced Science and Security (IPASS) is a new 
        mechanism to review student visa applications, which 
        focuses on graduate and other advanced students who are 
        going into sensitive fields of study. The Office of 
        Homeland Security (OHS) and the Office of Science and 
        Technology Policy (OSTP) will review IPASS to ensure a 
        balance between scientific openness and homeland 
        security.

         Homeland security--The Administration is not 
        considering a pre-publication review policy of 
        sensitive research as is commonly thought. OHS has, 
        however, asked OMB to create a system for handling 
        sensitive homeland security information.

    Dr. Atlas testified representing the American Society for 
Microbiology (ASM), the world's largest life sciences 
organization. He stated:

         ASM is wary of any new limitations on 
        publications, and fears that new policies may hinder 
        research, though it understands the need to limit 
        access to information that could be useful to 
        terrorists.

         The only way to truly reduce the risks of 
        bioterrorism is through international efforts because 
        so many nations conduct research on infectious 
        diseases.

         Balancing security and scientific freedom 
        places a burden on researchers. A tenet of the 
        scientific method is reproducibility. Research articles 
        must be detailed enough that other scientists can 
        replicate the results. At the same time, care must be 
        taken not to release information that could be useful 
        to our enemies.

         ASM supports National Security Decision 
        Directive 189 (NSDD189), which establishes only two 
        categories for research--unrestricted and classified.

    Dr. Greenwood, a biologist and Chancellor of the University 
of California-Santa Cruz, emphasized that a dialogue between 
university and government officials is needed before any 
changes in policy should be made. Additionally, she stated:

         In general, creating new levels of 
        classification should only be considered if there is a 
        real and agreed upon threat. Specifically, a `sensitive 
        but unclassified' designation should not be created 
        because of its ambiguous nature.

         Universities usually do not conduct 
        classified research because of the restrictions it 
        places on the open and collaborative nature of the 
        scientific process. However, some universities do 
        manage national labs where classified research takes 
        place.

         Restricting the fields of study available to 
        some students in the U.S. is not an adequate safeguard 
        due to the educational opportunities available in other 
        countries. Currently more Ph.D.s are awarded by 
        European nations than by the U.S. So a more effective 
        defense would be to strengthen the U.S.'s science and 
        technology enterprise by attracting the best students, 
        regardless of nationality.

         It is impossible to completely restrict 
        potential terrorists from access to American 
        universities because terrorists do not represent 
        nations.

         Excessive restrictions may damage America's 
        economy, which would aid terrorists in achieving their 
        goals.

    Dr. Widnall concurred with Dr. Greenwood that the sensitive 
but unclassified designation should not be adopted, and said 
that it is `doomed to failure.' The current policy set by 
NSDD189 is preferred. Dr. Widnall also summarized some of the 
recommendations made to MIT by MIT's Committee on Access to and 
Disclosure of Scientific Information, of which she is the 
chairman. These include:

         No classified research should be done on 
        campus. In addition, no student should conduct 
        classified research or research that requires access to 
        classified information.

         MIT should not agree to have any research 
        reviewed for the inadvertent release of `sensitive' 
        information.

    The physical sciences and engineering communities have 
balanced scientific openness with national security for 50 
years, but for the biological science community this is a new 
issue. Dr. Widnall made personal recommendations to the 
biological and health science community. These recommendations 
are:

         Determine how much of the biological sciences 
        should be classified.

         Establish an institutional and agency 
        framework by which to classify the research.

         Create an advisory committee composed of 
        members of the scientific community to guide the 
        classification process.

    Dr. Widnall cautioned that the decision to classify should 
not be taken lightly because any research so classified would 
not occur on university campuses nor have the benefit of open 
collaboration.

                      4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

    4.2(a)_H.R. 723: Civil Penalties for Nuclear Safety Violations 
    by Nonprofit Department of Energy Contractors Under the Atomic 
                           Energy Act of 1954

                             March 22, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-33

Background
    The hearing addressed proposed legislation to amend the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to eliminate Department of Energy 
(DOE) nonprofit contractors' exemption from civil penalties 
related to violations of DOE rules, regulations, and orders 
related to nuclear safety.
    The hearing panel witnesses included: (1) Mr. Eric J. Fygi, 
Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) 
Ms. Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and 
Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO); (3) Mr. 
Guy Cunningham, Associate General Counsel, Battelle Memorial 
Institute; and (4) Mr. Robert L. Van Ness, Assistant Vice 
President for Laboratory Administration, University of 
California. In addition, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Representative Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Energy and 
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and the author 
of H.R. 723.

Summary of Hearing
    Representative Barton testified on the importance of H.R. 
723 to correct a long-standing problem in the management of DOE 
facilities. Under the 1988 Price-Anderson Amendments, the DOE 
cannot levy fines against non-profit contractors for safety 
violations. H.R. 723 would include non-profit contractors as 
entities liable to fines for safety violations. Mr. Fygi 
testified that several DOE nonprofit contractors indicated they 
could accept civil penalties if the amount of the civil 
penalties was limited to the amount of the fee the contractors 
received under their contracts with the Department. He 
commented on the lack of clarity in the definition of the 
``discretionary fee,'' the time period covered by the fee, the 
effective date of the changes in law, and the repeal of 
automatic remission of civil penalties under H.R. 723. Ms. 
Jones testified that in a 1999 report on DOE's nuclear safety 
enforcement program, the GAO recommended that the civil penalty 
exemption be eliminated.\1\ GAO supported eliminating the 
exemption since the main reason for instituting it no longer 
exists. The purpose of the exemption under the 1988 Price 
Anderson Amendments was to ensure that nonprofit contractors 
operating DOE's laboratories, who were being reimbursed only 
for their costs, would not have their assets at risk for 
violating nuclear safety requirements. GAO had four specific 
comments on H.R. 723: (1) the definition of the amount of fee 
at risk is unclear; (2) if the Congress decides to limit the 
amount of fee at risk by specifying that ``discretionary fee'' 
means only the incentive fee portion of the total fee, the 
ability to impose penalties on nonprofit contractors may be 
limited; (3) under the proposed bill, limitations on payments 
for civil penalties would be extended to all tax-exempt 
nonprofit contractors, not just nonprofit educational 
institutions; and, (4) the penalty provisions specified in H.R. 
723 would apply to contracts entered into only after the date 
of enactment. Mr. Cunningham expressed concern that the 
definition of ``nonprofit'' included in H.R. 723 may have the 
unintended consequence of excluding Battelle and the operating 
entities at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory from its coverage, even though all three 
are nonprofit organizations or composed entirely of nonprofit 
organizations. Mr. Van Ness testified that improvements have 
been made in integrating safety into labs under University of 
California management. He expressed support for civil liability 
for non-profit contractors as long as there was a cap set on 
those penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Department of Energy: DOE's Nuclear Safety Enforcement Program 
Should Be Strengthened (GAO/RCED-99-146, June 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      4.2(b)_Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request

                             April 26, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-34

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to consider the 
Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 request for the 
Department of Energy. DOE witnesses addressed the FY 2002 
budget request for each of the six DOE Offices with programs 
under the Science Committee's jurisdiction: (1) Office of 
Science; (3) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
(3) Office of Fossil Energy; (4) Office of Nuclear Energy, 
Science and Technology; (5) Office of Environment, Safety and 
Health; and (6) Office of Environmental Management. Outside 
witnesses also addressed the FY 2002 request for the DOE 
Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Fossil Energy, and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
    DOE's FY 2002 budget authorization request for its programs 
are included in the Science, Energy Supply, and Non-Defense 
Environmental appropriation accounts of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriation Bill; and in the Fossil Energy R&D, 
Energy Conservation R&D, and Clean Coal Technology 
appropriation accounts of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriation Bill.
    First panel witnesses included: (1) Dr. James F. Decker, 
Acting Director of the Office of Science; (2) Mr. John 
Sullivan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, 
Budget and Management on behalf of Dr. Abraham E. Haspel, 
Acting Director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; (3) Mr. Bob Kripowicz, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy; (4) Dr. Gail Marcus, Principal 
Deputy Director on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; (5) Mr. 
Steven V. Cary, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health; and, (5) Mr. James M. Owendoff, 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental 
Management. Second panel witnesses included: (1) Dr. George H. 
Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; (2) Dr. 
Scott W. Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at 
the University of Texas at Austin; (3) Dr. James A. Lake, 
President of the American Nuclear Society; and, (4) Mr. Michael 
L. Marvin, President of the Business Council for Sustainable 
Energy.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Decker testified on DOE's budget for FY 2002, which 
includes $3,159,890,000 in the Science Appropriation to support 
their scientific user facilities and continue scientific 
achievements in the physical and life sciences, mathematics, 
computation, and environmental research. This budget included 
funding for the ``Genomes to Life'' program; improvements to 
the Stanford Linac; continued construction of the Spallation 
Neutron Source; and funding for increased supercomputing power 
to develop large-scale scientific simulation as a tool for the 
solution of complex scientific problems.
    Mr. Sullivan, testifying on behalf of Mr. Haspel, talked 
about the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
(EERE) mission to advance clean energy technologies, including 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, and how EERE will play 
an increasingly critical role in securing our energy future, 
improving our environment and maintaining our economic growth. 
The FY 2002 budget request for EERE programs within the 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction is $708,158,000, a decrease of 
$264,223,000 from FY 2001 enacted levels. He testified on 
changes within the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 
(PNGV) designed ``to streamline and refocus this program to 
give greater flexibility to the automakers and even greater 
benefits to the taxpayer. The current program attempts to 
balance a portfolio of near-, mid-, and long-term technologies. 
In agreement with our industry partners, we will shift emphasis 
to a more long-term research portfolio that is aimed at 
overcoming fundamental obstacles to the vehicle technologies 
that offer the highest potential for significant benefits to 
this country.''
    Mr. Kripowicz testified on the Office of Fossil Energy's 
$745,419,000 budget request for FY 2002, which included the 
$150 million Clean Coal Power Initiative. Other initiatives 
funded included carbon sequestration; advanced gas turbines; 
fuel R&D resource reserve enhancement R&D and gas hydrate 
research.
    Dr. Gail Marcus, testifying on behalf of Mr. Bill Magwood, 
talked about the $223 million fiscal year 2002 budget request 
for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) 
to conduct nuclear research and development programs; to 
enhance the Nation's science, technology and education 
infrastructure; and to manage NE's federal nuclear facilities 
and materials and provide for a ``revitalization of nuclear 
power.''
    Mr. Cary testified on the $140.1 million FY 2002 request 
for DOE's Environmental Safety and Health programs, which 
included enforcement of nuclear safety rules under Price 
Anderson and general environmental health and safety oversight 
and enforcement.
    Mr. Owendoff testified that DOE's budget request of $5.913 
billion for FY 2002 for the Environmental Management program 
would enable DOE to continue the cleanup of the contamination 
and wastes that resulted primarily from nuclear weapons 
research and production over the past 50 years.
    On the second panel, Dr. Trilling testified on the 
imbalance between DOE research funding and rapidly increasing 
research funding at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. 
Tinker testified on the importance of continued R&D in fossil 
fuels to improve resource recovery. He proposed a new center be 
established to conduct R&D in such areas as ultra deep water 
drilling. Dr. Lake testified on the role of nuclear energy in 
the U.S. energy portfolio and the need for continued DOE R&D. 
Mr. Marvin testified on the importance of R&D to both increase 
diversity of energy choices and reduce energy consumption.

    4.2(c)_Energy Realities: Rates of Consumption, Energy Reserves, 
                           and Future Options

                              May 3, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-35

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine advanced 
technology options to provide additional energy in the future, 
since energy demand growth is outstripping current production 
and the Nation faces the increasing risk of energy shortages.
    The witness panel included (1) Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, 
Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado at 
Boulder; (2) Dr. Suzanne D. Weedman, Program Coordinator, 
Energy Resources Programs, U.S. Geological Survey; (3) Dr. W. 
David Montgomery, Vice President, Charles River Associates; (4) 
Mr. Howard S. Geller, Executive Director Emeritus, American 
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; (5) Mr. Henry A. 
Courtright, Vice President, Power Generation and Distributed 
Resources, Electric Power Research Institute; and, (6) Dr. 
Alexandra von Meier, Director, Environmental Technology Center, 
Sonoma State University.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Bartlett testified that the finite nature of our fossil 
fuel resources has long led scientists to forecast shortages, 
which have now begun to appear. In Dr. Bartlett's view, the 
choice is obvious: we need to ``. . .embark on a program of 
continual reduction of the annual consumption of non-renewable 
energy in the United States.'' Dr. Weedman testified about 
current official estimates of U.S. reserves and how they are 
derived. Dr. Montgomery testified that the recent supply 
disruptions and price volatility do not reflect the long-term 
supply outlook. He stated, however, that ``. . .there is no 
long term supply'' beyond ~50 years. Mr. Geller testified that 
``. . .improvements in energy efficiency have contributed a 
great deal to our nation's growth and increased standard of 
living over the past 25 years.'' He recommended that funding of 
energy efficiency programs be increased, not cut; that 
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards be increased by 
six percent a year for 10 years; that a self funded trust fund 
be established to fund utility energy efficiency programs; and 
that tax incentives be adopted for advanced energy efficient 
vehicles. Mr. Courtright testified that a portfolio of diverse 
energy sources is needed for electric power generation, 
including fossil, nuclear and renewables. He recommended R&D 
funding increases in the area of electric power delivery 
systems and the creation of non-profit ``Electricity Innovation 
Institute'' as a public/private partnership. Dr. von Meier 
testified that energy efficient improvements in buildings and 
use of renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind 
power, combined, potentially provide ``. . .everything we need 
for a positive and sustainable energy solution.''

       4.2(d)_Department of Energy Office of Science_Issues and 
                             Opportunities

                              May 17, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-37

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the status of the 
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science programs, future 
opportunities, and major issues that confront the Office.
    There where two panels of witnesses. The first panel 
consisted of the chairs of the six Office of Science Advisory 
Committees: (1) Professor Frederick J. Gilman (Department of 
Physics Carnegie Mellon University), Chair, High Energy Physics 
Advisory Panel, and Department of Physics Carnegie Mellon 
University; (2) Dr. T. James Symons (Nuclear Sciences Division, 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Chair, DOE/NSF Nuclear 
Science Advisory Committee; (3) Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond 
(Department of Chemistry, University of Oregon), Chair, Basic 
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; (4) Dr. Keith O. Hodgson 
(Director, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Department 
of Chemistry, Stanford University), Chair, Biological and 
Environmental Research Advisory Committee; (5) Professor 
Richard D. Hazeltine (University of Texas at Austin, Institute 
for Fusion Studies), Chair, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory 
Committee; and (6) Dr. Margaret H. Wright (Bell Laboratories/
Lucent Technologies), Chair, Advanced Scientific Computing 
Advisory Committee. The second panel included: (1) Dr. Robert 
C. Richardson, Vice Provost for Research, Cornell University, 
and recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics; (2) Dr. 
Charles V. Shank, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory; and (3) Professor James F. Blake, Institute for 
Plasma Research, University of Maryland.

Summary of Hearing
    The first panel consisted of the chairs of the six Office 
of Science Advisory Committees who testified that DOE has an 
important R&D role in Advanced Scientific Computing; Basic 
Energy Sciences; Biological and Environmental Research; Fusion 
Energy Sciences; High Energy Physics; and Nuclear Physics. The 
panel pointed out that DOE's Office of Science is the principal 
supporter of physical science research and a major supporter of 
research in biological sciences, mathematics, and computing in 
our country. On the second panel, Dr. Richardson's testimony 
concerned the administrative structure of the Department, the 
effect that the structure has had on the performance of the 
Office of Science and made recommendations for improvements. 
Dr. Shank testified that the physical sciences were being 
shortchanged in funding, especially when compared to the 
increases being given to life sciences research. Dr. Blake 
discussed the importance of the Fusion Energy Program at DOE, 
which continues to make progress in spite of reduced budgets.

      4.2(e)_Energy Conservation Potential of Extended and Double 
                          Daylight Saving Time

                              May 24, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-30

Background
    The hearing addressed the potential energy savings that 
could result from extending the months during which Daylight 
Saving Time (DST) and double daylight saving time (DDST) are in 
effect. It also addressed the societal effects of DST and DDST.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from a panel including: 
(1) Representative Brad Sherman; (2) Ms. Linda Lawson; Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of 
Transportation; and (3) Mr. James C. Benfield, Bracy Williams & 
Co.

Summary of Hearing
    Representative Sherman testified that saving electric 
energy at times of peak demand in order to avoid curtailments, 
and at all times, is important to the affected states and the 
Nation. He also presented studies that projected a one to two 
percent electricity savings and discussed public concern over 
the safety of children during dark morning hours. Ms. Lawson 
reviewed the history of DOT's 1975 studies during an energy 
crisis, which found up to one percent electric power savings in 
addition to small societal effects. She stressed the importance 
of uniform observance of time and DST in the specified zones, 
and gave examples of the confusion that existed when local 
jurisdictions set DST. She recommended further study before 
changes are made. Mr. Benfield testified based on his 
experience as founder of the DST Coalition, which worked to 
extend DST. He also discussed various social effects and the 
likely unpopularity and long term ineffectiveness of year round 
DST, and DDST. He suggested merging the Mountain and Pacific 
Time zones, which could achieve savings and be acceptable to 
the public.

         4.2(f)_President's National Energy Policy: Clean Coal 
                     Technology and Oil and Gas R&D

                             June 12, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-45

Background
    The hearing examined the President's National Energy 
Policy, developed by the National Energy Policy Development 
(NEPD) Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, which 
recommended that: (1) the Department of Energy (DOE) invest $2 
billion to fund research in clean coal technology; (2) DOE and 
the Department of the Interior promote enhanced oil and gas 
recovery from existing wells through new technology; and (3) 
DOE improve oil and gas exploration technology through 
continued partnership with public and private entities. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine the current status of 
coal and oil and gas technologies, R&D efforts, and the extent 
to which technologies derived from these R&D efforts would 
extend the life of these resources.
    The hearing consisted of two panels. The first panel 
considered clean coal technology. Witnesses included: (1) Mr. 
Robert S. Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (Mr. Kripowicz also 
appeared on Panel 2); (2) Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director 
of the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), Washington, 
DC; (3) Mr. James E. Wells, Director of Natural Resources and 
Environment at the U.S. General Accounting Office; (4) Ms. 
Katherine Abend, Global Warming Associate at the U.S. Public 
Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG); and (5) Mr. John S. Mead, 
Director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois 
University-Carbondale. The second panel considered how 
technologies derived from petroleum and gas R&D could be 
employed to improve exploration, extraction, refining & 
processing, and transportation of these fossil fuels. Witnesses 
included: (1) Ms. Virginia B. Lazenby, Chairman and CEO of 
Bretagne, GP, Nashville, TN, on behalf of the Independent 
Petroleum Association of America; (2) Mr. Paul Cuneo, Vice 
President & Chief Information Officer of Equiva Services, LLC, 
Houston, TX; (3) Dr. Craig W. Van Kirk, Professor of Petroleum 
Engineering and Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering 
at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO; and (4) Dr. Alan 
R. Huffman, Manager of Conoco's Seismic Imaging Technology 
Center, Houston, TX.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Kripowicz testified on R&D efforts at DOE designed to 
extend fossil resources while reducing concerns about 
emissions. These programs included clean coal technologies, 
innovative drilling techniques and the use of new technologies 
to squeeze more oil and gas out of existing wells. He also 
discussed the potential for efficiency increases and emissions 
reduction through the use of advanced turbines and technologies 
that create fewer emissions (or help capture emissions). Mr. 
Yamagata discussed clean coal technology and whether it can be 
competitive with natural gas technologies in terms of both 
costs and emissions levels. Mr. Wells talked about the 
``lessons learned'' from the Clean Coal Technology program and 
how they may apply to future programs. Ms. Abend discussed 
environmental concerns about the use of coal even in a clean 
coal technology plant. Mr. Mead discussed state clean coal 
programs and their cooperation with federal programs. On the 
second panel, Ms. Lazenby discussed her company's use of 
advanced technologies to extend the life of stripper (low 
production) wells. Mr. Cuneo testified that new technologies 
installed throughout the oil production and refining process 
have improved efficiency and reduced emissions. Dr. Van Kirk 
discussed how technology derived from R&D has made the job of 
finding new oil and gas easier and has made exploiting 
unconventional and ``tight'' gas easier and accessing formerly 
inaccessible fields possible. Dr. Huffman testified on a 
proposed U.S. Energy Center that would operate as a research 
consortium between the private sector and the government. He 
also talked about a proposed Offshore Technology Program to 
explore ways to access ultra deep water oil and gas reserves.

    4.2(g)_President's National Energy Policy: Hydrogen and Nuclear 
                         Energy R&D Legislation

                             June 14, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-45

Background
    The hearing examined the President's National Energy Policy 
developed by the National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) 
Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, which made a number of 
recommendations concerning hydrogen and nuclear energy.
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony 
regarding legislation: (1) to reauthorize the Spark A. 
Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 
of 1990/Hydrogen Future Act of 1996; and (2) on nuclear energy 
R&D provisions contained in H.R. 1679, the Electricity Supply 
Assurance Act of 2001, introduced by Representative Lindsey 
Graham (SC-3), and provisions contained in H.R. 2126, the 
Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering 
Act introduced by Representative Judy Biggert (IL-13).
    The hearing consisted of two panels. The first panel 
considered the reauthorization of the Spark A. Matsunaga 
Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990/
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. Witnesses included: (1) The 
Honorable David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE); (2) Dr. H.M. Hubbard, Chair, Committee on Programmatic 
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Power 
Technologies, National Research Council; (3) Mr. Arthur T. 
Katsaros, Group Vice President-Engineered Systems and 
Development, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Lehigh Valley, 
PA, on behalf of the National Hydrogen Association; (4) Mr. 
David P. Haberman, Chairman, DCH Technology, Inc., Valencia, 
CA; and (5) Dr. Peter Lehman, Director, Schatz Energy Research 
Center, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
    The second panel considered nuclear R&D legislation and 
commenced with testimony from Representatives Graham and 
Biggert followed by a group of witnesses that included: (1) Mr. 
William D. Magwood, IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, 
Science and Technology, DOE; (2) Mr. Joe Colvin, President, 
Nuclear Energy Institute; (3) Mr. John Kotek, Argonne National 
Laboratory-West, Idaho Falls, ID, and Co-Chair, Public Policy 
Committee, American Nuclear Society; and (4) Ms. Anna Aurilio, 
Legislative Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Summary of Hearing
    The first panel was comprised of witnesses who discussed 
hydrogen as a medium for transporting energy. Secretary Garman 
testified in support of the Spark A. Matsunaga Hydrogen 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 and the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, and stated that the next decade is 
a window of opportunity to affect the pace of transition to a 
hydrogen economy. Mr. Hubbard testified that the National 
Research Council's report on the DOE hydrogen programs found 
that projects are well executed overall. Mr. Katsaros stated 
that there is a large, successful industrial hydrogen economy 
now, and the industry is ready to work with the government to 
make the commercial hydrogen safe and successful. He testified 
that development is needed in Codes and Standards, 
demonstration projects are required and tax credits are 
essential to stimulate markets. Mr. Haberman stated that the 
industrial hydrogen industry is developing the base for the 
commercial hydrogen industry, and that government and industry 
roles in R&D should be kept separate. Government support is 
needed to ensure competitiveness with other countries, and 
governments should purchase new hydrogen technologies to help 
provide a market base. Dr. Lehman testified that his University 
is engaged in hydrogen technologies R&D because they believe 
that hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources is the 
future.
    The second panel discussed Nuclear Energy. Congressman 
Graham testified on the research and development aspects of his 
bill, H.R. 1679. He favors support for nuclear engineering 
education, use of DOE sites for new reactors, Generation Four 
reactors and nuclear technology for medical research and 
applications. Congresswoman Biggert testified in favor of 
continued support for university nuclear education, stating 
that the number of people entering the field is declining. Mr. 
Colvin stated that nuclear power is the only large expandable 
source of electric power that preserves air quality, and 
supports increasing the number of plants, and increased energy 
efficiency and conservation. Mr. Magwood testified in support 
of all aspects of nuclear energy and the President's energy 
plan, stressing the importance of support for nuclear science 
and engineering education. Mr. Kotek stated that current 
nuclear power plants are safe, reliable and economic, and that 
the proposed legislation will strengthen these qualities. He 
stated that his organization believes that deep geologic 
storage is a technically acceptable solution to the problem of 
spent nuclear materials. Ms. Aurilio testified against all 
aspects of nuclear power and favored rejecting energy sources 
of the past in favor of increased efficiency and use of 
renewable energy.

    4.2(h)_U.S. Energy Security: Options to Decrease Petroleum Use 
                      in the Transportation Sector

                            November 1, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-43

Background
    The hearing examined the relationship between national 
security and the Nation's dependence on imported petroleum, 
particularly in the transportation sector. The Subcommittee 
explored the extent to which research and development on 
alternative fuels--such as electricity and biofuels--and 
enhanced vehicle fuel efficiency could help enhance energy 
security. The Subcommittee also heard testimony on the status 
of the public-private sector Partnership for a New Generation 
of Vehicles (PNGV) and the United States Council for Automotive 
Research, or USCAR, an industry research and development (R&D) 
consortium.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from: (1) The Honorable 
James Woolsey, former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence 
Agency; (2) The Honorable David Garman, Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE); (3) Mr. Gregory Dana, Vice President of 
Environmental Affairs at the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers; (4) Mr. Robert H. Burnette, Project Manager for 
Bulk Power at Dominion Virginia Power representing the Electric 
Vehicles Association of the Americas (EVAA); (5) Mr. David D. 
Doniger, Policy Director of the Climate Center at the Natural 
Resources Defense Council; and (6) Dr. James J. MacKenzie, 
Senior Associate for the Climate, Energy and Pollution Program 
at the World Resources Institute.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Woolsey testified that the U.S. dependence on imported 
oil weakens our national security. He spoke about the potential 
for a catastrophic disruption of Mid-East petroleum and 
proposed greater energy efficiency and the use of renewable 
fuels as a potential solution. Mr. Garman testified on the 
status of a variety of programs in the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at DOE, including the 
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. He outlined 
progress in improving efficiency in this country and plans for 
``leapfrogging'' present technology to accelerate the 
introduction of a hydrogen-based economy. Mr. Dana testified on 
research in the automobile industry designed to increase gas 
mileage without sacrificing vehicle size or comfort. He also 
spoke about the need for incentives to jump start demand for 
alternative fuel vehicles. Mr. Burnette testified on the future 
of electric vehicles and potential new uses for electricity in 
innovative mass transit systems. Mr. Doniger testified on the 
need to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of 
renewable energy sources as well as using ``smart growth'' 
policies and increasing investment in mass transportation. Mr. 
MacKenzie testified on short-, intermediate- and long-term ways 
to reduce our energy consumption and the need to use 
alternative fuels while being aware of each of their 
``greenhouse gas potentials.''

          4.2(i)_The Renewable Roadmap to Energy Independence

                           February 21, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-50

Background
    The hearing focused on the important role renewable energy 
resources, as well as energy efficiency and conservation, can 
plan in the U.S. quest for energy independence. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from witnesses on the current 
activities underway in the U.S. Department of Energy and in the 
State of California to achieve this goal. Other witnesses 
discussed environmental impacts from continued reliance on 
offshore oil to meet energy needs.
    Witnesses included: (1) Admiral Richard Truly, Director, 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado; (2) Dr. 
Daniel M. Kammen, Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy 
Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley; (3) Dr. 
Donald Aitken, Union of Concerned Scientists, Berkeley, 
California; (4) Mr. Matthew J. Sullivan, Newcomb Anderson 
Associates, San Francisco, California; and (5) Mr. Richard 
Charter, Environmental Defense, Bodega Bay, California.

Summary of Hearing
    Discussion during the hearing focused on the market 
viability of renewable energy, the impact of current Federal 
Government research, development and demonstration projects 
relating not only to renewable energy, but also energy 
efficiency, and the role that renewable energy can play in 
national security.
    Admiral Truly's testimony focused on how energy 
technologies could help the U.S. achieve greater energy 
independence. His testimony focused on four key points: 1) For 
reasons ranging from national security to sustainability, our 
current energy system is in need of an overhaul, over the long 
haul; 2) There is much evidence that the Nation's transition to 
this new energy destination has already begun; 3) Energy 
efficiency and renewable energy technologies will increasingly 
play a key role in helping the Nation make this transition; and 
4) The Federal Government and states must work together to help 
assure this new energy destination is reached.
    Dr. Kammen testified that clean energy technology options 
and policies are needed to balance, diversify, and safeguard 
our energy sources and supplies, and to address the challenge 
of global environmental sustainability. In addition, Dr. Kammen 
stated that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency 
must play a more significant role in protecting our climate as 
well as our energy future, and these technologies and practices 
demand far greater examination and commitment to implementation 
than we have seen to date.
    Mr. Sullivan testified to what was working at the community 
level, and how that related to national energy policy. He 
focused on the impact of energy efficiency on small businesses 
and local governments, and how renewable energy can play a 
greater role in community energy needs.
    Mr. Charter's testimony focused on the environmental 
benefits of renewable energy, conservation and energy 
efficiency. He noted the damaging effects that fossil fuel 
drilling and transportation has had on Northern California 
ecosystems. He also briefly spoke to the added benefits 
renewable energy and energy efficiency can provide to national 
security.
    Dr. Aitken testimony concentrated on the practical 
application of renewable technologies, and its relation to 
energy security. He also noted the ability of alternative 
energy sources to provide adequate supply in the absence of 
more harmful fossil energy.
    Member questions focused on the economic viability of 
renewable energy, and what the role of federal research 
investments should be if it is viable. Members also touched 
upon the need to diversify our nation's energy portfolio with 
renewable sources in order to mitigate the effects of our 
dependence on foreign sources of oil and the adverse effects of 
fossil fuels on our environment.

     4.2(j)_H.R. 3929, Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and 
                           Demonstration Act

                             March 13, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-70

Background
    The hearing examined the Committee's proposed legislation, 
H.R. 3929 designed to advance the science needed to protect the 
Nation's critical pipeline infrastructure from attack or 
failure. The Committee's legislation would increase research 
and development (R&D) efforts to improve surveillance, 
security, fault detection (including the detection of 
difficult-to-detect leaks), and pipeline materials and 
robustness. It would also help reduce repair and recovery times 
after a pipeline failure.
    Witnesses included (1) Mr. Terry Boss, Vice President, 
Environment, Safety and Operations, Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of America (INGAA), which represents the major gas 
pipeline transmission companies; (2) Mr. Tim Felt, President, 
Explorer Pipeline Corporation on behalf of the Association of 
Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), which represents the major oil pipeline 
transmission companies, and the American Petroleum Institute 
(API); (3) Dr. Nirmal Chatterjee, Vice President, 
Environmental, Health and Safety and Corporate Engineering, Air 
Products and Chemicals, Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania, which 
is an industrial gas company and a manufacturer and distributor 
of hydrogen and other industrial gases; and (4) Mr. Stan Wise, 
Commissioner, Georgia Public Service Commission on behalf of 
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 
(NARUC).

Summary of Hearing
    The hearing primarily solicited views on the importance of 
pipeline safety R&D programs. The committee also investigated 
means of carrying out that R&D as envisioned in H.R. 3929, 
which authorizes a coordinated federal program with $10M 
annually to DOE and $5M annually each to DOT and NIST.
    Mr. Boss testified on the importance of pipeline research 
and the different funding mechanisms presently employed to 
finance these efforts. He indicated that new funding mechanisms 
need to be put in place to make up for the FERC R&D surcharge, 
which has collected as much as $212 million a year and expires 
in 2004. He also expressed skepticism about NIST's role in 
pipeline safety R&D and urged the Committee to give a higher 
priority to restoring DOE's funding.
    Mr. Felt testified that the DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety 
has the longest experience in pipeline safety R&D and perhaps 
the best understanding of the needs of the regulated community. 
He felt that DOE had an important R&D role, since pipeline 
safety is such an important public and environmental priority, 
and DOE has access to general revenue funds. He spoke generally 
about technologies that DOE has developed that may be useful 
for pipeline operators. Finally, he advised the committee to 
put one agency in control, otherwise conflicts between the 
three agencies would hamper research.
    Dr. Chatterjee testified that hydrogen pipelines are 
different from natural gas and products pipelines. He also 
predicted that most hydrogen production would be local and that 
there would be no need for extensive hydrogen pipeline system 
in the next 10-20 years.
    Mr. Wise spoke mostly about a NARUC R&D funding resolution 
that is not a part of H.R. 3929. This mandatory funding scheme 
would collect approximately $65 million in funding for pipeline 
and storage R&D programs and has the support of the AGA.
    Representative Vernon Ehlers asked Dr. Chatterjee about the 
size of hydrogen pipelines, how hydrogen is currently produced 
and what happens to the carbon and other ``waste products'' 
produced as a byproduct of reforming natural gas. Dr. 
Chatterjee responded that a variety of pipe sizes are in use, 
but that pipes must be specially designed to transport 
hydrogen. He also stated that most hydrogen today and in the 
near future is produced from reforming natural gas, and that it 
is possible to capture the carbon dioxide.
    Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey asked the 
panel about pipeline sitting issues and what could be done to 
ease the approval of new pipelines, citing a northern 
California project, which was having difficulty in getting 
approvals to transport tertiary wastewater. The panel concurred 
that it was a challenge for the industry, but Mr. Boss felt 
that better communication between the pipeline engineers and 
the public could help solve the problem.
    Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett asked whether the 
industry preferred research tax credits to direct federal 
spending on R&D. Members of the panel replied that federally 
funded programs could aim at industry-wide needs and gain a 
higher level of trust from the public than company proprietary 
R&D, regardless of the funding mechanism. The government may 
also have a longer R&D time horizon than the private sector. 
Mr. Bartlett asked whether pipelines would have been built 
differently if we had known about terrorism. The answer was 
generally ``no'' except to give greater emphasis to monitoring 
needs. Mr. Bartlett asked if the panel had considered putting 
out an RFP to the engineering and scientific community to 
develop a new smart pig, a device that monitors the condition 
of pipelines.

           4.2(k)_Fuel Cells: The Key to Energy Independence?

                             June 24, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-83

Background
    The hearing examined the potential of hydrogen as an energy 
source and what needed to be done to fulfill that potential. 
The hearing focused on developments in hydrogen fuel cell R&D 
and in the fuel cell business. The hearing provided a broad 
overview of fuel cells for all applications, rather than a 
narrow focus on transportation applications.
    Witnesses included (1) Dr. Hermann Grunder, Director of 
Argonne National Laboratory; (2) Mr. Robert Culver, Executive 
Director of the United States Council for Automotive Research 
(USCAR); (3) Mr. Stan Borys, Executive Vice President and COO 
of the Gas Technology Institute (GTI); (4) Mr. Jeff Serfass, 
President, National Hydrogen Association; (5) Mr. James 
Uihlein, Fuels Project Manager for BP; and (6) Mr. Elias (Lee) 
Camara, Vice President of H2Fuels.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Grunder testified with certainty that hydrogen is the 
fuel of the future, but he was not sure when it fully develop. 
He discussed work that Argonne was doing to create a cost-
effective fuel processor to convert hydrocarbons to pure 
hydrogen. The fuel processor was an interim step to allow the 
use of fuel cells prior to the development of a hydrogen 
distribution system.
    Mr. Uihlein testified that the transition to a hydrogen 
infrastructure at all U.S. service stations would cost $6.8 
billion. He said that BP is beginning to introduce hydrogen 
into their distribution system
    Mr. Culver testified on USCAR's role in the FreedomCAR 
program. He said there should be thousands of fuel cell 
vehicles on the road by the end of the decade, but that the 
availability of hydrogen vehicles needs to be preceded by a 
fueling infrastructure of some kind.
    Mr. Borys spoke about the transition from solid fuels (wood 
and coal) to liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) to gaseous 
(natural gas and hydrogen). He noted that most of the media is 
focused on hydrogen in transportation applications, but 
actually stationary applications were in much wider use. 
Stationary fuel cells are not weight or size constrained, so 
costs can be lower, and can rely on the existing natural gas 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Serfass testified on the decarbonization of the economy 
that will happen through the use of hydrogen fuel. He spoke 
about the important role for government in rolling out hydrogen 
fuel cells and asked government to increase cost shares, 
develop codes and standards, a be the first purchaser of fuel 
cell fleets.
    Mr. Camara spoke about his company's process to remove 
sulfur from hydrogen feedstocks. Pure hydrogen is essential for 
the success of fuel cells because the alternative, sulfur 
tolerant fuel cells, are expensive.
    Representative Judy Biggert asked about how to overcome the 
perception that hydrogen gas caused the Hindenburg to burn. She 
also asked about how water vapor emitted from fuel cells could 
be prevented from freezing in wintertime conditions, and about 
alternative sources of hydrogen, including nuclear and ethanol. 
The panel responded as follows: that the Hindenburg incident 
was due to a flammable paint used on the dirigible, and that 
hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline; the freezing problem 
is being worked on, but for the fuel cells that operate at high 
temperature it would not be a problem; and alternate sources of 
hydrogen are definitely viable, but may take longer to develop.
    Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey asked 
whether the existing natural gas distribution system could be 
used to provide hydrogen to the home; Mr. Borys responded 
positively. She also asked why the government should trust 
industry in a partnership when the auto industry refused to 
enter into a partnership on CAFE. Mr. Culver assured her that 
the auto industry was interested in the environment, and that 
the partnership was essential to the development of fuel cells. 
Finally, she asked why fuel cell technologies developed by NASA 
hadn't been quickly transferred to the private sector and the 
consumer, to which the panel responded that mass production of 
fuel cells presented numerous obstacles.

     4.2(l)_FreedomCAR: Getting New Technology into the Marketplace

                             June 26, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-84

Background
    The hearing primarily solicited views on the best ways to 
proceed with automotive research and development (R&D) and how 
to integrate advanced technologies into production vehicles 
that can gain customer acceptance. One of the recurring 
questions was the ``chicken and egg'' problem with hydrogen 
fuel cells, i.e., how can you establish an effective hydrogen 
infrastructure before there are great numbers of fuel cell 
vehicles?
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Amory B. 
Lovins, Chief Executive Officer (Research), Rocky Mountain 
Institute; (2) Dr. Byron McCormick, Executive Director, General 
Motors Fuel Cell Activities; (3) Mr. Doug Rothwell, President 
and CEO, Michigan Economic Development Corporation; (4) Mr. 
Roger Saillant, President, Plug Power, Inc.; and (5) Mr. Roger 
Templin, Director, PAICE Corporation.

Summary of Hearing
    The hearing solicited views on the best ways to proceed 
with automotive research and development (R&D) and how to 
integrate advanced technologies into production vehicles that 
can gain customer acceptance.
    Dr. Lovins testified on his 100 mile per gallon concept 
vehicle called Hypercar. He said that the Hypercar, given 
appropriate funding, could be available as a demonstration 
vehicle by 2004 and could go into production by 2007. The auto 
industry has plenty of R&D resources, according to Dr. Lovins, 
but lacks the flexibility to change its manufacturing quickly 
enough to get vehicles like Hypercar to market quickly. He 
suggested that a fundamental change in manufacturing was 
required to shorten product cycles and reduce the break-even 
production level-both of which wed car makers to existing, 
rather than leapfrog technologies.
    Mr. McCormick testified that GM is investing aggressively 
on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, including the HydroGEN3, and 
the Autonomy that will be demonstrated later this year. 
According to McCormick, hydrogen storage on the vehicle is the 
greatest challenge GM faces. Dr McCormick brought up the 
``chicken and egg'' problem with hydrogen fuel cells, i.e., how 
can you establish an effective hydrogen infrastructure before 
there are great numbers of fuel cell vehicles? He spoke about 
the critical need to develop fueling infrastructure prior to 
the introduction of hydrogen vehicles. He also stated that the 
government must work to develop codes and standards for this 
fueling infrastructure. He urged the government to refrain from 
``freezing technologies'' with overly prescriptive regulation.
    Mr. Rothwell testified on Michigan's NextEnergy program, a 
public/private consortium designed to promote R&D on 
alternative fuels. He argued that this effort is critical to 
provide an incentive for continued production of alternative 
vehicles in Michigan. He agreed with McCormick that incentives 
are a better approach than regulation.
    Mr. Saillant spoke mostly about Plug Power's vision for 
fuel cells for residential sized combined heat and power, and 
potential sources of hydrogen fuel for vehicles. He said that 
these fuel cells could be deployed fairly rapidly using the 
existing natural gas distribution infrastructure. He also 
stated that other countries are doing a better job of 
encouraging fuel cell manufacturers than the U.S. and argued 
that the U.S. government should ensure that we don't lose 
leadership in this area.
    Mr. Templin testified on PAICE's Hyperdrive concept, which 
is a technology designed to improve mileage on internal 
combustion engine vehicles. Templin stated that this technology 
could roughly double the mileage of standard gasoline and 
diesel engines, and provided a technology bridge to hydrogen 
fuel cells. He said that most of the interest in his technology 
came from overseas and that it is tougher to sell efficiency in 
the U.S. than overseas because of our much lower fuel prices.
    Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey stated 
that this country was falling behind other countries in 
technology and suggested that we need to redouble efforts in 
science and engineering education. She asked what we could do 
to make sure we didn't lose the fuel cell technology race with 
other countries. Dr. McCormick responded by saying that General 
Motors, as a global company, has a subsidiary that participates 
in the internal Japanese planning group on hydrogen and fuel 
cells and that the Japanese are aggressive and formidable in 
this area. But, he said, the U.S. has the wherewithal and only 
needs the will and to commit the resources to compete-
especially in area beyond basic research, we need to support 
prototypes and learn to get around the morass of regulatory 
barriers. He also praised the research at Argonne, Los Alamos 
and Sandia Livermore in these areas. Mr. Templin said that we 
should find a way to offer an economic incentive that is 
comparable with that due to higher fuel costs in Japan and 
Europe. Dr. Sallant said that we have a science education 
problem at the secondary and university level where we need to 
teach systems thinking.
    In response to a question from Representative Melissa Hart, 
on how fast we would see advanced cars, Mr. Templin said he 
thought his technology, when deployed as an advanced hybrid, 
would blanket the market within four or five years after they 
are first introduced. In response to the same question Dr. 
Lovins said that the car industry is a classic over-mature 
industry with an unattractive risk-reward profile because it is 
extremely capital intensive with a very long product cycle 
time. In contrast, his Hypercar has a low capital intensity, a 
low fixed cost per model, a higher piece cost, and a comparable 
total cost per car which means that the break-even volume is 
low and the product cycle time also can be low. He also said 
that the hydrogen infrastructure problems (chicken/egg) were 
real, but readily resolved using miniature gas reformers which 
would be less capital intensive that the current gasoline 
fueling infrastructure.
    Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett stated that at one 
point he thought it unpatriotic to buy a foreign car, but he 
now loves his gasoline-electric hybrid Prius. He now believes 
that it's patriotic to buy foreign vehicles because that is a 
way to spur innovation through competition in the domestic auto 
industry. He then asked Dr. Lovins what needs to happen to make 
the public understand that we have a very uncertain energy 
future. Dr. Lovins responded that we already have shown that 
energy and economy can be decoupled. He also criticized H.R. 4 
as contrary to market and free trade principles because it 
distorts prices by suppressing efficient use of oil and by 
making oil look cheaper than it really is.
    Representative Judy Biggert asked how R&D could bring down 
the cost of fuel cells. She also asked about what the 
government's role should be. Dr. McCormick replied that on the 
cost side, it was important to realize that manufacturers are 
supported by thousands of suppliers, only half of which have 
the automotive industry as their main customer and so really 
prescriptive or over targeted approaches will fail. He also 
said that we need good tax policies so companies make 
investments in their manufacturing plants. He also said the 
national laboratories have an important role-especially in new 
materials.

    4.2(m)_Future Direction of the Department of Energy's Office of 
                                Science

                             July 25, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-86

Background
    The hearing discussions focused on big ideas and societal 
issues, with an emphasis on the need to provide funding 
proportionate to the value of the research and educational 
missions of the Office of Science to the Nation.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Raymond 
Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy; 
(2) Dr. Jerome I. Friedman (1990 Nobel Prize in Physics), 
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
(3) Dr. Richard E. Smalley (1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), 
Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University; 
and (4) Ms. Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Summary of Hearing
    The hearing focused on the role the Office of Science in 
supporting basic research and education in the fundamental 
sciences and engineering. Key topics included the impact of 
flat funding over the past decade, contributions to national 
economic and technological competitiveness, future plans, 
programs, and projects, and regulation of worker and 
environmental safety at Office of Science facilities and 
laboratories.
    Dr. Orbach testified on how the Office of Science 
contributes to the national scientific research agenda, 
including supporting graduate education and research at 
universities, and instrumentation and facilities for DOE and 
non-DOE scientists and engineers.
    Dr. Friedman testified on the serious consequences that 
flat funding for the Office of Science has had for the Nation's 
research infrastructure. Funding for the Office of Science has 
not kept up with inflation and is falling even further behind 
considering scientific inflation--the increasing costs of 
scientific equipment and personnel. As a result, there are 
fewer and smaller research grants to universities. Among the 
consequences are fewer U.S. citizens pursuing careers and 
advanced degrees in physical science and engineering.
    Dr. Smalley testified that energy is the single most 
important issue facing mankind. Continued use of fossil fuels 
is unsustainable and a concerted effort must be made to develop 
new science and technology to provide safe, clean, affordable 
energy. Nanotechnology can and will play a central role in this 
effort and a national commitment to this will invigorate and 
excite the youth of the Nation to pursue careers in science and 
engineering.
    Ms. Jones updated the Committee on the status of the 
regulation of nuclear and worker safety at Office of Science 
laboratories and facilities. The GAO contends that external 
regulation by the NRC and OSHA is workable and can provide many 
benefits over the current system of self-regulation by the DOE. 
The GAO finds a lack of commitment by the DOE to move forward 
on this issue, while the NRC, OSHA, laboratory directors, and 
contractors are all supportive of moving to external 
regulation.
    Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett stated that societal 
values must change if science is going to get the respect and 
support it deserves and attract young people to careers in 
science. He expressed his whole-hearted agreement with Dr. 
Smalley that we need to stop relying on fossil fuels to supply 
so much of the Nation's energy.
    Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Lynn Woolsey 
emphasized the need to attract women and minorities to science. 
She also expressed her concern over nuclear and worker safety 
at the national laboratories and asked Dr. Orbach if he was 
committed to pursuing external regulation and what the Office 
of Science was doing in this regard. Dr. Orbach replied that he 
and his office were committed to examining external regulation 
of their facilities and would be performing pilot studies over 
the next 10 months.
    Representative Judy Biggert expressed support for increased 
funding for the Office of Science and asked how the Office 
could utilize additional funds.
    Representative Nick Lampson observed that people follow 
money and asked point blank: ``Is the current budget 
sufficient?'' Dr. Orbach replied that at present it is. Dr. 
Friedman asserted that it is not.
    Representative Vernon Ehlers expressed his concern that it 
was socially acceptable to be ignorant of science and 
encouraged the panel and the scientific community to become 
more active in educating the public and Congress on the value 
of science to society.
    Representative Dana Rohrabacher expressed his skepticism 
that throwing money at science would solve the problems 
discussed here and his concern that ``Big Science'' was 
counterproductive to creative thinking. Dr. Friedman responded 
with examples of how researchers on ``Big Science'' projects 
had demonstrated creativity and made contributions to society 
in important and unexpected ways (e.g., creating the first Web 
browser).

      4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

        4.3(a)_H.R. 64: A Proposal to Strengthen Science at the 
                    Environmental Protection Agency

                             March 29, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-4

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 
64. Introduced by Chairman Ehlers on January 3, 2001, the bill 
would codify the two primary recommendations of the recently 
released National Research Council report titled Strengthening 
Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    The legislation would require the President to appoint a 
Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who would serve as an 
advocate for and reviewer of science at the most senior levels 
of the Agency and be responsible for coordinating scientific 
research among the scientific and regulatory arms of the 
Agency. Second, the bill would set a six-year term for the 
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD), to serve at the pleasure of the President, 
and gives that person the additional title of ``Chief Scientist 
of the Environmental Protection Agency.''
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Ray Loehr, a Professor 
of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and 
a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on 
Research and Peer Review in EPA; (2) Dr. Bill Glaze, a 
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering and the 
Director of the Carolina Environmental Program at the 
University of North Carolina, and Chairman of the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board; and (3) Mr. Rick Blum, a Policy Analyst at OMB 
Watch.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Loehr testified in support of H.R. 64, which he said 
would elevate science considerations to parity with legal 
considerations in EPA decision-making processes. He noted that:

         The bill would provide for better 
        coordination of scientific information within the 
        agency by separating the management of research 
        programs from the management of the use of science and 
        engineering knowledge in the regulatory process.

         Extending the Assistant Administrator for the 
        Office of Research and Development's term to six years 
        would create more stability and strategic leadership 
        for ORD science.

         The National Research Council's report on 
        strengthening science at the EPA outlines the science 
        coordination problems that H.R. 64 would solve.

    Dr. Glaze also testified in support of H.R. 64. He said 
that it would send a ``strong signal that we plan to make 
science a stronger and more integral part of the EPA.'' He also 
said that it would help the agency prepare to handle difficult 
environmental problems of the future and take advantage of new 
science in new fields. He emphasized that:

         Placing a person of high scientific 
        reputation into the new Deputy Administrator position 
        would positively affect the quality of decisions being 
        made, guide the agency towards a stronger role in 
        setting the environmental and technology agenda of the 
        country, and begin to shift the EPA's culture toward a 
        greater emphasis on using science in decision making.

         Under the structure proposed in H.R. 64, the 
        Assistant Administrator of ORD could better manage the 
        science apparatus, serve as a better liaison with other 
        agencies and other program offices within EPA, and thus 
        promote better science upon which to make decisions.

         These organizational changes would lead the 
        agency to think more carefully about its use of 
        emerging sciences (genomics, proteomics, etc.).

    Mr. Blum argued that H.R. 64 could ``help overcome 
shortcomings in EPA's efforts to collect high-quality, timely 
information.'' He also mentioned that the new Deputy 
Administrator position could play a useful role in establishing 
good data collection practices within the Agency. But he was 
concerned that:

         There would be significant overlap between 
        the roles of the new Deputy Administrator and the 
        strengthened Assistant Administrator for ORD and those 
        of the recently formed Environmental Information Office 
        (EIO).

         Neither ORD nor EIO would have appropriate 
        authority to ensure that their recommendations are 
        carried out in the program offices.

         The new Deputy Administrator's emphasis on 
        science and technology, rather than information 
        management and public access, might lead the agency to 
        choose inaction if there is any level of uncertainty in 
        the science.

      4.3(b)_NOAA's FY 2002 Budget: Predicting Weather and Climate

                              May 9, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-28

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to review the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for the 
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 
witnesses discussed NOAA's overall budget and programs, with 
emphasis on issues relating to weather and climate prediction.
    The President's FY 2002 Budget Request for NOAA is $3.15 
billion and represents a decrease of $60.8 million, or two 
percent below FY 2001 Enacted Levels (FY00 Enacted was $2.34 
billion). The lower request reflects the elimination of most 
congressionally mandated earmarks from FY01 and the addition of 
program increases in such areas as severe weather prediction, 
coastal conservation, and climate.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Scott Gudes, 
acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA 
Administrator; (2) Dr. Richard E. Hallgren, Executive Director 
Emeritus, American Meteorological Society and former head of 
the National Weather Service; (3) Dr. Eric Barron, 
Distinguished Professor of Geosciences and Director EMS 
Environmental Institute at Penn State University, chair of the 
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National 
Research Council; (4) Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of 
External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical 
Sciences, North Carolina State University, member of the NOAA 
Science Board; and (5) Mr. Joe Hoffman, Executive Director, 
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and 
representative of the Interstate Council on Water Policy.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Gudes presented the budget request, noting the smaller 
request than FY 2001, but emphasizing:

         Areas of full funding, such as: the Sea Grant 
        Program, climate and global change research, and 
        weather radar modernization.

         A top priority for NOAA's budget is 
        supporting its workforce and maintaining its 
        infrastructure.

         Education and outreach are important to NOAA, 
        and have been facilitated by improvements in the NOAA 
        website.

         Investments in NOAA programs have produced 
        positive results in recent years, including, for 
        example, improvements in hurricane prediction accuracy 
        and acquisition reform, the latter of which has enabled 
        NOAA to freeze the costs of geostationary satellites.

    Dr. Hallgren testified that weather and climate prediction 
funding is constrained by the size of the overall NOAA budget, 
though he believes the Administration has done a good job of 
supporting high priority programs. In particular:

         He noted that the U.S. has more severe 
        weather and flooding than any other nation in the 
        world, and approximately one-quarter of the GNP is 
        affected by weather and climate. Severe weather and 
        flood warnings have improved significantly in recent 
        years because of the Nation's investment in the 
        development of weather and climate services.

         He supports the increased spending on 
        infrastructure improvements and core activities like 
        operating costs and pay increases, that have not 
        received adequate support in recent years.

         Dr. Hallgren highlighted satellite and 
        weather service funding, including increases for: 
        sensors & processing capability, computers in the 
        National Center for Environmental Prediction, the 
        Environmental Modeling Center, the U.S. Weather 
        Research Program, NPOESS, ARGO floats, etc. He 
        expressed strong support for the creation of a joint 
        Data Assimilation Center.

    Dr. Barron noted that the ability to make climate 
predictions on the scale of seasons to centuries enables us to 
enhance economic vitality, better limit threats to life and 
property, and improve environmental stewardship. Dr. Barron 
asserts that in order to have a strong climate program, NOAA 
requires a robust observing system, commitment to modeling and 
prediction, and strong interface with decision-makers. He 
testified that:

         Many different agencies are involved in 
        collecting climate information, yet none of these 
        agencies have climate as a top priority. This problem 
        should be addressed by focusing on improving 
        continuity, addressing overlapping measurements, and 
        promoting free and open access of data. Investing in 
        the efficiency of our observing systems will enable us 
        to fill gaps and address weaknesses in our 
        understanding of climate.

         Because our modeling and prediction 
        capabilities are so successful, we need to focus now on 
        transforming research products into operational 
        products society can use.

         NOAA needs to better involve the user 
        community and decision-makers in its observation and 
        modeling efforts. Dr. Barron believes we need to 
        develop ``environmental intelligence centers'' in order 
        to make prediction capability and dispersed research 
        more accessible to decision-makers and scientists.

    Dr. Pietrafesa addressed three questions asked by Chairman 
Ehlers: What is the NOAA Science Advisory Board? What are the 
major challenges facing NOAA in conducting research? What are 
specific areas that need more attention or coordination?

         The NOAA Science Advisory Board is a 15-
        member panel, composed of life, physical, and social 
        scientists and policy experts that link NOAA and the 
        university community.

         Major challenges facing NOAA research 
        include: preservation of NOAA's data archive; 
        integration of physical and social sciences; building 
        the agency's strategic plan to include research, 
        development, and technology transfer; investment in 
        climate observation and modeling; ensuring the vitality 
        of NOAA's future science and technology workforce 
        through partnerships with universities; maintaining and 
        upgrading NOAA's observational network and 
        computational facilities; and working with other 
        agencies to ensure that their observational networks 
        are not reduced because of federal budget cuts.

         Specific areas needing more attention or 
        coordination include the study of conditions that pose 
        immediate or long-term health or safety risks to 
        humans, extreme weather events, and the coupling 
        between physical and biological systems.

    Mr. Hoffman discussed the importance of the interaction 
between the National Weather Service and state water management 
agencies as an example of interagency coordination. The 
benefits of continuing to fund this sort of work include:

         Increased predictive capability that allows 
        forecasters to issue early flooding alerts, which can 
        help minimize property loss and lives lost.

         The flood warning system in the Susquehanna 
        basin boasts a cost-to-benefit ratio in which every 
        dollar expended on the system prevents $12.50 of flood 
        damage loss.

         In the art of forecasting, ground-truthing 
        with tools like stream gauges is essential to verify 
        and adjust predictions.

     4.3(c)_Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection 
                   Agency: The FY 2002 Budget Request

                              May 17, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-19

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
Administration's FY 2002 budget request for the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD). 
The Committee examined whether the budget for ORD, the research 
arm of the EPA, is adequate to meet the Agency's goal of using 
science as the foundation of its efforts to protect human 
health and the environment.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Henry Longest, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 
Development at EPA; (2) Dr. W. Randall Seeker, Member of the 
EPA Science Advisory Board's Research Strategies Advisory 
Committee; and (3) Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, Vice President of the 
Environmental Council of the States and Director of the 
Division of Environment for the Kansas Department of Health and 
Environment.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Longest testified that the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD) continues to be focused on providing the 
highest quality science in support of the Agency's mission. He 
pointed out that:

         ORD has developed a research planning 
        process, based on independently peer-reviewed research 
        strategies and plans that outline their direction for 
        the next five to ten years.

         To establish baseline trend data on the 
        condition of coastal estuaries, ORD has sponsored 
        extensive survey programs in the coastal states and 
        Puerto Rico.

         ORD has led efforts to understand how young 
        children are exposed to pesticides and other 
        potentially harmful chemicals.

         The budget request for 2002, $535 million, 
        supports in house research and the extramural Science 
        to Achieve Results program. The FY 2002 budget request 
        builds upon ORD's significant accomplishments, supports 
        the Agency's mission, and provides the science and 
        technical information that is essential for EPA to 
        achieve its long-term goals. Their resources are 
        directed towards core science issues in environmental 
        media and problem-oriented research.

         In order to compensate for an aging 
        workforce, ORD's Postdoctoral Program provides the 
        Agency with a constant stream of highly qualified, 
        specialized workers.

         ORD is committed to providing a foundation 
        for sound environmental science as well as assuming 
        leadership on a national level in producing cutting-
        edge research.

    Dr. Seeker believes that increasing the Science and 
Technology budget is necessary if EPA is to continue to make 
progress incorporating science more effectively into its 
decision making. He represented the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board and presented the board's findings regarding EPA's 
science and technology budget. He noted that:

         The Agency should dedicate resources to 
        develop and maintain an overall science strategy for 
        the Agency that uses a science inventory.

         The Administration should increase the 
        Science and Technology share of the EPA budget from the 
        current level of nine percent to twelve percent by FY 
        2004 because of the constant pressure on the Agency to 
        make more decisions based on sound science.

         The Science and Technology budget should be 
        balanced between short- and long-term research 
        activities as well as between core and problem-driven 
        research.

         ORD should expand the use of multi-year 
        planning processes, along with the role of the 
        Exploratory Grants Program, to avoid over-emphasizing 
        short-term issues.

         With fifty percent of ORD's workforce over 
        the age of 50, the agency should define future core 
        competencies needed and assemble the next generation of 
        Agency scientists.

         The Advisory Board is continuing with a 
        number of reviews in areas such as the future of multi-
        year planning, strategic planning processes, and the 
        peer-review process.

    Dr. Hammerschmidt explained that states rely heavily on EPA 
for the scientific information that guides their efforts to 
protect the public health and environment. He said that:

         States are dependent on EPA to supply them 
        with credible basic science that can be used in their 
        day-to-day operations. Government regulatory programs, 
        whose actions are often questioned by regulated private 
        companies, must use science as a foundation for their 
        actions.

         Some fundamental criteria and standards 
        maintained by EPA in areas such as fecal coliform and 
        E. coli are based on work done during the 1970's and 
        should be reevaluated.

         Identification, characterization, and 
        prioritization of risks associated with air 
        contaminants will become increasingly important.

         The Agency needs to help states determine 
        best management practices to reduce or eliminate urban 
        and rural non-point source pollution.

         The states have a crucial need for the EPA to 
        develop scientific information to guide and support 
        state efforts to protect public health and the 
        environment.

          4.3(d)_The Future of the Advanced Technology Program

                             June 14, 2001

                         Hearing Volume 107-23

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the future of the 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. The Committee examined both the 
structure and effectiveness of the program with particular 
emphasis on the findings of a National Research Council (NRC) 
review panel.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Michael Borrus, 
Managing Director of the Petkevich Group LLC and an Adjunct 
Professor in UC Berkeley's College of Engineering; (2) Dr. 
Maryann Feldman, Research Professor in the Department of 
Mathematical Sciences at John Hopkins University; (3) Dr. Lewis 
Branscomb, Professor Emeritus at the John F. Kennedy School of 
Government at Harvard University, and past Director of NIST; 
and (4) Dr. Claude Barfield, Resident Scholar and Director of 
Science and Technology Policy Studies at the American 
Enterprise Institute.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Borrus testified that the ATP is clearly meeting its 
congressional mandate. He noted that:

         Despite the large number of studies and 
        reviews of the ATP, evidence suggests the program is 
        generally working well. The NRC panel gave the program 
        high marks for its design, its cost-sharing and 
        industry-driven features, its use of peer review for 
        evaluation of technical feasibility and commercial 
        potential, its screening and selection procedures, and 
        its ``extraordinarily'' thorough assessment process.

         The ATP is an important and necessary 
        complement to private capital. It fills in where there 
        is a public need for technology but a lack of initial 
        private investment. The program, for example, made up 
        for an over-investment in Internet-related technology 
        during the 1990's that drew investment away from 
        biotechnology and energy technology-related fields.

         Capital markets alone cannot be relied upon 
        because of several market imperfections, including 
        ``follow-the-leader'' or ``herd-type'' investing, and 
        the need by private investors to liquidate their 
        investments early, often before technology concepts can 
        be fully realized.

         While the ATP operates at a very high 
        standard, that standard can be increased to get further 
        benefits from the program by adopting changes 
        recommended in the NRC report.

         The NRC concluded that the ATP could make 
        effective use of more funding.

    Dr. Feldman remarked that the ATP is achieving its goals 
and is an important part of the Nation's technology policy. She 
said:

         The ATP is funding broad-based projects with 
        long-term economic benefits and which would have not 
        occurred or advanced at the same rate in the absence of 
        the program.

         Her study of 1998 ATP applicants found that 
        the program awarded grants for projects that were high-
        risk, potentially high-payoff, and helpful in forming 
        new R&D partnerships. Firms that were awarded funding 
        tended to have extensive linkages to other businesses 
        and to share their research.

         The ATP funds projects that are not likely to 
        be funded otherwise. Her study of 1998 applicants one 
        year after awards were made found that 70 percent of 
        the non-winners had not proceeded with their proposed 
        project, while those who had were working at a much 
        smaller scale.

         By contrast, she found that firms who had won 
        ATP funding often were more successful at attracting 
        funding from other sources. Receiving an ATP award, she 
        said, is apparently perceived by the market to be a 
        certification or legitimacy, helping to attract 
        additional funding in what she called a funding 
        ``halo'' effect.

         State programs are often the most important 
        source of referral to the ATP. In addition, the 
        majority of ATP funded firms are associated in some way 
        with university programs.

    Dr. Branscomb focused his comments on the role that the ATP 
plays in bridging the ``Valley of Death,'' the gap between a 
technological invention and its development into a commercial 
innovation. He said:

         The U.S. R&D enterprise funds about $175 
        billion worth of science and technology research, while 
        the business enterprise that capitalizes on the fruits 
        of that research is worth over $1 trillion. The gap 
        between the two is the so-called valley of death, or, 
        as he put it, a risky ``Darwinian Sea'' of ideas.

         The market supplies venture capital that 
        rescues, in Branscomb's analogy, ideas from the 
        Darwinian Sea and carries it to into the business 
        enterprise. In 1998, venture capitol invested roughly 
        $63 billion in this endeavor.

         However, much of that money was spent on 
        technologies that had already been proven and on 
        businesses that were already on a firm footing. Far 
        less was spent on risky ideas. Compared to the total 
        amount of money spent on such risky ventures, funding 
        supplied by the ATP and SBIR programs made up as much 
        as 20 percent.

         The Small Business Administration has 
        proposed major changes to several of their programs, 
        potentially creating programs similar to the ATP.

    Dr. Barfield believes there are several areas in which the 
ATP can do a better job. He said:

         Vanevar Bush's idea of basic research being 
        most beneficial when wholly untargeted was wrong. The 
        U.S. has been successful in conducting largely targeted 
        basic research since the end of the second World War.

         Bush's linear idea of technological 
        development beginning with research and leading to 
        commercial development was wrong, too, since the 
        process has many loops and feedbacks. Nonetheless, 
        government should stick to funding ``real research 
        areas'' rather than ``any kind'' of commercial 
        development.

         The government should fund research where it 
        can assure that the public can benefit because the 
        government cannot fund everything and broad-based 
        public benefits should be a government priority.

         Some reports have been skeptical as to 
        whether or not the ATP is producing commercial 
        technologies that would not have been produced in the 
        absence of federal funding.

         If the goal of the ATP is to ensure 
        widespread social benefits, then the Congress should 
        consider preventing participating firms from being 
        granted intellectual property rights or requiring them 
        to agree to license widely and at low cost.

       4.3(e)_Standards-Setting and United States Competitiveness

                             June 28, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-21

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to review the impact of 
standards on the United States economy and the ability of our 
Nation to compete internationally. The hearing also discussed 
reforms in the standards-setting process that could make 
American industries, such as the information technology sector, 
more globally competitive.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Oliver Smoot, Chairman 
of the Board of the American National Standards Institute; (2) 
Mr. Gerald Rittersbusch, Director of Standards and Regulations 
for Caterpillar, Incorporated.; (3) Mr. Scott Bradner, Senior 
Technical Consultant with Harvard University; and (4) Mr. Carl 
Cargill, Director of Standards for Sun Microsystems.
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Smoot noted that both the landscapes of international 
and domestic standards are changing. To address new challenges, 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) developed a 
National Standards Strategy. He testified that:

         The central theme of the strategy is that 
        each sector must decide for itself what methods of 
        standards development are the most efficient.

         Standard-setting in the U.S., based on 
        voluntary consensus, has proven effective. However, 
        faster development, coherence, and availability of 
        these voluntary standards is necessary to improve their 
        usefulness.

         Observing the ANSI process for standards 
        development assures U.S. industry and U.S. standards-
        developing organizations that their standards may be 
        accepted in international markets.

         ANSI endorses the placement of standards 
        attaches in key U.S. embassies.

         The information technology (IT) industry 
        utilizes almost every kind of standardization process, 
        from informal meetings to formal processes that result 
        in an American National Standard.

         The Department of Defense has recently 
        interpreted a 1912 law as meaning that it is illegal 
        for the government to pay an employee's salary, 
        membership dues, or travel costs to participate in a 
        standards organization that bases its activities on 
        individual membership. This could be a major policy 
        obstacle and must be rectified.

    Mr. Rittersbusch testified that it is important to make 
sure that the right standards are being developed for the right 
uses, whether those standard development processes be formal or 
informal, consensus- or consortia-based. He suggested that:

         The National Standards Strategy can make a 
        real difference if American businesses work through the 
        12 key strategies outlined, as well as working with the 
        standards development organizations and the government.

         Harmonized standards are absolutely 
        necessary. American companies lose out when standards 
        at home and abroad differ, since two different products 
        must be built.

         In order to remain a leader in international 
        standards-setting, the U.S. must use its technical 
        expertise to our advantage. Standards experts must be 
        closely in touch with the markets for which they are 
        setting standards.

         The IT industry needs a balance of standards 
        developed through both formal and consortia processes.

         A consortia developed standard is not a 
        consensus standard.

    Mr. Bradner focused on the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF), which is the primary developer of basic standards for 
the Internet. He believes the IETF has and will continue to 
have a major part to play in the setting of standards for IT. 
He noted that:

         The IETF is consensus-based, self-funded, 
        open to all participants, transparent, allows appeals, 
        vendor-neutral, and uses merit-based evaluation. The 
        group also deals with intellectual property rights and 
        other standards development organizations.

         The work of the IETF is done mostly through 
        extensive Internet mailing lists, though the group does 
        meet three times a year at face-to-face meetings.

         IETF standards are voluntary, and the group 
        does not make any attempt to police or mandate the use 
        of the standards.

    Mr. Cargill, who also specializes in information technology 
standards development, added that:

         The IT industry has the ability and 
        willingness to use different methods of standard-
        setting depending on the situation. Consortia, or 
        groups of like-minded companies, generally get together 
        and produce standards that will benefit the entire 
        market. Over the past five years, consortia have become 
        the dominant standards providers for IT technology.

         These consortia for IT are not part of the 
        ISO-ANSI federation, thus their existence is contingent 
        on whether or not they maintain the support of their 
        members.

    For the future of standard-setting, he suggests that:

         The Office of Management and Budget should 
        define what a legitimate consortium is.

         The National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology can play a larger role in organizing IT 
        consortia.

         Our primary concern should not be with who 
        believes in standards, but with those that do not 
        standardize.

       4.3(f)_Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean Observing 
      Systems (Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Environment, 
      Technology, and Standards and the Subcommittee on Research, 
        Committee on Science, and the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
      Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources.)

                             July 12, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-26

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on 
federal interagency cooperation on ocean research and 
particularly on the progress of, and plans for, the 
implementation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing 
system. This hearing also examined the need to coordinate the 
rapidly proliferating coastal observing systems and review the 
Report of the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration and the 
implementations of that report's recommendations.
    The Subcommittees heard from: (1) Mr. Scott B. Gudes, 
Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Dept. of 
Commerce; (2) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National 
Science Foundation; (3) Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of the 
Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Navy; (4) Vice Admiral 
Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., President of Consortium for 
Oceanographic Research & Education; (5) Dr. Marcia McNutt, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Monterey Bay Aquarium 
Research Institute; (6) Dr. Robert Ballard, President of the 
Institute for Exploration; (7) Dr. Robert A. Weller, Director 
of Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, Woods 
Hole Oceanographic Institution; (8) Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, 
Director of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, 
Rutgers University; (9) Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science 
Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and 
(10) Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director of the Hawaii Undersea 
Research Laboratory at the University of Hawaii.

Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by 
stating that improved cooperation and coordination among 
federal agencies, Congressional Committees, and the research 
community is needed for a more effective ocean research 
program. Due to limited financial resources, these groups need 
to agree on specific priorities to achieve goals.
    Mr. Gudes testified on ocean exploration, ocean 
observations, coastal observations, and the role of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He 
noted that:

         The President's budget includes $170 million 
        for NOAA to conduct ocean research in fiscal year 2002.

         In 2000, a panel of marine scientists and 
        explorers were convened to review U.S. efforts in ocean 
        exploration. It recommended that the U.S. establish a 
        national program of ocean exploration and discovery.

         He discussed ocean exploration's role in the 
        discovery of new species, our understanding of 
        geological phenomena, etc.

         There are fewer ocean-based measurement 
        systems than there are land-based.

         The National Ocean Partnership Program is an 
        excellent mechanisms for coordinating oceans activities 
        across agencies.

         It is important, especially on the West 
        coast, for tsunami warning devices to be improved.

    Dr. Colwell testified that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has a proud history of supporting basic research and 
education in the ocean sciences. It has a ``broad, encompassing 
role that advances the frontiers of discovery and seeks to 
engage the public.'' Dr. Colwell showed footage taken from the 
submersible ALVIN two miles below sea level, and noted that:

         The NSF accounts for less than four percent 
        of the total federal research and development budget, 
        yet provides about 70 percent of federal funding to 
        academic institutions for ocean research.

         More than 95 percent of the world's oceans 
        remain unexplored.

         The NSF is working with the academic 
        community and federal agencies to provide a new 
        infrastructure to gain access to the oceans and to 
        facilitate the collection of time series data. This 
        will help improve our understanding of the basic 
        biology, chemistry, geology, and physics of oceans.

    Admiral Cohen discussed the importance of ocean 
exploration, and strongly supports efforts to develop and 
implement an integrated and sustained national ocean observing 
system. He noted that:

         Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's 
        surface, and are constantly changing.

         Oceans are the Navy's operating environment. 
        The Navy must continually collect and monitor data from 
        all the world's oceans in order to ensure the safety of 
        its fleet.

    Admiral Lautenbacher represented the Consortium for 
Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE), a consortium of 64 
premier oceanographic institutions. He noted that:

         Ocean exploration and ocean observing are 
        equally important, and we should emphasize the value we 
        get from each approach to ocean research.

         Now is the time for researchers to work 
        together in a coordinated effort to advance ocean 
        research. The technology available today is such that 
        we can do things that were only dreamed about several 
        years ago.

         Sustained time series data from coastal areas 
        and around the world in addition to the cooperation and 
        coordination of federal agencies are needed to answer 
        pressing questions on environmental management.

         The National Oceanographic Partnership Act 
        successfully established a super-agency mechanism to 
        support and finance ocean exploration and observation.

    Dr. McNutt re-emphasized the importance of ocean 
exploration. She strongly supports further research to learn 
more about this largely unexplored area. She noted that:

         The ocean is earth's largest living space, 
        containing 80 percent of all phyla. Most photosynthesis 
        occurs there, it keeps earth habitable, and it 
        processes our waste. It also provides an inexpensive 
        source of protein to feed our population.

         The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 
        is currently considering direct sequestration of carbon 
        dioxide into the ocean 3 kilometers below the surface 
        to mitigate global warming. However, it is having 
        difficulty assessing the potential biological impact of 
        such activity because so little is known about the 
        organisms at that depth.

         In order to know the right scientific 
        questions to ask of ocean models and predictions, the 
        U.S. needs to further explore the ocean.

         Ocean exploration is defined as the 
        systematic observation of all facets of the ocean in 
        the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension 
        of time. Ocean exploration leads to unpredictable 
        rewards; possibilities include cures for diseases, 
        discovery of untapped mineral, energy, and biological 
        resources, insights into ocean system functions, and 
        beautiful geological and biological vistas.

         Many countries, including Ireland, Japan, 
        France and Russia, are much more advanced in their 
        ocean exploration tools and programs than the U.S.

         Stakeholders such as federal laboratories, 
        businesses, universities, educators, conservationists, 
        students and relevant federal agencies should be 
        involved in ocean exploration. The activities of these 
        groups need to be coordinated through an effective 
        management structure, which could potentially be the 
        National Ocean Partnership Program.

         Ocean exploration programs will be most 
        effective and systematic with built-in mechanisms for 
        educational outreach and information dissemination. 
        Exploration would begin with reconnaissance mapping of 
        the sea floor and water column.

         Detailed exploration should be done by a 
        state-of-the-art flagship equipped with new generation 
        submersible technology and high bandwidth satellite 
        communication to bring real-time discoveries to 
        aquaria, schools, homes and offices over the Internet.

    Mr. Ballard testified that oceans are our last unexplored 
frontier and that we need to develop a blueprint for future 
exploration. He noted that:

         There is no major ocean exploration program 
        in the U.S.

         Ocean exploration can lead to great 
        discoveries with the help of newer technologies such as 
        autonomous underwater vehicles.

         The future of sea farming will involve a 
        shift from people as hunters and gatherers of the sea 
        to shepherds of the sea.

         The natural beauty and cultural heritage of 
        the oceans need to be preserved for future generations 
        by expanding existing sanctuaries such as The National 
        Marine Sanctuary. Public access is necessary to gain 
        the public support needed for long-term protection.

    Dr. Weller gave a brief recount of his time in the Pacific 
Ocean during the onset of the 1997 El Nino. He noted that:

         Oceanic measuring devices deployed by the 
        National Science Foundation and international partners 
        enabled early detection and warning of the 1997 El 
        Nino, which gave people around the world time to 
        prepare for its effects.

         In 1999 the value of these early El Nino 
        warnings was estimated at $300 million for the 
        agricultural sector, and $1 billion for all U.S. 
        sectors combined. The payoff is huge considering that 
        the U.S. puts only $12 million into the El Nino 
        observing system annually.

         The ocean system across the globe is 
        interconnected; as such, research activities need to be 
        globally focused.

         The tools used to measure oceanic changes, 
        like buoys and moorings, are available. We just need to 
        get more of them out there.

    Dr. Grassle focused on the need for a national network of 
linked and coordinated ocean observing systems, and on 
recommendations for how such a network should be established. 
He supports ocean exploration and the census of marine life 
programs and has suggestions for their advancement. He noted 
that:

         An integrated national network of coastal 
        ocean observing systems needs to be developed. More 
        than half of Americans live in coastal zones, more than 
        95 percent of the Nation's foreign trade moves by sea, 
        the fishing industry and other industries rely on 
        ocean, and our understanding of it influences all of 
        these activities.

         A sustained network of linked and coordinated 
        regional ocean observing systems will provide a new way 
        of looking at, working in, and understanding the ocean.

         The growing community of users of ocean 
        information needs a modeling and measurement system 
        that has the ability to continuously map surface 
        current flows and obtain data from satellite 
        observations, buoys, and autonomous gliders.

         Intensive observatory facilities operated by 
        scientists from all disciplines are needed to conduct 
        long-term experiments, sustain long-time series 
        observations, and test new ideas and equipment.

         The National Science Foundation and the 
        Office of Naval Research have played major roles in the 
        development of the LEO observatory, and should continue 
        to play a leading role in the development of intensive 
        observatory technologies.

         The National Ocean Research Leadership 
        Council and National Oceanographic Partnership Program 
        should be responsible for coordinating a national ocean 
        observing system and approving standards and protocols 
        for administering the system.

    Dr. Beeton testified on ocean exploration in the context of 
the Great Lakes. He noted that:

         The Science Advisory Board is the only 
        federal committee whose responsibility it is to advise 
        the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere on long- and short-term strategies for 
        research, education, and application of science to 
        resource management.

         Coastal and ocean observations are necessary 
        to predict events that effect commerce and life and to 
        minimize financial and personal loss.

         Ocean exploration activity should include 
        geophysical surveys to update bathymetric charts for 
        navigation, fisheries, and recreation.

         We need long-term monitoring to detect subtle 
        changes in the Great Lakes ecosystems, make more 
        coherent assessments of long- and short-term impacts, 
        and understand coastal water quality's influence on 
        public health.

    Mr. Malahoff stressed that the oceans are an essential 
resource for the U.S., in addition to being our front line 
against adversaries. He noted that:

         Oceans provide us with food, energy, and 
        resources for a range of new industries specializing in 
        marine byproducts and their uses.

         NOAA's creation of the Office of Ocean 
        Exploration is a catalyst that will enable the U.S. to 
        lead the development of a holistic understanding of the 
        world's oceans.

         Grass roots partnerships are key to improving 
        ocean exploration.

         Core programs such as NOAA's National 
        Undersea Research Program, along with programs at the 
        Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, 
        and The Environmental Protection Agency, need to be 
        supported in order to accomplish the objectives of 
        ocean exploration.

     4.3(g)_Combating the Invaders: Research on Non-Native Species

                             July 26, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-25

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on 
federal agencies' research on invasive species and how the 
National Invasive Species Council coordinates invasive species 
programs and activities among the various federal agencies. The 
Subcommittee reviewed the research provisions in the National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996 and the Non-indigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 in order to update 
and improve them.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Peter Hoekstra, 
Congressman from Michigan (2) Dr. David Evans, Assistant 
Administrator of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
Co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; (3) Ms. 
Lori Williams, Executive Director of the National Invasive 
Species Council; (4) Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine 
Sciences at Williams College and Director of the Maritime 
Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport; (5) Dr. 
Stephen B. Brandt, Director of the Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory; and (6) Mr. Scott Smith from the 
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Hoekstra expressed interest in working with the 
Subcommittee to develop legislation to combat non-native 
species and the ecological and economic damage they cause. He 
noted that:

         The legislation he introduced earlier this 
        year, H.R. 1680, addresses the introduction of non-
        native species in the Great Lakes through ballast water 
        exchange. He stressed that this legislation should be 
        considered as only one component of a larger package to 
        solve invasive species problems.

         H.R. 1680 would require the Department of 
        Transportation to institute rules and regulations to 
        control the discharge of ballast water as well as to 
        evaluate best possible practices and technologies to 
        ensure further protection.

    Dr. Evans testified that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 
Force, as mandated by the National Invasive Species Act of 
1996, has met a significant number of research needs. The role 
of the task force is to coordinate the federal agencies 
involved in aquatic nuisance species management. He noted that:

         The Task Force has addressed the problem of 
        zebra mussels, evaluated a range of ballast water 
        technologies, sponsored research on responding to and 
        monitoring non-indigenous species, and created new ways 
        to educate the public regarding the issue.

         The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 
        charged the task force with prevention, detection, 
        monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species.

         The task force conducts joint projects with 
        agencies, provides aquatic nuisance species information 
        to stakeholders, and funds research.

         The National Invasive Species Council has a 
        broader taxonomic scope than the task force, yet the 
        council's work with technologies for non-aquatic 
        environments can inform/guide the task force's work 
        within water environments.

         Control technologies still need to be 
        developed for many taxonomic groups that currently have 
        no known methods of eradication.

    Dr. Carlton strongly supports research to prevent, 
understand, and manage invasive species. He noted that:

         The role of research universities in 
        addressing the threat from invasive species is to 
        define the basic science, theory, and the ecology of 
        invasions and also to partner with government agencies, 
        nonprofit organizations, and industry to develop 
        solutions to invasive species problems.

         What we can expect to get back from research 
        on invasive species is only proportional to what we 
        invest in it, and that investment over the past ten 
        years has been disproportionate to the nature of the 
        problem.

         Creating a national baseline study would 
        allow researchers to better understand the 
        effectiveness of management plans to reduce future 
        invasions.

    Ms. Williams stressed the diversity of invasive species and 
the extent of damage they can inflict on the environment, the 
economy, and animal and human health. She focused on 
coordination issues and the role of the National Invasive 
Species Council. She noted that:

         An effective research response to invasive 
        species problems needs to be coordinated, 
        interdepartmental, and multi-jurisdictional.

         It is the National Invasive Species Council's 
        role to help coordinate research efforts across the 22 
        federal agencies involved in invasive species.

         The Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 
        which provides input to the council, is a 32-member 
        group of non-federal stakeholders who represent diverse 
        geographic areas, expertise, and interests.

         The Council developed a National Management 
        Plan that outlines broad strategic goals for research 
        and other aspects of invasive species. This is the 
        first comprehensive federal action plan for invasive 
        species. Highlights include: federal cooperation with 
        stakeholders, development of a cross-cutting invasive 
        species budget, research to improve invasive species 
        threat assessment, better baseline data and monitoring, 
        and improved data on economic impacts of invasive 
        species.

    Dr. Brandt testified that over the past few decades, rates 
of invasions have accelerated, especially in larger aquatic 
environments including the Great Lakes. He noted that:

         The Great Lakes Environmental Research 
        Laboratory (GLERL) is the leading institution for 
        aquatic species invasion research within NOAA. GLERL 
        has a strong history of collaboration and partnerships 
        in support of high-quality research, and has recently 
        taken the lead to develop strategic plans on invasive 
        species for NOAA.

         Current research is focused on preventing 
        introductions and understanding ecological impacts.

         Prevention and control of ballast water 
        introductions are critical research priorities. Ballast 
        water is responsible for nine of the twelve recent 
        invasive introductions in the Great Lakes.

         More emphasis should be placed on 
        implementation of planning efforts, ideally at the 
        regional level.

    Mr. Smith used a variety of slides depicting invasive 
species to illustrate how some non-native species invade 
aquatic environments. He offered a state and regional 
perspective and noted that:

         The aquaculture industry in Washington State 
        has been very concerned about the impact that spartina, 
        zebra mussels, and green crabs have on the environment 
        and the economy.

         The National Invasive Species Council 
        coordinates both terrestrial and aquatic species, while 
        the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force focuses on 
        federal coordination of aquatic species efforts.

         The weakest link is at the state level; state 
        aquatic nuisance species committees, an aquatic 
        nuisance species coordinator in each state, and state 
        plans are needed.

         Ballast water treatment research funds should 
        be available to more than just Great Lakes states.

         We should improve the use of aquatic nuisance 
        species regional panels, and encourage states that are 
        not affiliated with a panel to join.

         With regard to zebra mussels, funds should be 
        focused on areas that do not have zebra mussels for 
        education and inspection programs to prevent 
        introduction. Ballast water treatment research and 
        technology development should be promoted.

      4.3(h)_Arsenic in Drinking Water: An Update on the Science, 
                           Benefits, and Cost

                            October 4, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-32

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on 
three reports recently submitted to the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) that update the state of knowledge on 
the science, benefits, and cost of regulating arsenic in 
drinking water. The Subcommittee was especially interested in 
the latest findings that will inform EPA as it sets the maximum 
contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water, due to be 
published in February 2002.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Robert Goyer, Chairman 
of the National Research Council Subcommittee to update the 
1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report, Committee on Toxicology; 
(2) Dr. Maureen Cropper, Chair of the EPA Science Advisory 
Board, Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel; Lead Economist, The 
World Bank; Professor of Economics at the University of 
Maryland; (3) John Scheltens, National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council, Arsenic Cost Working Group; City Engineer, Public 
Works Director, Hot Springs, South Dakota; (4) Barbara Beck, 
Ph.D., Principal, Gradient Corporation representing the 
Environmental Arsenic Council, the National Wood Preservers 
Institute, and the National Rural Water Association; (5) Scott 
Rubin, Attorney & Consultant presenting research on water 
system affordability that he conducted for the National Rural 
Water Association; and (6) Erik Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural 
Resources Defense Council.

Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by 
pointing out the controversy surrounding the appropriate 
standard for arsenic in drinking water. He pointed out that the 
Committee's review evaluating the science of the risk of 
arsenic in drinking water is important, relevant and timely, 
not only because arsenic has received so much public attention, 
but also because it highlights the importance of using science 
as the basis of important public health and environmental 
decisions.
    Dr. Goyer testified on the National Research Council's 
September 2001 report, ``Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 
Update''. He noted that:

         On January 22, 2001, EPA issued a proposed 
        standard for arsenic in drinking water of 10 micrograms 
        per liter. This proposed standard is based primarily on 
        response models and extrapolation from cancer studies 
        of the Taiwanese population exposed to high 
        concentrations of arsenic in its drinking water.

         On March 23, 2001, EPA published a notice 
        that delayed the effective date of the arsenic rule 
        pending further study.

         To incorporate the most recent scientific 
        research into the EPA's decision on a standard, the 
        EPA's Office of Water requested that the National 
        Research Council independently review studies on the 
        health effects of arsenic published since the NRC 
        published its 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report.

         The NRC assigned the project to the Committee 
        on Toxicology, which prepared the updated report. The 
        report also evaluated the analysis conducted by the EPA 
        in support of its regulatory decision-making for 
        arsenic in drinking water.

         The Subcommittee did not address economic 
        questions, cost benefit assessment, control technology, 
        exposure assessment in the U.S. population, or 
        regulatory decision-making.

         The Subcommittee concluded that there is a 
        sound database on the carcinogenic effect of arsenic in 
        humans that is adequate for the purpose of risk 
        assessment, and that arsenic causes cancer in humans at 
        doses that are close to the drinking water 
        concentrations that might occur in the United States.

         The new report suggests that the risks for 
        bladder and lung cancer are greater than the risk 
        estimates on which the EPA based its January 2001 
        pending rule. Reasons for the increased risk estimate 
        include the use of a different biostatistical model 
        that provides a better fit to the available data, the 
        use of an external, rather than internal, comparison 
        population, improved assumptions for determining 
        arsenic exposures, and relating the risks to the 
        Taiwanese population to the U.S. cancer rate, which is 
        higher than the Taiwanese rate.

         Estimates of risk from low-level arsenic 
        exposures were based on a Poisson linear extrapolation 
        from observed data. Available data does not provide 
        evidence for a threshold or non-linear dose response.

         Studies have also shown that arsenic is 
        linked to cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension, 
        diabetes mellitus, as well as reproductive disorders. 
        Age, sex, and simultaneous exposure to other 
        carcinogens may influence risk estimates.

         More research needs to be conducted to reduce 
        uncertainties relevant to risk assessment and to gain 
        knowledge of other effects of arsenic on the human 
        body.

    Dr. Cropper testified on the soundness of the benefit-cost 
analysis that was done in support of the arsenic rule, as 
evaluated in the report ``Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: A 
Science Advisory Board Review.'' She focused on the economics 
of this and the economics of measuring the benefits and 
comparing them to the costs. She noted that:

         The ratio of benefits to cost is much lower 
        in small drinking water systems. Although, the Safe 
        Drinking Water Act calls for a uniform drinking water 
        standard throughout the country, from an efficiency 
        perspective, consideration should be given to the idea 
        of allowing standards to vary by community.

         Avoided cases of illness and mortality should 
        be broken down by age.

         Attention should be focused on the number of 
        cases of premature mortality or fatal and non-fatal 
        cancers expected to be reduced every year after the new 
        drinking water standard is implemented for people who 
        want to adopt their own discount rates or dollar value 
        of a life.

         Other health endpoints besides lung and 
        bladder cancers need to be quantified in order to be 
        considered in an effective benefit-cost analysis.

         The timing of health benefits needs to be 
        considered in cost-benefit analyses. More research is 
        needed to assess the risk after exposure has stopped.

         The methodology used by the EPA to assess the 
        valuation of benefits was sound.

    Mr. Scheltens testified on the three major recommendations 
of the ``Report on the Arsenic Cost Working Group to the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Committee.'' He noted that:

         The methodology the EPA used to produce a 
        cost estimate for implementing the rule may not be 
        sufficiently detailed to be able to fully understand 
        the impact of the rule, particularly on small systems.

         95 percent of the water systems affected by 
        the arsenic rule are small systems, which are less able 
        to absorb the costs (in terms of user rates) than the 
        large systems.

         The working group proposed recommendations 
        for improving future cost projections.

         Many additional contaminants will be 
        regulated in the future, which expands the scope of 
        this issue to the affordability of all drinking water 
        regulations. A national panel of experts needs to be 
        formed to deal with the affordability issue, and a 
        ``sustainability'' fund needs to be set up by the 
        Federal Government.

         The funds to update arsenic treatment 
        facilities in small towns are important, but only solve 
        a portion of the problem for small communities that 
        can't afford the higher operation and maintenance 
        costs.

    Dr. Beck provided comments on several of the recent 
evaluations of arsenic toxicity and risk, especially the NRC 
2001 report and the Science Advisory Board benefits review. She 
noted that:

         There is no evidence of arsenic-related 
        diseases at typical U.S. exposure levels.

         The lower levels of arsenic that are typical 
        of the U.S. situation are relatively low risk or 
        perhaps no risk, which is consistent with a non-linear 
        or sublinear dose response model.

         The key conclusions in the NRC Report, 
        especially as reflected in the Executive Summary, are 
        not well supported by scientific evidence, and in some 
        cases, are inconsistent with the body of the text.

         Four main lines of evidence support a 
        nonlinear response model: (1) other models such as the 
        Weibel model and a paper by Morales cited in the NRC 
        2001 report; (2) arsenic doesn't interact directly with 
        DNA; (3) there are qualitative differences between what 
        happens at low doses versus high doses of arsenic in 
        cells; (4) epidemiology studies do not find any 
        consistent or convincing effects of arsenic at levels 
        less than 100 micrograms per liter.

         The non-cancer effects of arsenic in drinking 
        water are not quantified and could be less serious than 
        the NRC report leads one to believe.

         Other nonlinear dose response models for the 
        relationship between arsenic and health effects need to 
        be explored. The Utah study of arsenic in drinking 
        water offers a good opportunity for further evaluation 
        of the data from that study to determine whether its 
        results are consistent or inconsistent with the risk 
        estimates in the NRC report.

    Mr. Rubin testified that the Arsenic Cost Working group 
recognized that there might be small water systems that will 
not be able to afford to comply with the arsenic rule, but that 
it understates the problem and fails to discuss its 
consequences. He noted that:

         The EPA assumes small communities can afford 
        a quadrupling of their water bills to $800. There are 
        four significant problems with the EPA's assumptions: 
        (1) the EPA focuses on median income rather than a more 
        accurate measure of economic need, such as poverty; (2) 
        EPA's assumption that 2.5 percent of income is 
        affordable is inconsistent with the experience of other 
        utility services; (3) The EPA's use of national 
        averages and medians does not accurately measure the 
        people who will have to pay for arsenic compliance; (4) 
        existing water bills in many parts of the country are 
        significantly higher than the EPA assumed.

         Several studies show that most low-income 
        families will pay their utility bills and cut back on 
        food or medical care. We need to evaluate not only the 
        health impacts of reducing arsenic levels, but also the 
        offsetting health impacts of reduced spending on other 
        necessities.

         The Arsenic Workgroup recommends that 
        Congress should authorize additional funding to help 
        small water systems that face serious economic problems 
        meeting the standard.

         The EPA must change the way it evaluates 
        whether small water systems will be able to afford a 
        new regulation, set a reasonable and realistic 
        threshold for affordability, and evaluate the public 
        health consequences of tradeoffs that low-income 
        households will be required to make in order to pay 
        higher water bills.

    Mr. Olson testified on the history of the arsenic rule and 
called for a new arsenic standard of three parts per billion 
(ppb). He noted that:

         The original standard was set in 1942, and 
        recommendations to lower the standard to 10 ppb have 
        been suggested since 1962. The current range of 
        acceptable arsenic levels is as low as 3 ppb.

         The National Academy of Sciences affirms that 
        even at 3 ppb, arsenic levels are ten times more 
        carcinogenic than the EPA says is acceptable. It also 
        holds that there is not sufficient evidence to show 
        that there is a nonlinear dose response.

         The EPA estimates that 36 million Americans 
        drink water everyday that contains over 3 ppb of 
        arsenic.

         The EPA has produced credible estimates of 
        the cost of arsenic compliance, given the constraints 
        of the present rule-making, data-gathering, and cost 
        models.

         The benefits of lowering the standard to 3 
        ppb are much more than the EPA initially thought. The 
        costs would be about $3 per household for 90 percent of 
        the people that are affected.

         Public water systems in small communities 
        need to be targeted for the $1.7 billion in federal 
        money designated for public water systems.

      4.3(i)_Weatherproofing the U.S.: Are We Prepared for Severe 
                                Storms?

                            October 11, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-31

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony about 
research efforts into the prediction of severe storms, with 
emphasis on hurricanes, flooding, and wind-related damage. The 
hearing addressed the needs of emergency management officials 
to ensure the public is adequately warned about storms and 
their effects. In addition, the hearing examined three related 
legislative issues: H.R. 2486, the Tropical Cyclone Inland 
Forecasting Improvement and Warning System Development Act, 
introduced by Representative Etheridge; draft legislation by 
Representative Moore on research related to severe wind damage 
and its amelioration; and reauthorization of the U.S. Weather 
Research Program.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Chris 
Landsea, Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic 
and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA): (2) Dr. Len Pietrafesa, Director of 
External Affairs, College of Mathematical Sciences, N.C. State 
University; (3) Dr. Steven L. McCabe, Professor and Department 
Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 
University of Kansas; (4) Mr. John L. Hayes, Director, Office 
of Science and Technology, National Weather Service; Co-chair, 
U.S. Weather Research Program; (5) Mr. Doug Hill, Chief 
Meteorologist, WJLA--Channel 7 News, Washington, D.C.; and (6) 
Mr. Robert Shea, Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance and 
Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Landsea presented his research regarding hurricanes and 
the likelihood of increased hurricane activity in the coming 
decades. He noted that:

         The formation of hurricanes requires a 
        specific combination of environmental factors.

         Hurricane activity seems to be cyclical with 
        the 1940's--1960's being quite active, and the 1970's-
        early 1990's relatively quiet.

         It appears the Atlantic is beginning to enter 
        another active period, with much more dangerous 
        consequences because of increased population and 
        economic develop along the East Coast.

    Dr. Pietrafesa discussed the need for an interdisciplinary 
approach to severe storms through research and management. He 
emphasized that:

         The roots of the problem lie in the 
        interactions between the environmental physical system, 
        which are not well understood and changing, and those 
        interactions with the human system, with its social and 
        demographic characteristics. This is especially true in 
        the loss of life and destruction due to floods.

         In North Carolina, Category 2 Hurricanes (as 
        opposed to those much stronger) are responsible for 42 
        percent of all damage because of their high moisture 
        content and the hidden nature of estuarian, coastal, 
        and inland flooding.

         Proper funding of the U.S. Weather Research 
        Program will increase our ability to handle severe 
        storm events.

         He supports the legislation put forth by 
        Congressman Etheridge to develop a new flood warning 
        index.

    Dr. McCabe discussed the issue of windstorms and their 
effects on the citizens and economy of the United States. He 
noted that:

         Property damage, personal injuries, and death 
        from wind storms is a national problem, resulting in an 
        average economic loss in the United States on the order 
        of several billion dollars.

         The Federal Government needs to do more 
        toward preventing or minimizing the impact of 
        windstorms.

         Legislation developed by Congressman Moore 
        and the Science Committee staff would better coordinate 
        federal wind hazard reduction efforts and research, and 
        provide sufficient funds to accomplish its goals.

         One area where this legislation would help is 
        roof system testing procedures and new devices for wind 
        resistance.

    Dr. Hayes discussed the importance of the U.S. Weather 
Research Program. He emphasized that:

         Hazardous weather, such as tornadoes, 
        hurricanes, and winter storms each year cause thousands 
        of fatalities, far more injuries, and tens of billions 
        of dollars in property damage.

         The U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) can 
        improve warning and forecast accuracies and lead times 
        by more fully exploiting our advanced technologies and 
        improving the scientific basis for weather prediction.

         The USWRP is a $9 million multi-agency 
        collaborative effort of operation and research 
        communities, and academia and government. The current 
        participants include NOAA, the National Science 
        Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Defense.

    Mr. Hill presented his perspective as a television 
meteorologist about communicating information on severe storms 
to the public. He noted that:

         Most people have become desensitized to 
        emergency weather warnings, especially while riding in 
        automobiles.

         We need to find a way to make it mandatory 
        that radio stations issue severe weather warnings.

         Many times the people providing local weather 
        information in smaller areas are not specifically 
        qualified or certified.

         Television meteorologists and the staff with 
        the national weather service forecasting offices must 
        have a good working relationship.

    Mr. Shea discussed the need to ensure that research into 
natural hazards is translated into effective practice for 
emergency managers and the public. He emphasized that:

         The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
        (FEMA) has been developing a multi-hazard risk 
        assessment and loss estimation tool called HAZUS or 
        Hazards U.S. The first one was for earthquake issues, 
        the next one due is for flooding and there is a 
        prototype of one concerning wind issues.

         The HAZUS tools are designed to provide 
        federal, state and local people with information to 
        understand the risks involved with specific natural 
        hazards, and then how to deal with it.

         Congressman Etheridge's legislation to create 
        a new flood warning system, which would also educate 
        local officials and the public about the new system, 
        would help to save lives.

         FEMA and the National Weather Service are 
        working together to develop enhanced flood maps and 
        flood modeling capabilities, but more collaboration is 
        needed.

              4.3(j)_Sea Grant: Review and Reauthorization

                           February 28, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-47

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the President's 
fiscal year 2003 Budget proposal to transfer the Sea Grant 
College Program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to the National Science Foundation (NSF). 
The hearing also explored H.R. 3389, a bill that would 
reauthorize the Sea Grant College Program within NOAA.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C. 
Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
(2) Dr. Russell Moll, Director, California Sea Grant College 
Program, University of California San Diego; (3) Ms. Mary Hope 
Katsouros, Senior Fellow and Senior Vice President, The H. John 
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment; 
(4) Dr. Nancy Rabalais, Professor, Louisiana Universities 
Marine Consortium; and (5) Mr. Michael Donahue, President/Chief 
Executive Officer, Great Lakes Commission
Summary of Hearing
    Admiral Lautenbacher deferred to his written testimony, 
which reiterates the justification put forward by the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Department of Commerce for the 
President's FY 2003 budget request. With regard to the proposal 
to move Sea Grant to the NSF, he commented that the 
Administration believes that NSF would better manage Sea 
Grant's research, which would maximize the benefit received 
from each dollar invested. Admiral Lautenbacher supports Sea 
Grant and noted that, under NOAA, he intends to manage the 
program for the remainder of FY 2002 in accordance with the 
intent of the President and Congress, as stated in the current 
authorizations.
    Dr. Moll described Sea Grant as a broad-based, priority-
driven program that balances research, extension, and 
education. It matches federal funding with local support to 
build partnerships to investigate issues such as aquaculture, 
marine biotechnology, and non-indigenous species. He argued 
that:

         Sea Grant's local, State, and national 
        programs use a strong peer review process for 
        evaluating potential research projects. And, every four 
        years each Sea Grant program undergoes an external 
        review.

         Whether the Sea Grant program remains at NOAA 
        or is transferred to NSF, the program's strengths 
        (partnerships, research interwoven with outreach, and 
        coastal focus) should be maintained.

         Since Sea Grant is already authorized for 
        several more years within NOAA, the Administration 
        should wait for the President's Commission on Ocean 
        Policy to finish their review of the structure of 
        federal maritime programs before moving Sea Grant.

         There should be no change in the mission, 
        structure, or function of Sea Grant until the 
        Commission's report is released.

         NSF is not particularly well vested in 
        outreach activities nor is NSF likely to support Sea 
        Grant's matching provision; both are elements of the 
        program's current strengths.

         If the Coastal Ocean Program is merged with 
        Sea Grant, the integrity of both programs should be 
        maintained.

    Ms. Katsouros noted that Sea Grant creates partnerships 
involving 300 institutions and 3,000 scientists each year. ``It 
helps people,'' she said in regard to the program's role in 
federal research. She testified that:

         Sea Grant should not be moved from NOAA to 
        NSF because Sea Grant currently funds applied research, 
        responds to local, State, regional, and national goals, 
        is supported by matching funds, and conducts extension 
        activities--all elements that would be lost under NSF 
        administration.

         Congress should reconsider implementing a 
        1994 National Academy of Sciences recommendation to 
        elevate Sea Grant to the Office of the NOAA 
        Administrator.

         Since 1994, the Sea Grant peer-review process 
        has improved.

         The Coastal Ocean Program supports long-term, 
        multidisciplinary research, whereas the Sea Grant 
        program is focused on single investigator, State and 
        national priority research.

    Dr. Rabalais is a scientist who has been doing marine 
coastal research for twenty years. She has received grant money 
from Sea Grant, The Coastal Ocean Program, and NSF, and has had 
proposals rejected by each organization as well. She testified 
that:

         These programs serve different 
        constituencies, do different kinds of research, and 
        address different needs.

         The fear among the marine science community 
        is that moving Sea Grant or the Coastal Ocean Program 
        would jeopardize the purpose and integrity of each 
        program.

         The NSF budget needs to be increased on its 
        own; not by moving other programs into it.

         The U.S. Ocean Commission review and Vice 
        Admiral Lautenbacher's bottom-up review of NOAA's 
        programs should be completed before research dollars 
        and programs are moved around.

    Dr. Donahue discussed Sea Grant and the Coastal Ocean 
Program from a Great Lakes perspective. He testified that:

         The Great Lakes Commission and member states 
        rely fundamentally on the research and extension 
        services Sea Grant provides.

         The Great Lakes Commission opposes the 
        proposed transfer of the program from NOAA to NSF; 
        attention should be directed towards strengthening the 
        program within NOAA and working towards 
        reauthorization.

         If the Federal Government provides less or no 
        funding for Sea Grant's activities, the ability of the 
        states to perform their mandated functions would be 
        severely compromised and could cause the outright 
        elimination of entire research, education, and outreach 
        programs. The implications of which might include loss 
        of local economic development opportunities, a less 
        informed public, a compromised decision-support system 
        for state legislators, and in some areas increased 
        exposure to environmental contaminants.

         Several Sea Grant issues merit evaluation: 
        the program's stature and base funding need to be 
        elevated for it to realize its potential; Sea Grant's 
        outreach needs have increased because of the downsizing 
        of government but its budget for extensions has not; 
        Sea Grant's focus on regional, in addition to state-
        level, issues should be expanded.

         Sea Grant needs to be reauthorized, 
        appropriated not less than $100 million, and its 
        profile within NOAA should be elevated over time.

      4.3(k)_Technology Administration: Review and Reauthorization

                             March 14, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-54

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the President's 
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget request for the Technology 
Administration and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. In addition, the Subcommittee reviewed the 
Administration's proposed reforms for the Advanced Technology 
Program.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Philip J. Bond, 
Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology and Chief of Staff to 
the Secretary of Commerce; (2) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); (3) Mr. 
Michael Wojcicki, President, The Modernization Forum; (4) Ms. 
Birgit M. Klohs, President, The Right Place Program; and (5) 
Dr. Christopher T. Hill, Vice Provost for Research and 
Professor of Public Policy and Technology, George Mason 
University.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Bond testified that the Department of Commerce and the 
Technology Administration (TA) are carrying out their 
respective missions by focusing resources on the following 
goals: fostering job creation, assisting homeland security 
initiatives within the Administration, and helping to fight the 
war on terrorism.
    He testified that technology will play a significant role 
in meeting these goals. He outlined the different roles the 
Federal Government and the private sector can play in 
developing technology. He argued that the private sector must 
assume the lead in technology development; however, the Office 
of Technology Policy (which is part of the Technology 
Administration) is developing and advocating national policies 
that use technology to build America's economic strength. To 
that end, he explained that the office seeks to encourage 
research, development, and commercialization of new 
technologies, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. At the 
same time, the TA has been working to encourage students to 
pursue high tech careers.
    Lastly, he recognized the Administration's proposed reforms 
to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and requested funding 
level for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) (both 
programs are run by NIST) are controversial. Specifically, he 
noted that the Department of Commerce recognizes the value of 
the ATP program, and that the Administration felt the proposed 
reforms would help the program in the long run. In regards to 
MEP, he testified that the current budget climate led to the 
proposed cuts in MEP. He argued that because the program is 
successful, large and small manufacturers would have an 
incentive to supplement the loss of federal funding for the 
centers that carry out MEP's mission.
    Dr. Bement discussed the President's budget request for 
NIST for Fiscal Year 2003 and its recent work in responding to 
the terrorist attacks of September 11. He testified that NIST 
had many examples of meeting the Nation's security, research, 
and commercial needs in the wake of that event. Among the 
activities that NIST undertook in response were: assessing 
structural damage to, and building standards for, the World 
Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon; testing and 
establishing dose standards for irradiated mail to ensure the 
destruction of anthrax spores and other pathogens; and 
providing research support through 75 different ongoing 
projects for sensors, biometrics, information security, and 
support for emergency services and law enforcement.
    He outlined NIST's funding needs within the context of the 
President's budget request. Specifically, he called attention 
to the $35 million request instruments for the soon-to-be-
completed Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML), the $54.5 
million request for construction and maintenance of NIST's 
facilities (which would allow for upgrades and new facilities 
in NIST Boulder, Colorado labs and equip the AML), and the 
$396.4 million request for laboratories (which would help 
strengthen NIST's core mission in several key areas including: 
health care, nanotechnology, measurement science, cyber 
security, Homeland Security, and neutron research). He added 
that demand for the use of NIST's neutron facility has 
increased dramatically, since it is now the only such facility 
in the U.S. The Administration's funding request would go 
toward meeting this demand.
    Finally, Dr. Bement echoed Mr. Bond's comments regarding 
the Administration's funding requests for ATP and MEP, by 
arguing that the current budget climate led to the 
Administration's request for funding cuts in the ATP and MEP 
programs. He added that NIST's headquarters would continue to 
coordinate the state MEP centers, even with a substantial 
decrease in funding.
    Mr. Wojcicki testified to the importance of the Federal 
Government's role in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
as both a leader in the partnership and as a major source of 
funding. He indicated that State funding for the Manufacturing 
Extension centers is either explicitly or implicitly contingent 
on federal funding in two-thirds of participating State 
governments. Mr. Wojcicki concluded that if federal funding is 
not allocated, a majority of the MEP centers would be 
threatened, as state budgets would be redirected to receive 
federal matching grants.
    Mr. Wojcicki asserted that centers continuing to operate in 
the absence of federal funding, would need to increase their 
hourly fees, focus on larger projects, and decrease the use of 
private consultants. He believes that each of these changes 
would affect the accessibility of the program to smaller 
manufacturers and would favor a shift towards larger 
manufacturers that would be capable of paying higher fees and 
taking on larger projects. He added that, without federal 
funding to serve as a catalyst, the MEP centers will not be 
able to carry out their original mandate to help small 
manufacturers become more competitive and productive. For MEP 
projects in Fiscal Year 2000, client firms reported $2.3 
billion in increased sales and more than 25,000 jobs created or 
retained. Mr. Wojcicki reported that a conservative estimate 
indicates that the Federal Government receives $4 in federal 
tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program.
    Ms. Klohs discussed the Right Place Program's work to 
attract, retain and grow businesses in Grand Rapids. She 
explained that because a large part of the local economy is 
based in manufacturing, a lot of her work is focused on helping 
small to medium manufacturers through the West Michigan MMTC 
Center. She reported that independent analysis has shown that 
in Western Michigan, manufacturing jobs account for 26 percent 
of employment and 42 cents of every dollar earned is a 
manufacturing dollar.
    Ms. Klohs reported that federal funding for MEP is matched 
by state funding and is used to support outreach activity, 
informational events, program development and industry 
benchmarking assessments. The MEP network links Michigan's 
programs to resources nationwide. MMTC serves as a catalyst for 
reducing waste in business practices for small manufacturers 
such as lean enterprise user groups and helps them cut lead 
time. Citing independent research Ms. Klohs asserted that by 
continuing to support smaller manufacturers in Western 
Michigan, the MEP program has helped boost manufacturing 
employment 60 percent with the help of State and federal 
funding.
    Dr. Hill focused his testimony on evaluating four proposals 
in the Department of Commerce's report for reforming the 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The first recommended change 
would allow institutions of higher education to lead ATP joint 
ventures with private industry, including the authority to 
organize proposals. He believes this would be an effective use 
of funds because new proposals would still require educational 
institutions to work with industry, rather than use ATP funding 
as another university funding source.
    The second reform would amend the ATP statute to permit 
universities and other nonprofit members of ATP to establish 
joint ventures to negotiate intellectual property rights. Dr. 
Hill supported this reform, however, he believes the 
disposition of future property rights should be agreed to 
before the award is made, avoiding difficult negotiations 
afterward.
    The third recommendation would limit large companies from 
participating in ATP ventures. Dr. Hill did not support this 
proposal and argued for the continued inclusion of all sizes of 
firms, since, as Dr. Hill reports, the research funded by ATP 
does not take into account the size of the firm, and the 
purpose of the research is to encourage basic research that 
would be overlooked by either large or small firms in the 
private sector. The fourth major reform would require ATP grant 
recipients to make a royalty payment of five percent of gross 
sales to be paid on ATP investments and profitable ventures up 
to 500 percent of the original award. Dr. Hill did not support 
this reform and argued that it would be difficult to administer 
and would impose a usurious rate of interest. In addition, he 
argued that this reform would produce a number of 
counterproductive incentives that would undermine the original 
intent of the program.

      4.3(l)_Science and Technology Programs at the Environmental 
             Protection Agency: The FY 2003 Budget Request

                             April 23, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-53

Background
    This purpose of the hearing was to review the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA's) FY 2003 budget request for Science 
and Technology programs. The Subcommittee planned to examine 
the strategic directions in the Agency's R&D budget and whether 
the resources available to EPA's Office of Research and 
Development (ORD) are adequate for producing the science 
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Paul Gilman, 
Assistant Administrator, ORD, EPA; (2) Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, 
Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins 
University; Member, Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Research 
Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC), EPA; and (3) Dr. Eli 
Pearce, President, American Chemical Society.

Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by 
describing the purpose of the hearing to examine the budget 
request for both ORD and the Agency's overall Science and 
Technology (S&T) budget. He raised several concerns about the 
Agency's budget proposal. First, he indicated concern about the 
absence of a rationale for eliminating funding for the highly 
successful Science to Achieve Results (STAR) graduate 
fellowship program. He questioned the size of the proposed 
transfer of $75M from the Superfund Trust Account to the S&T 
account for the detection and cleaning of buildings 
contaminated with biological or chemical agents. Finally, he 
raised a longstanding concern about the rapid growth in federal 
investment in life sciences research relative to the relatively 
flat levels of investment in the physical sciences, including 
EPA's science and technology budget.
    Dr. Gilman provided an overview of EPA's FY 2003 budget 
request. He pointed out that:

         Of the $627 million total request, $514M 
        would come from the Science and Technology 
        appropriation. It would represent 75 percent of the 
        Agency's S&T account.

         ORD expects to continue critical 
        environmental research programs in such areas as 
        children's health, drinking water, and particulate 
        matter research. The agency is also proposing budget 
        initiatives in homeland security, computational 
        toxicology, biotechnology, and the Central Basin 
        Integrated Assessment.

         ORD is proud of several recent scientific 
        accomplishments. For example, Microarrays or gene chips 
        are being developed and used in rapid testing of 
        drinking water for harmful pathogens and chemicals and 
        detecting environmentally induced male infertility. ORD 
        scientists are also developing new technologies to 
        better measure the distribution and the control of 
        contaminants in areas such as absorptive membrane 
        systems that can effectively eliminate heavy metal 
        impurities from moving water sources. ORD is also 
        developing methods, data, and models for evaluating 
        children's aggregate exposure to pesticides.

         The methodology in ORD's Environmental 
        Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) promises to 
        improve assessments of ecosystem conditions and that 
        many states are now using it as an efficient way to 
        monitor coastal conditions.

    Dr. Matanoski summarized the findings of the SAB's review 
of EPA's budget request by pointing out that:

         EPA should continue to strengthen the link 
        between R&D and the Agency's strategic plan, and to 
        improve recruitment that will help maintain core 
        scientific competencies within the Agency's R&D 
        programs.

         Many of the environmental problems that we 
        face are not explicitly identified in statute, and that 
        the Agency needs to maintain a forward-looking research 
        program to identify future problems which will support 
        non-regulatory approaches.

         The Agency needs to maintain and augment 
        research and development in emerging and under-funded 
        avenues. She agreed with the other witnesses about the 
        need to provide sufficient resources for exploring the 
        next generation of environmental problems.

    Dr. Pierce highlighted that:

         This year's budget request for the EPA 
        Science and Technology account continues a trend that 
        diminishes support for science programs, which are 
        critical for sound regulatory decisions, and in new 
        areas such as nano and biotechnology.

         Core programs, such as the STAR program, 
        which build the talent pool for the environmental 
        sciences, should not be cut.

         EPA's need for structural management reform 
        in its science programs is becoming more pressing.

         EPA needs to improve recruitment in response 
        to the pending wave of retirements in EPA's scientific 
        ranks.

    In addition to the testimony of the witnesses, a consortium 
of graduate students and faculty submitted testimony concerning 
proposed cut to the STAR Fellowship program. The consortium 
called for restoring STAR funding.

      4.3(m)_Homeland Security: The Federal and Regional Response

                             June 10, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-76

Background
    The hearing examined the federal and the National Capital 
area regional responses to the threat of terrorism. Topics 
included computer security, biodefense, regional coordination, 
public and private research and development, and first 
responder needs. The Subcommittee was especially interested in 
how the various agencies work with private entities and 
entrepreneurs to maximize both speed and efficiency in dealing 
with new terrorist threats.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Elias Zerhouni, 
Director, National Institutes of Health; (2) Dr. Arden L. 
Bement, Jr., Director, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology; (3) Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health; (4) Major Julie Pavlin, Chief, Department 
of Field Studies, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; (5) 
Mr. Edward J. McCallum, Director, Combating Terrorism 
Technology Support Office, Department of Defense; and (6) Mr. 
Robert A. Malson, President, DC Hospital Association, and 
Chairman, Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments' 
Bioterrorism Task Force.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Zerhouni discussed the role of the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH) in biodefense and in coordinating medical 
response preparedness with public and private partners.

         Much of NIH's biodefense work will fall under 
        the authority of the new Department of Homeland 
        Security, which will unify our defenses against human, 
        animal, and plant diseases that could be used as 
        terrorist weapons, as well as sponsor extramural 
        research.

         NIH biodefense research began long before the 
        anthrax cases of fall 2001.

         Collaboration with the private sector has 
        never been more important as progress will depend on 
        the ability to assemble multidisciplinary teams of 
        scientists, cost-cutting initiatives, and public-
        private partnerships.

    Dr. Bement testified on the recent activities of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

         NIST reacted almost immediately to the 9/11 
        attacks and the anthrax bioterrorism, coordinating 
        responses with a number of federal agencies.

         Besides NIST's traditional responsibilities 
        for developing standards and guidelines to protect 
        sensitive information in non-classified federal 
        computer systems, post-9/11 laws have mandated NIST's 
        assistance in the development of a national biometric 
        identification system, which will be used to identify 
        people entering the U.S. who are applying for visas.

         NIST is also preparing for the future of 
        cyber security through its program in quantum 
        computing.

    Dr. Fauci discussed NIH's biodefense research efforts.

         NIH's responsibility is not biowarfare (it is 
        the military's); rather, it is biodefense, which is 
        more complex because it is responsible for the 
        protection of the entire civilian population.

         Smallpox, anthrax, plague, botulism, 
        tularemia, and hemorrhagic fevers are all threats for 
        which NIH has to prepare.

         Under the Department of Homeland Security, 
        NIH would work closely with the Departments of Health 
        and Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the 
        Centers for Disease Control, and its industrial 
        partners.

         In conjunction with CDC, the NIH has been 
        working to develop and stockpile vaccines for smallpox, 
        anthrax, and Ebola.

    Major Pavlin discussed disease surveillance and response 
capabilities, particularly at the Department of Defense.

         Surveillance is the fundamental building 
        block in detecting biological threats, whether they are 
        naturally occurring or deliberately introduced. 
        Unfortunately, most surveillance systems are passive 
        and rely on people to report outbreaks; they are not 
        sufficiently sensitive or timely for this type of 
        threat.

         A number of universities and agencies have 
        developed systems, including the University of 
        Pittsburgh, which created a real-time system for 
        disease surveillance that monitors outpatient visits. 
        This system was successfully deployed at the Winter 
        Olympics in Salt Lake City.

         Recent increases in Dept. of Health and Human 
        Services funding for improving public health capacity 
        could be used to develop surveillance capabilities in 
        regions that lack them.

         There is no national surveillance system, 
        although the CDC is working to enhance existing 
        surveillance systems. State and local governments are 
        the ones that determine relationships with local 
        authorities and public health responders.

    Mr. McCallum explained the activities of the Technical 
Support Working Group (TSWG).

         Created in 1982, TSWG is tasked with 
        conducting a national interagency R&D program for 
        combating terrorism. It also influences long-term R&D 
        requirements through the coordination of the basic 
        science organizations.

         Recently, TSWG formed bilateral R&D efforts 
        with several key allies, including the UK, Canada, and 
        Israel.

         A number of agencies in TSWG, primarily non-
        medical ones, will be included in the Department of 
        Homeland Security.

         The business process of TSWG involves 
        bringing together sponsors and experts from academia 
        from the labs and Federal Government with users to 
        ensure that the real requirements are analyzed.

    Mr. Malson discussed the Washington, DC Hospital 
Association's (DCHA) Bioterrorism Task Force.

         The focus is on developing a consensus 
        approach that would promote inter-jurisdictional 
        coordination while preserving the unique 
        characteristics and operating procedures of each member 
        jurisdiction.

         In the wake of the anthrax attacks last fall, 
        the DCHA established daily conference calls for all of 
        the local hospitals in order to allow communication 
        with researches and medical responders. At the same 
        time, two committees were created: the Infectious 
        Disease and Infection Control Committee and the Stress 
        Response and Research Committee.

         The need for regional coordination cannot be 
        overstated when planning for bioterrorism. In the 
        National Capital Region, it is especially challenging 
        because of the abundance of federal, State, and local 
        agencies--all with defined jurisdictions and all within 
        close proximity of each other. Also, healthcare first 
        responders are primarily in the private sector and 
        traditionally have not been included in emergency 
        planning activities.

        4.3(n)_Research Priorities for Aquatic Invasive Species

                             June 20, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-72

Background
    The hearing examined research priorities to support the 
National Invasive Species Act (NISA). NISA establishes a 
federal program to control the spread of aquatic nuisance 
species and the brown tree snake. The hearing examined gaps in 
our understanding of how invasive species are introduced and 
spread, and what research is required to enable state and 
federal officials to better manage aquatic invasive species.
    The hearing explored several questions, including:

         What research is needed to assess the 
        relative risk of different invasion pathways?

         What types of monitoring (for example, 
        ecological surveys and pathway surveys) would support 
        early detection of, and rapid response to, the 
        introduction of an invasive species?

         What research is required to enable more 
        accurate characterization of the likelihood of a 
        species invading once it is introduced?

         What research is required to support the 
        development of standards for ballast water and ``whole 
        ship'' treatment?

         What research programs should we pursue to 
        develop new technologies to control the introduction of 
        invasive species by ships entering or moving about U.S. 
        waters?

    The witnesses included: Panel 1: The Honorable Robert A. 
Underwood, Member of Congress. Panel 2: (1) Dr. David Lodge, 
Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame; (2) 
Dr. L. David Smith, Assistant Professor of Biological Science, 
Smith College; (3) Dr. Gregory Ruiz, Senior Scientist, 
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; (4) Ms. Allegra 
Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute; 
and (5) Ms. Maurya Falkner, Staff Environmental Scientist, 
Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands 
Commission and Program Manager, Ballast Water Management and 
Control Program.

Summary of Hearing
    Delegate Underwood testified on the significant 
environmental and economic damage caused on Guam by the non-
native brown tree snake. The snake was accidentally introduced 
following WWII and is responsible for the extinction of 10 to 
13 native bird species, two of three bat species and half of 
the 12 native lizard species. Controlling the spread of the 
snake, and preventing it from interfering with high voltage 
wires and electrical transformers, has had very high costs for 
Guam. Del. Underwood noted that the bulk of research monies 
have been directed at prevention, basic biological research, 
trapping and barrier technologies, while he would like to see 
the passage of legislation that would include research focusing 
on actively reducing snake populations.
    Dr. Lodge outlined the universal process of species 
invasions, the current invasive species research portfolio and 
the ideal invasive species research portfolio.

         The current research portfolio does not 
        dedicate enough resources to prevention.

         Research should focus on distinguishing which 
        possible invasive species pose the greatest threat to 
        ecosystems and on pathway analysis.

    Dr. Smith testified that shipping is the primary vector for 
aquatic invasions, however, prevention efforts should also 
focus on other invasive pathways.

         Other pathways include fisheries, the pet 
        aquarium industry, research and educational 
        organizations and restoration projects. Basic research 
        is needed to understand how these pathways operate.

         Findings from pathway studies should be 
        incorporated into Invasive Species Management Plans and 
        industry management practices.

    Dr. Ruiz identified gaps in current knowledge of marine and 
aquatic ecosystem invasions and emphasized the importance of 
tracking invasion patterns.

         Strategies to prevent new invasions can be 
        directed at key transfer mechanisms or vectors.

         Field measurement is necessary to measure the 
        relationship between the number of organisms released 
        by a vector and the rate of invasion.

    Ms. Cangelosi addressed what she believes needs to be 
included in a federal research program to prevent the 
introduction of additional aquatic invasive species.

         While ballast water exchange is currently 
        required under the National Invasive Species Act 
        (NISA), an interim, biologically-based standard of 
        treatment is needed until R&D can identify a final 
        ``whole-ship'' standard.

         An integrated shore-based and shipboard 
        approach between the EPA and Coast Guard would afford 
        economic and ecological research efficiencies and 
        assure that methods developed would be environmentally 
        sound.

    Ms. Faulkner testified that:

         Development of new technologies for ballast 
        water treatment has been hindered by the fact that 
        alternatives to ballast water exchange have not been 
        encouraged, an interim and final treatment standard has 
        not been identified, and research funding is 
        inadequate.

         A test program for treatment technologies 
        also needs to focus on developing verification and 
        certification programs, which can only exist when 
        standards are identified.

     4.3(o)_Environmental Contributors to Breast Cancer: What Does 
                            the Science Say?

                             June 22, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-74

Background
    The hearing examined what is known about environmental 
factors that may cause breast cancer and how these factors may 
be linked to the unusually high rate of breast cancer observed 
in Port Jefferson, New York and surrounding communities.
    The New York Department of Health has mapped cancer rates 
across the state and discovered higher than expected rates of 
breast cancer in seven ZIP codes west of the township of 
Brookhaven, New York, an area that encompasses Coram, Port 
Jefferson Station, Setauket, Miller Place, Mount Sinai, Port 
Jefferson, and Sound Beach. Researchers involved in developing 
the state cancer map have noted that the population in the 
affected area does not appear to have unusual genetic 
characteristics that could account for the high breast cancer 
rates, suggesting instead that environmental factors may play a 
significant role. The Department of Health is investigating the 
feasibility of conducting a full environmental study of the 
area. In the past, however, state officials, backed by some 
experts, have resisted in-depth studies of cancer clusters, 
arguing that they have limited scientific value because 
relatively little is known about the connection between 
exposure to environmental toxins and subsequent incidences of 
cancer.
    In the meantime, the School of Medicine at the State 
University of New York at Stony Brook has established the Long 
Island Cancer Center to conduct scientific research into Long 
Island's high incidence of cancer. The Center is developing a 
clinical database of breast and prostate cancer patients from 
the Long Island region that will allow researchers to 
characterize the nature and possible causes of these cancers.
    The hearing consisted of two panels of witnesses. The first 
panel included: (1) Dr. John Kovach, Director, Long Island 
Cancer Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook; (2) 
Dr. Roger Grimson, Principal Research Scientist, Department of 
Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony 
Brook; (3) Mr. Peter Levine, President and CEO, Correlogic 
Systems, Inc.; and (4) Dr. Nancy Kim, Director, Division of 
Environmental Health Assessment, New York Department of Health. 
The Second Panel included: (1) Ms. Gail Frankel, Field 
Coordinator and Advocate, National Breast Cancer Coalition; (2) 
Ms. Elsa Ford, President, Brentwood/Bay Shore Breast Cancer 
Coalition; and (3) Ms. Lorraine Pace, a breast cancer educator 
and Founder of the Breast Cancer Mapping Project.

Summary of Hearing
    The first three witnesses on the first panel, two 
researchers from the Long Island Cancer Center and the director 
of the New York State Health Dept. Division of Environmental 
Assessment delivered essentially the same testimony: there is 
higher incidence of breast cancer on Long Island compared with 
the average for both New York State and for the Nation; 
environmental factors are suspect but there is no evidence to 
point to any particular causative agent; a full environmental 
survey may be warranted but is not likely to yield answers; 
instead, all three witnesses spoke of the need to create a 
comprehensive longitudinal database--like the Framingham heart 
study--to track a representative population over an extended 
period of time; all three panelists testified that the success 
of activists in raising awareness is helpful because it 
increases the likelihood of finding willing participants--
including healthy subjects--for a long-term study, should one 
be established.

         Mr. Levine spoke of his company's proprietary 
        technology to analyze the protein composition of blood 
        serum and, through pattern recognition algorithms, 
        identify correlations with the presence of cancer. He 
        recently published data indicating a very high success 
        rate in diagnosing ovarian cancer. His company has 
        embarked on a similar effort to identify markers for 
        breast cancer.

         The panel was asked whether the Federal 
        Government should be funding cancer mapping projects. 
        Drs. Kovach and Grimson answered that cancer maps are 
        useful but remapping of the Long Island region would 
        not add any new information--there is no data on 
        exposure to environmental toxins, for example. U.S. 
        breast cancer rates are extraordinarily high--3 or 4 
        times the rates typical of most countries (only Canada 
        and a few of the Northern European countries have 
        breast cancer rates as high as those found in the 
        U.S.); hot spots or clusters where rates are 20-50 
        percent higher than the national average may not be as 
        significant when overlaid on the much larger disparity 
        between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

         The panel asked what federal resources were 
        needed to address the problem. Mr. Levine said the 
        biggest problem was getting healthy woman--who are 
        needed as a control group--to participate in long-term 
        medical studies. Drs. Kovach and Grimson reiterated the 
        need for a population-based database and suggested that 
        this ought to be a nationwide effort; they both 
        referred to the national medical and genetic database 
        that has been created in Iceland as a model.

         The panel of three breast cancer survivors 
        and activists related their own experiences in dealing 
        with the disease and the path that led them to 
        activism.

         Once the second panel's testimony was 
        delivered, the hearing was opened to comments from the 
        audience. Several audience members related their own 
        stories about their personal experience with breast 
        cancer and their involvement in public education about 
        the issue.

      4.3(p)_Workforce Training in a Time of Technological Change

                             June 24, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-78

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways in which 
workers' skill requirements have changed as a result of 
technological innovations in the workforce, and to assess 
various training programs aimed at providing workers with the 
requisite skills for success in today's high-tech work 
environment.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) The Honorable Bruce 
Mehlman, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) 
Ms. Cindy Ballard, Directory of Policy, Strategic Initiatives, 
Michigan Economic Development Corporation; (3) Mr. Tim N. 
Clark, Director, Center for Manufacturing Improvement, Michigan 
Manufacturing Technology Center-Northeast, Saginaw Valley State 
University; and (4) Mr. Robert Worthington, Sr., President, 
Globe Fire Sprinkler Corporation.

Summary of Hearing
    Secretary Mehlman testified that unlike previous eras in 
which economic strength was measured in terms of natural 
resource abundance and manufacturing robustness, today's 
economy hinges on technological innovation and the ability to 
train and retain a highly skilled workforce. Specifically, he 
noted that the field of Information Technology (IT) is a 
substantial component of the Nation's economy (while accounting 
for only seven percent of businesses in the U.S. economy it 
generated 28 percent of economic growth between 1996 and 2000), 
but at the same time poses serious challenges in the realm of 
worker training.

         IT is a dynamic field of rapid change, 
        creating challenges for workers and employers alike.

         Worker training is not always economical or 
        even possible for small and midsize companies that 
        cannot afford the high cost and/or the requisite time 
        away from profit-generating work for training programs.

         Specific skill requirements change rapidly 
        casting doubt on the long-term benefit to employers, 
        and employees, of worker-training programs.

    Ms. Ballard commented to the Committee on the workforce 
challenges facing the State of Michigan. She noted:

         The study released by the Michigan Economic 
        Development Corporation, Workforce and Career-
        Development: Building Upon Key Michigan Strengths, 
        found that a shortage of skilled workers posed a long-
        term threat to the State's economic competitiveness.

         The primary focus of the State in addressing 
        its skilled-worker shortage situation should be the 
        recruitment and retention of a highly-skilled workforce 
        which is plagued by both a low birth rate and limited 
        migration from other states.

         Michigan Works Agencies, the Michigan 
        Department of Career Development, and the State's 
        community colleges have been successful in implementing 
        programs (such as M-TEC) that provide the technical 
        training vital to Michigan's workforce.

         Surveys of high school students reflect a 
        belief among them that computer-related professions 
        offer the greatest opportunity, but also show a lack of 
        desire among students to enter those fields.

         Increased involvement by the Federal 
        Government via scholarships, grants, etc., could prove 
        highly effective in attracting the Nation's youth to 
        high-tech fields.

    The challenges faced by employers in creating and 
maintaining a well-trained workforce were addressed by Mr. 
Clark:

         The workforce training problem for employers 
        is two-fold: the initial recruitment of employees, and 
        the ongoing task of ensuring current workers posses the 
        skills they require to properly perform their job 
        functions.

         For small companies, specifically, the two 
        biggest issues are the time and monetary costs of 
        training programs.

         Receiving funding from the Federal Government 
        via NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the 
        State Government via the Michigan Economic Development 
        Corporation, the Michigan Manufacturing Technology 
        Center (MMTC) works to provide training resources to 
        Michigan's manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees. 
        (Mr. Clark described a few such programs to the 
        Committee.)

    As President of Globe Fire Sprinkler, Mr. Worthington 
provided the Committee with an assessment of worker-training 
challenges from an employer's perspective. He noted:

         Recruitment of highly skilled workers is 
        easier for employers during periods of limited economic 
        growth and more difficult when the economy is 
        performing well.

         The greatest problem he generally faces is a 
        lack of basic reading, writing, and math skills in his 
        employees.

         A lack of sufficient remedy to the worker-
        training issue could severely limit the ability of 
        Michigan, or the United States as a whole, to remain 
        competitive in this age of technological innovation.

         As more and more manufacturing jobs are of 
        the Computerized Numeric Control (C.N.C.) type, basic 
        skills in computers and mathematics are becoming 
        essential.

         Proximity of education centers and tuition 
        costs pose the greatest barrier to workforce training.

         Tax incentives to small and medium sized 
        companies for worker training would greatly help in 
        addressing the lack of skilled workers.

                4.3(q)_Satellite Data Management at NOAA

                             July 24, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-80

Background
    The hearing examined satellite data management at the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, 
through its line office, the National Environmental Satellite, 
Data and Information Service (NESDIS), procures and operates 
the Nation's environmental monitoring satellites, which provide 
raw data and processed data products to the National Weather 
Service and the Department of Defense for weather forecasting 
and prediction. NESDIS is also primarily responsible for the 
long-term archiving and managing of environmental satellite 
data from all NOAA satellites and for many of the research 
satellites flown by the National Aeronautical and Space 
Administration (NASA) for use by researchers and others.
    The hearing focused on three major concerns: (1) NESDIS is 
not delivering all the weather satellite data products 
requested by the National Weather Service and the Department of 
Defense in a timely manner; (2) NESDIS is having great 
difficulty in maintaining, archiving, and distributing 
satellite data and data products for researchers primarily 
because of the tremendous increase in both the volume of data 
produced by currently deployed satellites and the demand for 
archived data during the past few years; and (3) NOAA is in the 
final planning stages for the new National Polar Orbiting 
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), which will cost $6.5 
billion and produce hundreds of times more data and subsequent 
information than today's satellites. The $6.5 billion NPOESS 
budget plan does not include funding or specific upgrades of 
NESDIS' satellite data management capabilities either for 
producing products used in real-time weather operations or for 
long-term archiving of data for retrieval by researchers.
    Witnesses Included: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C. 
Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, 
NOAA, Department of Commerce; (2) Ms. Linda D. Koontz, 
Director, Information Management Issues, General Accounting 
Office; and (3) Dr. Mark Abbott, Dean, College of Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, and Chair, 
Committee on Earth Studies, National Research Council.

Summary of Hearing
    Admiral Lautenbacher agreed with the assessment and 
concerns by Members of the Committee that there were 
significant problems with satellite data management that needed 
to be addressed.

         NOAA has asked Congress for budget increases 
        in several satellite data management areas. However, 
        Congress has not provided the modest increases, which 
        has hampered attempts to deal with current problems.

         NPOESS is critical to the National Weather 
        Service and the Department of Defense for weather 
        prediction. This new satellite system will save the 
        government money by having two satellites in orbit 
        rather than the current four.

         NOAA is working hard to ensure that satellite 
        data from NPOESS can be used starting on the first day 
        of operation.

    Ms. Koontz stated that her written testimony discusses the 
current NOAA polar satellite system, plans for the new system, 
and the key challenges that are faced by the four satellite 
data processing centers in managing the vast amounts of data 
that are going to be generated by the new system.

         The new polar satellite system will produce 
        about ten times the data as the current system. The 
        data processing centers must increase computing power, 
        upgrade communication systems, and increase data 
        storage capacity.

         The data centers cannot plan too far in the 
        future because of the unforeseeable likely rapid 
        changes in technology.

         The data centers had different opinions of 
        what was specifically needed to plan for NPOESS. They 
        had not yet examined how each center uses the data, or 
        identified opportunities to leverage the expertise of 
        the various centers.

         More should be done to better coordinate the 
        activities of the centers to prepare for the NPOESS.

    Dr. Abbott discussed the importance of satellite data to 
climate change research, and that it was critical for the 
NPOESS data to be managed in a way that fulfilled the needs of 
researchers.

         NPOESS will have more capable instruments and 
        stable Earth orbits, which will provide a significant 
        opportunity to advance climate research. However, data 
        products that are useful for weather prediction 
        (operational needs), generally do not meet the needs of 
        climate researchers.

         NOAA must appreciate and understand the 
        differences and be willing to work with the research 
        community to ensure the maximum use of NPOESS for 
        climate research.

         NOAA must provide new services and functions 
        that go beyond its current capabilities. And it must 
        develop these new capabilities against the backdrop of 
        significant increases in data volume.

         Interactions between NOAA and the climate 
        research community up to this point have indicated that 
        NOAA does not recognize the scope of the problem aside 
        from the technical issues of storage, network bandwith, 
        and computational requirements.

     4.3(r)_H.R. 5395, Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, and 
       H.R. 5396, National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002. 
    (Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, 
     and Standards, Committee on Science; and the Subcommittee on 
      Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on 
                              Resources.)

                           November 14, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-81

Background
    The purpose of the joint hearing was to receive testimony 
on H.R. 5395, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, 
introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers, and H.R. 5396, the 
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002, introduced by 
Representative Wayne Gilchrest.
    Witnesses included: Panel 1: (1) Mr. Steve Williams, 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (2) Mr. Timothy R.E. 
Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Co-chair of 
the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; (3) Captain Michael W. 
Brown, Chief Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, 
U.S. Coast Guard; and (4) Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior 
Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Panel 2 
witnesses included: (1) Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, Policy Director 
for Wildlife Management, National Wildlife Federation; (2) Ms. 
Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest 
Institute; (3) Dr. Roger Mann, Professor, Virginia Institute 
for Marine Science; and (4) Dr. Phyllis Windle, Senior 
Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Williams began by stating that the introduction of 
invasive species has had a significant impact on our 
environment and that the Department of Interior supported the 
overall direction of the two bills.
    Mr. Williams had some general comments about both pieces of 
legislation. He pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
was concerned over some of the proposed deadlines in H.R. 5396 
and also wanted to work with the Congressional staff on what he 
sees as regulatory gaps between the Lacey Act and some of the 
provisions of the proposed legislation. Mr. Williams reported 
that the Department of Interior was encouraged to see some 
emphasis on aquatic pathways other than ballast water 
contamination. He added that education and outreach continue to 
be critical elements in invasive species control efforts. He 
also testified in support of the research provisions of H.R. 
5395, noting that efforts to deal with invasive species must be 
informed by research.
    Mr. Keeney believes the two bills address gaps in the 
existing programs. He added that there is a need to develop an 
early detection and response mechanism and a need to 
systematically assess eradication technologies. Mr. Keeney was 
pleased that the bills did include education and research 
elements.
    Mr. Keeney stated that some provisions of the bills, like 
those relating to ballast water technology development, are 
duplicative and overlap each other. He also agreed with Mr. 
Williams' testimony that the chronology for some of the 
activities in the legislation are inconsistent and that the 36 
deadlines identified may prove problematic in their current 
form.
    Finally, Mr. Keeney identified some of NOAA's concerns with 
the ballast water management and treatment requirements. He 
stated that voluntary guidelines with regional standards are 
burdensome to the shipping industry without a nationwide, 
mandatory standard.
    Captain Brown began his testimony by supporting the 
reauthorization and amendment of the existing invasive species 
legislation, but expressed concerns similar to those of the 
Department of Interior and NOAA, specifically with regard to 
guidelines. He stated that the Coast Guard, with lead 
responsibility for protecting the marine environment, supports 
establishing a mandatory ballast water management regime.
    Captain Brown added that the Coast Guard is currently 
working on trying to set up a scientifically supportable set of 
standards for ballast water discharge and wants to facilitate 
development of the testing and evaluation of experimental 
treatment programs. However, during the question and answer 
period he could not give a definitive time line of when the 
Coast Guard would actually implement the standards. He also 
noted that each of these efforts is being undertaken while 
working to have consistency with an international regulatory 
approach.
    Dr. Ruiz began his testimony by outlining the difficulty in 
developing management strategies without more complete 
information about invasion ecology. He stated that there are 
gaps in the scientific data on dose-response relationships and 
that the gaps limit the predictive capability for both 
intentional and unintentional introductions. Dr. Ruiz 
emphasized the need for research to measure changes in species 
transfer and invasion patterns to understand and predict the 
most serious threats for invasive introductions, both 
intentional and unintentional.
    Dr. Ruiz advocates two measures for addressing these 
problems. He sees the need for the development of an early 
detection system that would include a list of `target' species 
that have the potential for causing the most harm. What he 
believes would be more important, however, would be 
establishing a framework, consistent among geographical 
regions, which evaluates and approves intentional 
introductions.
    Dr. Chavarria expressed National Wildlife Federation's 
support for the legislation and cited the organization's recent 
position statement on non-native species, which called for 
additional Federal and State legislation requiring the 
treatment of ballast water in ships entering the Great Lakes. 
She indicated that the proposed legislation will close some 
loopholes the NWF has identified in the existing regulations.
    Dr. Chavarria continues to advocate prevention as the most 
environmentally sound and cost-effective management approach 
and sees rapid response contingency strategies, contained in 
the legislation, to be key in this effort. Dr. Chavarria's 
concerns with this legislation are that the Congress 
appropriate adequate funds and that programs to control non-
native species be implemented in such a manner so that they are 
not harmful to natural ecosystems.
    Ms. Cangelosi believes the most important part of the 
introduced legislation is the regulation of pathways through 
ballast water regulation. She thinks that an interim mandatory 
standard is important for establishing an effective final 
standard. Ms. Cangelosi addressed two concerns over using a 95 
percent inactivation or removal of different species. The first 
concern is that 95 percent is not an effective measure, but she 
argued that this is more effective than the current ballast 
water exchange program and therefore suitable for an interim 
measure. Her second defense of the interim standard addressed 
the concern that a percent efficiency would be harder to 
enforce than a standard concentration or size cut-off. Ms. 
Cangelosi indicated that those concerns are valid and could be 
addressed during the interim period while still requiring a 
more enforceable size-based standard for purposes of regulation 
rather than statute.
    Ms. Cangelosi pointed out that the use of interim and final 
standards with enforceable deadlines is similar to the methods 
used to implement air and water pollution control standards. 
She indicated the strength of this regulation is the 
establishment of a final standard based on best available 
technology based on periodic review that is economically 
achievable.
    Dr. Mann testified about his experience as a federally-
funded researcher and commented on the proposed modifications 
to ballast water management. He believes that the ultimate 
approach to ballast water final standards is not to establish 
percentage reductions, but to focus on developing technologies 
in the private sector that would be effective at eliminating 
invasive species from the ballast water. Dr. Mann also provided 
two suggestions for the proposed legislation: size ranges 
should be included for definitions of phytoplankton and algae 
and interim standards should be considered in reduction of 
absolute numbers of organisms within given size ranges.
    Dr. Windle testified that the Union of Concerned Scientists 
(UCS) is encouraged to see this legislation for coordinating 
Federal and State responses to invasive species and supports 
the legislation's expanded authority. Dr. Windle indicated that 
Interagency National Management Plan and other efforts by 
federal agencies are important, but that this legislation adds 
the necessary authority for enforcement that the concerned 
agencies need. She also cited GAO documentation and Union 
observations that certain federal agencies, such as the Coast 
Guard, have not responded to concerns in a timely manner.
    Dr. Windle provided some additional thoughts on how the 
legislation could be enhanced. The UCS believes that eventually 
all introduced species will need to be screened and support 
this trend, believing that few exceptions should be made. Dr. 
Windle also supports replacing ballast water exchange with 
ballast water treatment as quickly as possible. Finally, the 
Union supports ongoing independent peer review analysis of 
government-funded research protocols and contracts.

                     4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

    4.4(a)_Life in the Subduction Zone: The Recent Nisqually Quake 
            and Federal Efforts to Reduce Earthquake Hazards

                             March 21, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-2

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the impact of the 
Nisqually earthquake that struck the Seattle area on February 
28, 2001, and to discuss federal research efforts to mitigate 
the damage caused by earthquakes. Witnesses before the 
Committee included representatives from the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)--two of 
the four participating agencies in the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)--and two university 
researchers involved in seismic research. The witnesses were 
asked to address the following questions in their testimony: 
How significant were the effects of the Nisqually earthquake on 
the Puget Sound Region? How were these effects assessed? To 
what extent did buildings and land behave differently than 
expected in this earthquake? To what extent should codes, 
earthquake preparations and the research agenda be altered as a 
result? And, what is the current depth of our understanding 
about earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, and 
where should we focus future research efforts?
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Dr. John Filson, 
Coordinator of Earthquake Programs at USGS; (2) Dr. Priscilla 
Nelson, Director, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems at 
NSF; (3) Dr. Steve Palmer, Washington Department of Natural 
Resources, Geology and Earth Resources Division; and (4) Dr. M. 
Meghan Miller, Professor of Geology, Central Washington 
University.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by welcoming members--
both new and old--to the first Research Subcommittee hearing of 
the 107th Congress. He discussed some of his goals for the 
upcoming session, including reauthorization of the National 
Science Foundation.
    Chairman Smith then described the details of the February 
2001 Nisqually Earthquake, stating that it resulted in 410 
injuries and $2 billion in damages. He gave an overview and 
history of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
since its inception in 1977, and discussed how the hearing 
would attempt to uncover how NEHRP programs had an impact 
before, during, and after the Nisqually Earthquake. The 
Chairman noted that he was particularly interested in learning 
about the new technologies--including more sensitive ground-
based equipment and satellite-based sensors for monitoring 
fault movements--as well as efforts to provide real-time 
warnings or more accurate predictions of earthquakes.
    Dr. Filson discussed the work that the Geological Survey 
carries out regarding earthquake monitoring, notification, and 
hazards assessment and presented data regarding seismic 
activity and shaking related to the Nisqually earthquake. Dr. 
Filson explained that:

         The Nisqually earthquake was the result of 
        tectonic movement between the Juan de Fuca and North 
        American plates in the Pacific Northwest. The Juan de 
        Fuca plate extends from the Pacific Northwest coastline 
        to an ocean ridge approximately 500 miles offshore and 
        moves northeast at about 1.5 inches per year. As it 
        moves, the Juan de Fuca plate collides with, and is 
        overridden by, the North American Plate and the Juan de 
        Fuca plate sinks into the Earth's mantle.

         This process of tectonic movement results in 
        enormous strain, which is released during an earthquake 
        event. The three types of earthquakes that could occur 
        in the Pacific Northwest region include: 1) type 1--
        large earthquakes that occur at the contact between the 
        two plates, the subduction zone; 2) type 2--deep 
        earthquakes that occur internally within the plate as 
        it bends and deforms while sinking into the mantle; 3) 
        type 3--shallow earthquakes that occur along the North 
        American plate as it overrides the Juan de Fuco plate 
        during convergence.

         NEHRP has developed a predictive model of 
        ground shaking during an earthquake for the entire U.S. 
        and compares this model with data of actual shaking 
        during earthquake events. Levels of shaking from the 
        Nisqually earthquake--a 6.7 magnitude, type 2 event--
        did not exceed those predicted by the National 
        assessment. The 33-mile depth of the earthquake reduced 
        shaking at the Earth's surface and, therefore, caused 
        less structural damage than superficial earthquakes of 
        similar magnitude (such as the Northridge earthquake).

         The USGS has been studying the seismic 
        potential of the Pacific Northwest for more than 20 
        years and has installed a seismic detection network to 
        monitor events such as the Nisqually earthquake. 
        Further, USGS has worked closely with the City of 
        Seattle to identify earthquake and landslide hazards 
        and to implement measures, including public awareness, 
        to lessen their impacts. Building retrofitting in the 
        Pacific Northwest may have diminished the damages 
        caused by the Nisqually earthquake.

    Dr. Nelson explained that earthquake events provide a 
wealth of knowledge relative to earthquake hazard mitigation 
and stated that:

         The National Science Foundation supports a 
        number of individual researchers, consortia, and 
        research centers that participate in earthquake 
        reconnaissance activities and post-earthquake research, 
        five of which were involved in the Nisqually response 
        effort along with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency) and USGS (United States Geological Survey).

         Nonstructural damage was the major impact of 
        the Nisqually earthquake, with only unreinforced 
        masonry buildings on poor soils suffering significant 
        structural damage.

         Data collected during and following the 
        Nisqually event will allow scientists to evaluate the 
        impact of soil type on performance during an 
        earthquake.

         NSF is supporting work in the area of 
        performance-based earthquake engineering to study pre-
        collapse performance of buildings and to correlate 
        performance expectations with investment in building 
        construction or retrofitting.

    Dr. Palmer highlighted the findings of previous 
liquefaction hazard studies in the Puget Sound and presented 
some of the early findings regarding soil liquefaction during 
the Nisqually earthquake, noting that:

         The Nisqually earthquake was very near the 
        location of the 1949 Olympia quake--a 7.1 magnitude, 
        type 2 event--so a comparative study of damages is 
        informative.

         During the Nisqually event, the greatest 
        damages occurred in Olympia and Seattle, primarily in 
        areas where liquefaction (the process by which water-
        saturated soils experience increased particle movement 
        during an earthquake) resulted in reduced soil strength 
        and stiffness. These damages were consistent with past 
        performance during the 1949 earthquake and with 
        predicted liquefaction hazard areas reported by NEHRP.

         Liquefaction was most severe along Deshutes 
        Parkway and at the north end of the runway at Boeing 
        Field, a designated high-hazard area. Damage in the 
        port area of Seattle was widespread, but minimized 
        because of geotechnical engineering of new construction 
        projects completed in the last few decades.

         There were surprises with this earthquake, 
        namely the significant damage at SeaTac Airport where 
        peak ground acceleration was well below the limits of 
        current structural design code in western Washington. 
        Another surprise was the lack of liquefaction in the 
        Payallup Valley where numerous occurrences were 
        observed during the 1949 earthquake. Both of these 
        areas are the site of further investigation and 
        research.

         Damages could have been much greater if the 
        ground shaking had been stronger, lasted longer, or 
        occurred when the ground was much more saturated.

    Dr. Miller testified about advanced seismic monitoring, 
risk assessment and planning in Puget Sound and stated that:

         The co-seismic deformation (the change in the 
        position of the ground after the earthquake fault has 
        split) following the Nisqually earthquake was observed 
        using continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) 
        geodesy. This data, and that collected following other 
        seismic events, will help scientists better understand 
        the physics of earthquakes and how the earth responds 
        to seismic events.

         GPS geodesy has shown that approximately 5 mm 
        of shortening occurs each year across the Olympic 
        Mountains and Puget Sound. This movement will 
        ultimately be released through earthquakes and related 
        processes and could result in the rupture of the east-
        west Seattle fault in an earthquake larger than a 
        magnitude 7.5 event. Such an earthquake, because of its 
        proximity to an urban corridor, could rival or exceed 
        the Northridge earthquake in terms of damage and 
        casualties.

         A denser distribution of GPS stations in the 
        Puget Lowlands will help researchers determine which 
        faults pose seismic hazard and could positively impact 
        zoning and building code development, mitigation 
        strategies, community preparedness, and response 
        planning. Central Washington University is currently 
        contributing toward the GPS monitoring in Puget 
        Lowlands as a result of NSF support and partnership 
        with USGS, Southern California Earthquake Center and 
        the University NAVSTAR Consortium.

         The Earthscope Initiative, a project 
        currently approved by the National Science Board and 
        waiting congressional support, would expand the 
        capacity of GPS observations and systematic accounting 
        of seismic hazard in the U.S. This Initiative involves 
        a number of federal agencies including NSF, NASA, USGS, 
        DOE, and also has international partnerships with 
        Canada and Mexico.

    4.4(b)_Improving Math and Science Education So That No Child Is 
                              Left Behind

                              May 2, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-27

Background
    In his plan for reforming K-12 education in the United 
States, No Child Left Behind, President Bush laid out a 
comprehensive agenda for improving the Nation's K-12 schools. 
Included in his package of proposed reforms was a call for 
partnerships between institutions of higher education and K-12 
schools aimed at strengthening the quality of math and science 
instruction in elementary and secondary schools. Types of 
partnership activities addressed in No Child Left Behind 
include: making math and science curricula more rigorous, 
improving teacher professional development in math and science, 
attracting more math and science majors to teaching, and 
aligning high school math and science standards to college 
performance expectations. In the President's initial budget 
request, A Blueprint for New Beginnings, President Bush charged 
the National Science Foundation with the responsibility for 
undertaking this initiative.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Dr. Phil Sadler, 
Director of the Science Education Department at the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; (2) Mr. David Garner, 
Executive Administrator of the Urban Systemic Program, Oklahoma 
City Public Schools; (3) Dr. Carlo Parravano, Director, Merck 
Institute for Science Education; and (4) Dr. Eugene Shaffer, 
Chair of the Education Department at the University of Maryland 
Baltimore County.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that many of 
our efforts at improving K-12 math and science education have 
been ineffective, and that U.S. students generally fall in the 
middle of the pack compared with students of other countries. 
The President's plan to improve education, No Child Left 
Behind, and certainly the math and science partnership 
initiative, highlights the importance of partnerships between K 
through 12 schools and institutions of higher education in 
leading the math and science education reform effort. As part 
of that plan the President charged the National Science 
Foundation with the responsibility of implementing and managing 
a Math and Science Partnership Initiative.
    Chairman Smith stated that the hearing would serve to 
examine the role of various kinds of partnerships in education 
reform by hearing from those that have experience in this area 
and can be of great help as we try to formulate how we best 
move ahead in this venture to improve math and science 
education. He noted that he hoped the discussion would provide 
details and directions regarding some of the key elements 
pivotal to the successes, as well as danger spots that we might 
encounter. Through our exploration in these efforts perhaps we 
will better understand what works and how best to make it more 
broadly applicable across the United States.
    Dr. Sadler talked about the projects that the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics is working on and noted 
that:

         The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for 
        Astrophysics supports a 45-member Science Education 
        Department that has been described as a model for 
        partnership activities between teachers and scientists. 
        The Center brings together scientists and teachers to 
        produce curricular materials based on discovery 
        activities, and to develop new kinds of standardized 
        tests for students in grades 4-12.

         The key components of a successful 
        educational program at a large research institution 
        include: institutional leadership dedicated to 
        improving K-12 science education; high standards and 
        activities subjected to rigorous evaluation; and the 
        involvement of expert scientists and engineers, 
        teachers, world-class researchers, graduate students, 
        and post-doctoral fellows.

         There are significant barriers for scientists 
        and mathematicians who wish to be engaged in K-12 
        outreach, namely, the lack of consideration of K-12 
        work as part of the university professor's professional 
        contribution, the disparity between university concerns 
        and the practical problems of society, a tenure system 
        that is not focused on solving practical problems, and 
        the fact that teaching is seen as an art.

         Schools of education have strongly resisted 
        the move to National standards, National assessment and 
        accountability. Well-controlled educational studies 
        using quantitative measures appeal to scientists and 
        engineers who can help guide this work because 
        controlled research studies are ``at home'' in a 
        scientific research center.

         NASA funding has helped to engage some 
        research scientists in educational activities and has 
        helped researchers find a path to combine their science 
        activities with educational outreach.

    Dr. Schaffer discussed the University of Maryland Baltimore 
County and some of its program attributes, including:

         There are no undergraduate education majors 
        at UMBC. Rather, UMBC requires all teacher education 
        graduates to obtain a degree in the subject area to be 
        taught in addition to taking post-baccalaureate courses 
        in education and participating in on-going field 
        experiences.

         In order to recruit more people to careers in 
        teaching, UMBC has an active outreach program to high 
        schools and community colleges that allows students at 
        these institutions to move rapidly and easily through 
        joint admission programs and course transfer options.

         UMBC has created partnerships between the 
        university and local K-12 schools that serve teachers 
        in training, provide professional development 
        opportunities for current teachers and administrators, 
        and provide a forum for on-going research activities.

         There is also an Urban Teacher Education 
        Program at UMBC that focuses on recruitment and 
        training of individuals dedicated to teaching in urban 
        settings. This post-baccalaureate program provides 
        future teachers with training in content as well as the 
        use of integrated materials in the classroom. Students 
        in this program receive tuition, salary or stipends in 
        addition to free books and computers--this financial 
        ``package'' helps working adults transition to careers 
        in teaching.

         It is imperative to provide mentoring support 
        for new teachers in the area of content delivery; 
        therefore, schools should provide content experts to 
        serve as mentors for new teachers, especially those in 
        their second and third year of teaching when they are 
        more comfortable with classroom management and become 
        more focused on content delivery issues.

         Although collaborations are costly, time-
        consuming, and difficult to manage, they are very 
        worthwhile and the sum value of a collaborative effort 
        is greater than that of the parts for both teachers and 
        children.

    Mr. Garner stated that teacher preparation programs must be 
analyzed and reformed and noted that:

         The Oklahoma City Public Schools have 
        benefited from participation in the NSF-funded Oklahoma 
        Teacher Education Collaborative (OTEC) that has 
        developed innovative recruitment strategies, reformed 
        undergraduate curriculum for teacher preparation, and 
        increased support of new teachers during their initial 
        years in the classroom.

         The OTEC program has had a positive impact on 
        coursework offered through the School of Math and 
        Science at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) in 
        that teacher's are now provided with a more content-
        rich undergraduate experience.

         However, the OTEC program has not had an 
        impact on the School of Education at UCO which 
        continues to graduate teachers unprepared for the 
        demands of teaching in an urban setting.

         The greatest barrier to effective 
        partnerships between K-12 teachers and their university 
        colleagues is the lack of time. For reform to be 
        comprehensive and effective, teacher training programs 
        must provide significantly more field experience and 
        teachers must be given ample opportunities and time to 
        pursue continuing professional development. Inadequate 
        support and non-systemic reform efforts are the norm in 
        public education.

    Dr. Parravano noted that the Merck Institution for Science 
Education has been successful in leading systemic reform in 
four New Jersey public school districts and one Pennsylvania 
district. Merck recommends the following steps for developing 
effective business-to-school partnerships, including:

         Partner with districts that are willing to 
        use a systemic approach to make science an 
        instructional priority.

         Develop high-quality instructional materials 
        and then provide them at considerable scale engaging 
        high proportions of teachers to participate.

         Involve a critical mass of teachers at each 
        institution and the changing practices of these 
        teachers will have a positive impact on all teachers at 
        the institution.

         Be cautious about using team leaders to 
        stimulate instructional change within a school--this 
        model has had mixed success and is highly dependent on 
        the support of the principal and careful selection of 
        leader teachers.

         Use the corporate assessment model to measure 
        results continuously and modify the program according 
        to those results.

      4.4(c)_Classrooms as Laboratories: The Science of Learning 
                     Meets the Practice of Teaching

                              May 10, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-7

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the gap that 
currently exists between what is known about how people learn 
and the methods and materials educators use to teach. The 
fields of cognitive science and neuroscience have grown 
markedly due to an expanding repertoire of tools that enable 
researchers to understand how humans process, store and utilize 
information, yet educational materials and practices are rarely 
aligned to this knowledge. The Subcommittee considered recent 
reports from the National Academy of Sciences, including How 
People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice and Improving 
Student Learning, to better understand the recommendations for 
incorporating research into classroom practice. The hearing 
helped the Subcommittee refine ideas that are likely to be part 
of education legislation later this month.
    Testifying at this hearing were: (1) Dr. Diane Halpern, 
Professor of Psychology, California State University at San 
Bernardino; (2) Dr. Jose Mestre, Professor of Theoretical 
Nuclear Physics and Cognitive Science, University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst; (3) Dr. Nancy Songer, Professor of 
Education, University of Michigan; and (4) Dr. Chirs Dede, 
Professor of Learning Technologies and Education, Harvard 
University.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Halpern discussed cognitive science and noted the 
following:

         There is considerable knowledge about 
        powerful learning strategies that can be used to 
        promote long-term retention and transfer that is not 
        being applied in classrooms.

         The understanding of scientific principles 
        among the general public is very low.

         It is important to redesign education to 
        teach for transfer and long-term retention and to help 
        students handle challenging courses and subject matter.

         There is a critical need for research on 
        instructional programs that can be scaled up to include 
        large student samples at multiple sites.

    Dr. Mestre discussed how the science of learning can be 
applied to improve students' learning and noted the following:

         Little is known about the following aspects 
        of learning: knowledge transfer, pedagogical content 
        knowledge, and assessment.

         Current practices for training pre-service 
        and in-service teachers are in need of major revision 
        to eliminate the mismatch between how teachers are 
        taught and how we expect them to teach.

         Science Ph.D.s should be taught about 
        learners' cognitive development or pedagogy so that 
        they can more effectively teach science to others.

         To solve the problems in education today, we 
        need to draw on the expertise and research 
        methodologies of several disciplines and increase 
        funding for further research.

    Dr. Songer suggested four necessary steps to facilitate the 
impact of learning research in the classroom:

         Form very specific kinds of long-term 
        partnerships to implement the education reform agenda.

         Develop more educational programs that are 
        based on learning research.

         Solicit long-term commitment from school 
        administrators, educational researchers, teachers, and 
        funding agencies because effective reform requires 
        effort for longer duration than the typical funding 
        cycle.

         Assess pedagogical models for impact on a 
        variety of children and in an array of educational 
        settings to determine which practices are best for 
        children based on factors such as learning style and 
        learning environment.

    Dr. Dede discussed learning technologies research and noted 
the following:

         In a knowledge-based economy, all students 
        need to master higher-order cognitive, affective and 
        social skills, including rapid decision-making, 
        troubleshooting, the ability to collaborate, and the 
        ability to find relevant information within a sea of 
        quasi-accurate information.

         Centers should be created to perform research 
        in real-world implementation of information technology 
        to education. These Centers should be problem-focused 
        such that research findings can be easily translated to 
        educational practice.

         Learning technologies are worth the time, 
        effort and resources required for widespread 
        implementation only when they are used appropriately. 
        ``Technology is not a vitamin whose mere presence in 
        schools and teacher preparation programs catalyzes 
        better educational outcomes.''

        4.4(d)_NSF FY02 Request: Research and Related Activities

                              June 6, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-16

Background
    This hearing was on the National Science Foundation's 
Fiscal Year 2002 Research and Related Activities Budget 
Request. In addition to the budget overview, the Subcommittee 
heard testimony on the process by which NSF establishes 
programmatic and budget priorities as exemplified by the Plant 
Genome Research Program (PGR) and Project 2010, two plant 
biology programs funded out of NSF's Biology Directorate. 
Testifying before the Committee was a representative of NSF and 
two research scientists who are principal investigators of 
Plant Genome research projects and who also serve on various 
oversight and advisory committees for the Biology Directorate.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Joseph Bordogna, 
Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. 
Mary Clutter, Assistant Director of Biological Sciences, NSF; 
(3) Dr. Vickie Chandler, Professor of Plant Sciences and 
Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona and 
currently a co-Principal Investigator on an NSF-funded Plant 
Genome Research Virtual Center project; and (4) Dr. Daphne 
Preuss, Assistant Professor of Molecular Genetics and Cell 
Biology at the University of Chicago, and former Chair of the 
NSF-DOE-USDA Arabadopsis Genome Oversight Committee.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Bordogna discussed NSF's process for setting agency 
investment priorities and noted that:

         A number of factors are considered when 
        setting research priorities including: scientific 
        readiness, technical feasibility, response to National 
        needs, affordability, performance goals and results, 
        international benchmarks, and balance with existing 
        programs of NSF and other agencies.

         NSF staff and management personnel and the 
        National Science Board work together to determine final 
        research priorities.

         There are two major integrative strategies in 
        implementing NSF's budget: strengthening core 
        activities and emphasizing areas of intellectual 
        capital.

         NSF seeks to maintain an integrated portfolio 
        that makes the wisest investments in the most promising 
        fields.

    Dr. Clutter provided an overview of the Plant Genome 
Research Program and Project 2010 as case-study examples of the 
budgeting process.

         The Plant Genome Research Program supports 
        research in an area of science unique to the NSF by 
        proving funding for research that is not supported by 
        any other agencies.

         The Plant Genome Research Program, initiated 
        in 1998, allowed for the accelerated sequencing of the 
        genome of Arabidopsis, a model plant. The sequencing of 
        Arabidopsis, in many ways, is as important as the Human 
        Genome Project because it provides a starting point for 
        better understanding the genetic make-up of plants.

         Project 2010 builds upon the Plant Genome 
        program because Project 2010 will allow scientists to 
        determine the function of all of the Arabidopsis genes 
        identified through the sequencing project.

    Dr. Chandler stated the following concerning NSF funding:

         NSF determines its research priorities by 
        extensive consultation with scientists through its 
        Advisory Boards, special workshops, and scientific 
        meetings. The impetus for new programs and initiatives 
        most often comes from the scientific community.

         Through its continued investment in core 
        research and education activities and through its 
        special priorities, NSF has been a leader in helping to 
        create the exciting research environment we are 
        experiencing today. Core research grants provided by 
        NSF to individual researchers are the foundation for 
        conducting scientific research in our country and are a 
        major reason that the U.S. has a competitive edge in 
        many research areas.

         The NSF-sponsored Plant Genome Program has 
        opened up the world of plant genomics and has led to 
        significant advances in the way plant research is 
        conducted. Unlocking the mystery of plant genomes will 
        advance research related to food production, 
        pharmaceuticals, energy production, and the 
        environment.

    Dr. Preuss stated the following concerning NSF funding and 
plant biotechnology research:

         NSF's support for basic science has had an 
        enormously positive impact on science.

         NSF played a leading role in the 
        international Arabidopsis Genome Sequencing Project, 
        setting the early standards for technical methods and 
        public data release, providing 51 percent of the 
        funding for this effort, and facilitating the early 
        completion of this project.

         NSF's continued investment in basic science 
        is enormously important in that leading researchers are 
        trained by these funds, cutting edge science has been 
        supported, and innovative programs have been 
        established that drive science forward.

         Without micromanaging, NSF staff inspire, 
        motivate and enable scientists to do great work.

      4.4(e)_Reinventing the Internet: Promoting Innovation in IT

                             June 26, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-38

Background
    The hearing addressed the role of the Federal Government in 
promoting innovation in information technology. The hearing 
focused on:

         The need for federal investments in 
        fundamental research in IT;

         The effects of those investments on the 
        Nation's economy, workforce, and scientific enterprise;

         The state of current federal programs in IT 
        research and development (R&D), as established by past 
        legislation, including the High-Performance Computing 
        Act of 1991 and the Next Generation Internet Research 
        Act of 1998; and

         The need for congressional action to update 
        the authorization legislation of the current and future 
        coordinated activities of federal agencies in IT R&D.

    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Eric Benhamou, 
Chairman and CEO, 3Com Corporation, and member of the 
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC); 
(2) Dr. Anita Jones, Professor of Engineering and Applied 
Science, Department of Computer Science, University of 
Virginia; (3) Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley, III, Vice Chairman of the 
Board of Directors and former President, The Nasdaq Stock 
Market, Inc.; and (4) Ms. Cita M. Furlani, Director, National 
Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 
Development.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that IT is an 
integral part of our daily lives and a driving force in the 
global economy. Fast, capable computers and far-reaching 
networks enable instantaneous communications worldwide, access 
to unimaginable volumes of information, and enough 
computational power to make American business and industry more 
efficient and productive. He noted that Alan Greenspan, 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said that he believes that 
the remarkable performance of the U.S. economy is due to ``the 
resurgence of productivity growth'' which he credits to the 
revolution in information technology.
    He described the history of federal support for IT research 
and development dating back to the World War II era when the 
first digital electronic computer was developed and the Federal 
Government's overall investment in computing was less than $20 
million a year. Since then, the Federal Government's investment 
in computing and the underlying disciplines--mathematics, 
engineering, physics--has been significant. Today, multi-agency 
programs such as the President's Information Technology 
Advisory Committee (PITAC) have been developed to coordinate 
the federal effort in this area. Chairman Smith also stated 
that he hoped the witness would provide recommendations for 
authorization levels and broad policy guidance for a multi-
agency IT R&D program, including what specific areas of 
research should be given high priority.
    Dr. Jones discussed the importance of government funded 
information technology research and noted:

         Today's favorable economy is to a great 
        extent enabled by research in information technology.

         NSF has not been able to acquire the most 
        capable high-end computers for research, which limits 
        university research.

         The annual government competition for high-
        end computing is inefficient.

         Computer science departments are having 
        difficulties maintaining their current faculty size due 
        to insufficient funding for research.

    Mr. Benhamou discussed the following concerning the IT 
industry and federal funding for R&D:

         Several key sectors of the IT industry owe 
        their existence to basic research funded by the Federal 
        Government in the 1960's and 70's.

         The natural rewards and incentives that shape 
        the IT industry has made it very short-term focused.

         Long-term IT research is necessary to 
        continue the flow of ideas that have fueled the 
        information revolution.

         There are four specific areas that need 
        increases in funding: software, scaleable information 
        infrastructures, high-end computing, and the related 
        socioeconomic impacts.

    Mr. Berkeley discussed the following concerning the IT 
industry and federal funding for IT R&D:

         Venture capital partnerships do not have the 
        time to conduct long-term, basic research that leads to 
        commercial products.

         With deregulation and globalization, 
        corporations are forced to seek short-term returns and 
        are not able to conduct long-term research.

         Only government can take a longer-term 
        perspective, but federal investment is slowing and 
        needs to be increased.

         Better education in math and science is 
        needed.

         Strong intellectual property laws are needed 
        to protect and promote innovation.

         Easing technology transfer from government-
        funded research to commercial application is necessary.

    Ms. Furlani discussed the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development effort (NITRD) and made the 
following points:

         Federal support for IT R&D helped to launch 
        the IT revolution some 50 years ago.

         Congress's original framework for IT R&D has 
        evolved into a very productive research enterprise.

         The NITRD effort does not suffer from 
        structural weaknesses.

         NITRD faces the problems of undertaking the 
        necessary R&D to tackle IT problems at scale and 
        working with other federal agencies on their IT 
        problems.

       4.4(f)_Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean Observing 
     Systems. (Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Research, the 
        Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, 
        Committee on Science; and the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
      Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources.)

                             July 12, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-26

Background
    The purpose of the joint hearing was to receive testimony 
on federal interagency cooperation on ocean research and 
particularly on the progress of, and plans for, the 
implementation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing 
system. This hearing also examined the need to coordinate the 
rapidly proliferating coastal observing systems and review the 
Report of the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration and the 
implementations of that report's recommendations.
    The Committees heard from: (1) Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Acting 
Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Dept. of 
Commerce; (2) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National 
Science Foundation; (3) Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of the 
Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Navy; (4) Vice Admiral 
Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., President of Consortium for 
Oceanographic Research & Education; (5) Dr. Marcia McNutt, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Monterey Bay Aquarium 
Research Institute; (6) Dr. Robert Ballard, President of the 
Institute for Exploration; (7) Dr. Robert A. Weller, Director 
of Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, Woods 
Hole Oceanographic Institution; (8) Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, 
Director of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, 
Rutgers University; (9) Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science 
Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and 
(10) Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director of the Hawaii Undersea 
Research Laboratory at the University of Hawaii.

Summary of Hearing
    Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee 
Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by stating that 
improved cooperation and coordination among federal agencies, 
Congressional Committees, and the research community is needed 
for a more effective ocean research program. Due to limited 
financial resources, these groups need to agree on specific 
priorities to achieve goals.
    Mr. Gudes testified on ocean exploration, ocean 
observations, coastal observations, and the role of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He 
noted that:

         The President's budget includes $170 million 
        for NOAA to conduct ocean research in fiscal year 2002.

         In 2000, a panel of marine scientists and 
        explorers were convened to review U.S. efforts in ocean 
        exploration. It recommended that the U.S. establish a 
        national program of ocean exploration and discovery.

         He discussed ocean exploration's role in the 
        discovery of new species, our understanding of 
        geological phenomena, etc.

         There are fewer ocean-based measurement 
        systems than there are land-based.

         The National Ocean Partnership Program is an 
        excellent mechanism for coordinating oceans activities 
        across agencies.

         It is important, especially on the West 
        Coast, for tsunami warning devices to be improved.

    Dr. Colwell testified that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has a proud history of supporting basic research and 
education in the ocean sciences. It has a ``broad, encompassing 
role that advances the frontiers of discovery and seeks to 
engage the public.'' Dr. Colwell showed footage taken from the 
submersible ALVIN two miles below sea level, and noted that:

         The NSF accounts for less than four percent 
        of the total federal research and development budget, 
        yet provides about 70 percent of federal funding to 
        academic institutions for ocean research.

         More than 95 percent of the world's oceans 
        remain unexplored.

         The NSF is working with the academic 
        community and federal agencies to provide a new 
        infrastructure to gain access to the oceans and to 
        facilitate the collection of time series data. This 
        will help improve our understanding of the basic 
        biology, chemistry, geology, and physics of oceans.

    Admiral Cohen discussed the importance of ocean 
exploration, and strongly supports efforts to develop and 
implement an integrated and sustained national ocean observing 
system. He noted that:

         Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's 
        surface, and are constantly changing.

         Oceans are the Navy's operating environment. 
        The Navy must continually collect and monitor data from 
        all the world's oceans in order to ensure the safety of 
        its fleet.

    Admiral Lautenbacher represented the Consortium for 
Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE), a consortium of 64 
premier oceanographic institutions. He noted that:

         Ocean exploration and ocean observing are 
        equally important, and we should emphasize the value we 
        get from each approach to ocean research.

         Now is the time for researchers to work 
        together in a coordinated effort to advance ocean 
        research. The technology available today is such that 
        we can do things that were only dreamed about several 
        years ago.

         Sustained time series data from coastal areas 
        and around the world in addition to the cooperation and 
        coordination of federal agencies are needed to answer 
        pressing questions on environmental management.

         The National Oceanographic Partnership Act 
        successfully established a super-agency mechanism to 
        support and finance ocean exploration and observation.

    Dr. McNutt re-emphasized the importance of ocean 
exploration. She strongly supports further research to learn 
more about this largely unexplored area. She noted that:

         The ocean is earth's largest living space, 
        containing 80 percent of all phyla. Most photosynthesis 
        occurs there, it keeps earth habitable, and it 
        processes our waste. It also provides an inexpensive 
        source of protein to feed our population.

         The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 
        is currently considering direct sequestration of carbon 
        dioxide into the ocean 3 kilometers below the surface 
        to mitigate global warming. However, it is having 
        difficulty assessing the potential biological impact of 
        such activity because so little is known about the 
        organisms at that depth.

         In order to know the right scientific 
        questions to ask of ocean models and predictions, the 
        U.S. needs to further explore the ocean.

         Ocean exploration is defined as the 
        systematic observation of all facets of the ocean in 
        the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension 
        of time. Ocean exploration leads to unpredictable 
        rewards; possibilities include cures for diseases, 
        discovery of untapped mineral, energy, and biological 
        resources, insights into ocean system functions, and 
        beautiful geological and biological vistas.

         Many countries, including Ireland, Japan, 
        France and Russia, are much more advanced in their 
        ocean exploration tools and programs than the U.S.

         Stakeholders such as federal laboratories, 
        businesses, universities, educators, conservationists, 
        students and relevant federal agencies should be 
        involved in ocean exploration. The activities of these 
        groups need to be coordinated through an effective 
        management structure, which could potentially be the 
        National Ocean Partnership Program.

         Ocean exploration programs will be most 
        effective and systematic with built-in mechanisms for 
        educational outreach and information dissemination. 
        Exploration would begin with reconnaissance mapping of 
        the sea floor and water column.

         Detailed exploration should be done by a 
        state of the art flagship equipped with new generation 
        submersible technology and high bandwidth satellite 
        communication to bring real-time discoveries to 
        aquaria, schools, homes and offices over the Internet.

    Mr. Ballard believes that oceans are our last unexplored 
frontier and that we need to develop a blueprint for future 
exploration. He noted that:

         There is no major ocean exploration program 
        in the U.S.

         Ocean exploration can lead to great 
        discoveries with the help of newer technologies such as 
        autonomous underwater vehicles.

         The future of sea farming will involve a 
        shift from people as hunters and gatherers of the sea 
        to shepherds of the sea.

         The natural beauty and cultural heritage of 
        the oceans need to be preserved for future generations 
        by expanding existing sanctuaries such as The National 
        Marine Sanctuary. Public access is necessary to gain 
        the public support needed for long-term protection.

    Dr. Weller gave a brief recount of his time in the Pacific 
Ocean during the onset of the 1997 El Nino. He noted that:

         Oceanic measuring devises deployed by the 
        National Science Foundation and international partners 
        enabled early detection and warning of the 1997 El 
        Nino, which gave people around the world time to 
        prepare for its effects.

         In 1999 the value of these early El Nino 
        warnings was estimated at $300 million for the 
        agricultural sector, and $1 billion for all U.S. 
        sectors combined. The payoff is huge considering that 
        the U.S. puts only $12 million into the El Nino 
        observing system annually.

         The ocean system across the globe is 
        interconnected; as such, research activities need to be 
        globally focused.

         The tools used to measure oceanic changes, 
        like buoys and moorings, are available. We just need to 
        get more of them out there.

    Dr. Grassle focused on the need for a national network of 
linked and coordinated ocean observing systems, and on 
recommendations for how such a network should be established. 
He supports ocean exploration and the census of marine life 
programs and has suggestions for their advancement. He noted 
that:

         An integrated national network of coastal 
        ocean observing systems needs to be developed. More 
        than half of Americans live in coastal zones, more than 
        95 percent of the Nation's foreign trade moves by sea, 
        the fishing industry and other industries rely on 
        ocean, and our understanding of it influences all of 
        these activities.

         A sustained network of linked and coordinated 
        regional ocean observing systems will provide a new way 
        of looking at, working in, and understanding the ocean.

         The growing community of users of ocean 
        information needs a modeling and measurement system 
        that has the ability to continuously map surface 
        current flows and obtain data from satellite 
        observations, buoys, and autonomous gliders.

         Intensive observatory facilities operated by 
        scientists from all disciplines are needed to conduct 
        long-term experiments, sustain long time series 
        observations, and test new ideas and equipment.

         The National Science Foundation and the 
        Office of Naval Research have played major roles in the 
        development of the LEO observatory, and should continue 
        to play a leading role in the development of intensive 
        observatory technologies.

         The National Ocean Research Leadership 
        Council and National Oceanographic Partnership Program 
        should be responsible for coordinating a national ocean 
        observing system and approving standards and protocols 
        for administering the system.

    Dr. Beeton testified on ocean exploration in the context of 
the Great Lakes. He noted that:

         The Science Advisory Board is the only 
        federal committee whose responsibility it is to advise 
        the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere on long- and short-term strategies for 
        research, education, and application of science to 
        resource management.

         Coastal and ocean observations are necessary 
        to predict events that effect commerce and life and to 
        minimize financial and personal loss.

         Ocean exploration activity should include 
        geophysical surveys to update bathymetric charts for 
        navigation, fisheries, and recreation.

         We need long-term monitoring to detect subtle 
        changes in the Great Lakes ecosystems, make more 
        coherent assessments of long- and short-term impacts, 
        and understand coastal water quality's influence on 
        public health.

    Mr. Malahoff stressed that the oceans are an essential 
resource for the U.S., in addition to being our frontline 
against adversaries. He noted that:

         Oceans provide us with food, energy, and 
        resources for a range of new industries specializing in 
        marine byproducts and their uses.

         NOAA's creation of the Office of Ocean 
        Exploration is a catalyst that will enable the U.S. to 
        lead the development of a holistic understanding of the 
        world's oceans.

         Grass roots partnerships are key to improving 
        ocean exploration.

         Core programs such as NOAA's National 
        Undersea Research Program, along with programs at the 
        Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, 
        and The Environmental Protection Agency, need to be 
        supported in order to accomplish the objectives of 
        ocean exploration.

      4.4(g)_Innovation in Information Technology: Beyond Faster 
                     Computers and Higher Bandwidth

                             July 31, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-18

Background
    The hearing examined the impact federal investment has had 
on promoting innovation in information technology and fostering 
a variety of sophisticated applications that infuse information 
technology into areas such as education, scientific research, 
and delivery of public services. The hearing also examined the 
limits of current technology and highlighted research questions 
and technological applications that require additional 
investment.
    The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy, Chair 
of the Interagency Working Group and Assistant Director, NSF, 
Computer and Information Science and Engineering; (2) Dr. Hans-
Werner Braun, a Research Scientist at the San Diego 
Supercomputing Center; (3) Dr. Helen Berman, Director of the 
Protein Data Bank and Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry 
at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; (4) Ms. Carol 
Wideman, CEO and founder of Vcom3D; and (5) Mr. Bill Blake, 
Vice-President for High-Performance Technical Computing at 
Compaq Computer Corporation.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that this was 
the second hearing on information technology that the Research 
Subcommittee has held, and that while the first hearing 
examined the federal information technology oversight 
structure, the second hearing would focus more on the National 
Science Foundation's role in helping prioritize federal IT R&D 
efforts.
    Chairman Smith went on to describe the Information 
Technology Research Program (ITR) and how it works to 
coordinate funding across disciplines and agencies to achieve 
the best use of taxpayer money. He discussed how new research 
in wireless, high-quality Internet connections is allowing 
children in the most remote rural locations of our country to 
have real-time access to today's leading research and how IT is 
enabling communities struck by disaster to coordinate relief 
efforts when phone and fiberoptic networks are down. He stated 
that he hoped the witness testimony and discussion would help 
members to analyze past mistakes government has made in 
politicizing support of IT research.
    Dr. Bajcsy discussed the National Science Foundation's 
Information Technology Research (ITR) program and noted that:

         In order to respond to the need for 
        continuing rapid advancements in Information Technology 
        (IT), and in response to the 1999 recommendations of 
        the President's Information Technology Advisory 
        Committee (PITAC), NSF took the lead in the Federal IT 
        R&D Initiative and established the ITR program. The ITR 
        program supports research in a variety of IT-related 
        areas and also facilitates the acquisition of high-end 
        equipment such as terascale computers.

         Through the ITR program--a cross-cutting 
        agency-wide program--NSF encourages proposals for 
        basic, long-term, high-end, risky projects. These 
        proposals are evaluated by a coordinating committee of 
        NSF program officers from the Computer and Information 
        Science and Engineering Directorate as well as other 
        NSF directorates.

         The NSF hopes that much of the targeted 
        research it supports will have an eventual trickle-down 
        effect, resulting in useful technologies for the 
        general public. In the short-term, however, NSF is now 
        facing the problem of monitoring and evaluating the 
        progress and success of these long-term projects.

         In the future, ITR will focus on enhancing 
        cyber infrastructure such as high-performance computers 
        and broadband connectivity and on advancing 
        interdisciplinary IT-enabled research such as computer 
        modeling and simulation, sensory networks, and improved 
        user interfaces.

    Mr. Braun discussed his High-Performance Wireless Research 
and Education Network (HPWREN) and noted that:

         Government support for Information Technology 
        projects was key for driving the Internet evolution. 
        The NSF supported NSFNET provided an Internet backbone 
        at the threshold between the original government 
        communications network and the commercialized Internet.

         Access to high-performance Internet systems 
        is not ubiquitous, especially in rural areas. The 
        Federal Government has an obligation to support a 
        national network that meets demanding performance 
        requirements even in less populated areas.

         HPWREN is a project that aims to demonstrate 
        ways in which a high-performance network can be created 
        and used for network applications in remote 
        communities. This network is utilized by a number of 
        people and organizations including emergency crisis 
        management and first responder professionals.

         Schools in remote communities also need 
        access to high-performance networks; HPWREN has linked 
        to several rural American and Native American schools 
        to facilitate enhanced instruction and communication 
        between practicing scientists and children who attend 
        schools in remote locations.

    Dr. Berman discussed the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and the 
Nucleic Acid Database she directs and noted that:

         The PDB was started in 1971 at Brookhaven 
        National Laboratory with distributions sites in 
        Cambridge, England. At that time there were less than a 
        dozen protein structures in the database, which now 
        holds over 1600 structures.

         The growth in both number and complexity of 
        information contained in the PDB is the result of 
        tremendous advances in protein chemistry research, 
        crystallization techniques, robotics, imaging, and 
        high-performance computing.

         Every day 100,000 structure files are 
        downloaded and used by scientists in academia, 
        government and industry to plan new experiments, 
        analyze results, and even discover new drugs.

         PDB is managed by a consortium of three 
        institutions: Rutgers, The State University of New 
        Jersey; San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of 
        California, San Diego; and the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology. Three agencies fund the PDB 
        including the NSF, the National Institutes of Health 
        (NIH) and the Department of Energy. For the PDB to 
        continue as a successful international resource, a more 
        streamlined and reliable funding mechanism must be 
        implemented.

    Ms. Wideman discussed the importance of the Federal 
Government's investment in information technology research and 
its value to the United States Economy and noted that:

         While fast computers and high bandwidth 
        connections are of great importance, it is the 
        development of software technologies and online 
        applications that make these computers and Internet 
        connections valuable to American citizens.

         Because deaf and hard-of-hearing children 
        experience delayed acquisition of language skills, 
        these children suffer from many missed opportunities in 
        their early development of key communication, 
        collaboration, and knowledge-building skills. The 
        SigningAvatar software developed by Ms. Wideman's 
        company converts English text to real-time, 3-D graphic 
        representations of sign language so that deaf children 
        learn to communicate earlier.

         The SigningAvatar technology is revolutionary 
        in that it is available over the Internet, can be used 
        to link words in complete sentences, and allows new 
        signs for specialty terms to be developed and entered 
        into a user's computer sign vocabulary.

         Beyond the hearing-impaired community, the 
        basic technology of SigningAvatar will also serve the 
        broad educational community by providing life-like 
        computer-generated characters who motivate learners by 
        engaging them in goal oriented behaviors, role-playing 
        simulations, and mentoring opportunities.

    Dr. Blake discussed trends in supercomputing over the past 
ten to twenty years and noted that:

         In the early days of supercomputing, the 
        focus was on taking a single processor and making it 
        process information as fast as possible. A later 
        approach was to take hundreds of thousands of 
        processors and build a supercomputer out of a massive 
        parallel array. Cluster computers now facilitate 
        performance at the TeraFLOPS level.

         High-Performance Technical Computing (HPTC) 
        will impact scientific research by enabling powerful 
        simulations that, in addition to traditional 
        theoretical work and experimentation, will serve as a 
        key method of discovery. Beyond that, HPTC will impact 
        manufacturing by enabling virtual testing of components 
        and design processes as well as optimization of 
        performance, quality, and manufacturability. To 
        maintain an edge in manufacturing, the U.S. must 
        utilize cost-effective HPTC to optimize manufacturing 
        and design processes.

         The NSF-funded Pittsburgh Supercomputing 
        Center is working with Compaq to deliver the first 
        Terascale computing system that will deliver 12 times 
        the computational power and 40 times the memory to 
        users at over 800 nodes.

    4.4(h)_National Science Foundation's Major Research Facilities: 
                     Planning and Management Issues

                           September 6, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-48

Background
    Recently, a number of organizations, including the National 
Academy of Sciences, the NSF Office of the Inspector General, 
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
scientific community, have raised concerns over the adequacy of 
NSF's planning and management of large research facilities. 
These large facilities include astronomical observatories, 
supercomputer centers, the South Pole Station, and earthquake 
simulators, among others. Witness testimony described the 
process by which these projects are selected for funding as 
well as agency oversight during implementation and operation of 
these facilities.
    The Subcommittee heard from (1) Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, 
National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Anita Jones, Vice Chair, 
National Science Board; and (3) Dr. Christine Boesz, Inspector 
General, National Science Foundation.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that the NSF, 
which is primarily known for funding small-scale scientific 
research, has recently become more involved in funding large-
scale research projects, facilities, and equipment. With these 
increasingly large and complex projects have come ever-growing 
management challenges. Also, recognizing that the scientific 
community's new facilities wish list will always outstrip the 
resources available for funding these projects, prioritization 
of the projects is critical. This prioritization should not be 
left for OMB or Congress to decide, but needs input from the 
scientific community as to which projects should go first.
    Chairman Smith stated that the hearing would also address 
the issue of oversight and operation of these facilities aimed 
at ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively and 
efficiently as possible. On large projects, even 
proportionately small cost overruns can add up to big money. 
For example, the Space Station overruns are greater than NSF's 
entire 2002 budget. Mr. Smith noted that he appreciated the 
Inspector General's input and interest into assuring how these 
goals can best be accomplished and that he looked forward to 
hearing about NSF's new Large Facility Project Management and 
Oversight Plan.
    Dr. Colwell discussed the National Science Foundation's 
management and oversight of large facilities and noted that:

         NSF's approach to facilities management 
        differs from the other federal research and development 
        agencies because NSF does not directly construct or 
        operate the facilities that it supports.

         NSF makes awards to universities or nonprofit 
        organizations that undertake the construction, 
        management and operation of facilities.

         Major Research Equipment (MRE) and large 
        facility construction proposals undergo very rigorous 
        evaluation and merit review including that provided by 
        a committee of NSF leaders and by the National Science 
        Board who must approve the design and merit of each MRE 
        project before it can be funded.

         After a project is funded, NSF tries to 
        ensure that the MRE project or the large research 
        facility is constructed on time and within cost 
        estimates.

    Dr. Jones focused on the National Science Board's (NSB) 
role as the governing body of the Foundation and said that:

         With respect to the MRE account, the NSB 
        functions in both an approval and oversight role in 
        that all MRE proposals must earn NSB approval before 
        they can be included in a budget request, and MRE cost 
        over-runs of greater than 20 percent or $10 million of 
        the approved project budget must be approved by the 
        NSB.

         Typically, the Director selects MRE 
        candidates for the NSB to review and, if the project is 
        meritorious and planning is adequate, the NSB will 
        approve it for future funding (though the NSB does not 
        rank order or prioritize programs that receive NSB 
        approval). In determining if a project is meritorious, 
        the Board will evaluate it for intellectual merit, 
        societal impacts, importance to science and 
        engineering, balance across disciplines, readiness to 
        be implemented, and cost-benefit and risk analyses.

         The NSB assumes that all approved MRE 
        projects are of unquestioned excellence and worthy of 
        Foundation support, which it reaffirms in approving the 
        Foundation's budget submission to the Office of 
        Management and Budget. The Director, however, makes the 
        final decision regarding which NSB-approved MRE 
        projects will be included in the budget request.

         The NSB has grown increasingly concerned 
        about the management and oversight responsibility of 
        the Foundation related to the growing number and size 
        of MRE projects. Therefore, in 1999, the NSB had been 
        working with the NSF to develop a Large Facility 
        Projects Management and Oversight Plan.

    Dr. Boesz discussed the results of her recent MRE audit and 
made the following suggestions regarding improved management 
and oversight of the MRE account:

         Overseeing the construction and management of 
        large facility projects and programs, while still being 
        sensitive to the scientific endeavor, requires much 
        more diligence than simply allowing for research 
        independence and freedom. It requires a disciplined 
        project management approach including meeting deadlines 
        and budgets, and working hand-in-hand with scientists, 
        engineers, project managers, and financial analysts.

         NSF should develop strong policies and 
        procedures for managing all aspects of large facility 
        projects, including improved oversight, financial 
        management and enhanced training of staff.

         The Large Facility Projects Management Plan 
        represents progress, but key areas of implementation 
        still need to be addressed. In particular, the plan 
        should clarify who will have ultimate project 
        accountability and should provide guidelines for a more 
        comprehensive pre-award review process.

         The Inspector General's office will conduct a 
        follow-up review to ensure that the audit 
        recommendations have been fully implemented.

     4.4(i)_Strengthening NSF Sponsored Agricultural Biotechnology 
                   Research: H.R. 2051 and H.R. 2912

                           September 25, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-36

Background
    The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony 
regarding legislation that aims to expand the National Science 
Foundation's investment in research related to plant genomics. 
Witnesses discussed current advances and concerns, as well as 
future needs, in plant genomics and related research and 
commented on the role that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) should play in plant biotechnology research.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant 
Director, National Science Foundation; Biological Sciences 
Directorate; (2) Dr. Catherine Ives, Director, Agricultural 
Biotechnology Support Program, Michigan State University; (3) 
Dr. Charles Arntzen, Distinguished Professor of Plant Biology, 
Arizona State University and an expert in the field of plant-
based pharmaceutical and vaccine production; and (4) Dr. Robert 
Paarlburg, Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College, 
and an expert in the socioeconomic and policy implications of 
agricultural biotechnology in the developing world.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that the issue 
of biotechnology has been of great interest to the Research 
Subcommittee in the past, with the Subcommittee holding a 
series of hearings and briefings during the 106th Congress that 
led to a Chairman's Report on the issue entitled ``Seeds of 
Opportunity: An Assessment of the Benefits, Safety, and 
Oversight of Plant Genomics and Agricultural Biotechnology.'' 
That report noted biotechnology's incredible potential to 
enhance nutrition, feed a growing world population, open up new 
markets for farmers, and reduce environmental impacts of 
farming.
    Chairman Smith went on to state that the potential benefits 
of biotechnology are limited only by the imagination and 
resourcefulness of our scientists, and that H.R. 2051 and H.R. 
2912 both attempt to unleash some of that imagination and 
resourcefulness. H.R. 2051 would bring together some of the 
best researchers in the field to combine efforts and use the 
latest in technology, greatly increasing our ability to tackle 
fundamental genomics problems. Ranking Member Johnson's bill, 
H.R. 2912, would attempt to bring together similar expertise 
and resources, but with a focus on the farming systems of the 
developing world.
    Dr. Clutter discussed NSF's support of fundamental research 
and noted that:

         NSF's Plant Genome Research Program supports 
        projects that make significant contributions to our 
        understanding of plant genome structure, organization 
        and function. Emphasis is placed on plants of economic 
        importance, as well as plant processes of potential 
        economic value.

         Project 2010 will enable scientists to better 
        understand the function of the 25,000 genes found in 
        the small mustard plant, Arabidopsis, that were 
        identified as a result of the genome sequencing effort.

         To be effective in transferring genomics 
        technology to the developing world, sustained research 
        collaborations are essential.

         Virtual Centers, like those supported through 
        the Plant Genome Program, enable a number of 
        scientists--including students--to participate in 
        world-class research that was traditionally limited to 
        Research I institutions.

         Both H.R. 2051 and H.R. 2912 are consistent 
        with the activities currently funded by NSF.

    Dr. Ives discussed why the U.S. should invest in programs 
to elucidate fundamental mechanisms of plant production and 
noted that:

         More public funding needs to be spent on 
        creating new partnerships among public institutions, 
        the private sector, and other nonprofit organizations. 
        The U.S. needs to improve communication infrastructure 
        and networking, and increase the number of trained 
        scientists through research partnerships. Both H.R. 
        2051 and H.R. 2912 would address this challenge.

         The programs outlined by the legislation 
        would fill an important gap in the current research 
        environment, which neglects basic research on plants of 
        importance to the developing world. Currently, the 
        United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds 
        basic research on crops of National interest and the 
        U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 
        provides technical assistance to developing countries, 
        but does not fund basic research.

         For NSF's work to result in improved 
        technologies that are available to the poor in 
        developing countries, it will be important for the 
        agency to develop strong linkages with USAID and USDA's 
        Foreign Agricultural Service.

         A fundamental knowledge and understanding of 
        plants and cooperative research strategies are the 
        foundation for addressing food production and nutrition 
        problems in the developing world.

    Dr. Arntzen discussed his interests in biotechnology-
derived products, including plant-derived pharmaceuticals, and 
stated that:

         Early use of DNA transfer techniques focused 
        on developing insect-resistant seeds and crops tolerant 
        to herbicides with the ultimate goal of reducing 
        pesticide use mitigating the impact of cropland 
        degradation and erosion.

         A fifteen-year lag time is expected for the 
        development of seeds improved for food, fiber or feed 
        crops. Improvements in production traits (insect, 
        herbicide, disease, and drought tolerance) will be 
        available over the next decade.

         Of major importance to the developing world 
        is the production of vaccines in a convenient form for 
        universal use. Plants such as potatoes and bananas may 
        prove to be safe and effective ``vehicles'' for 
        manufacturing and delivering vaccines if research can 
        address issues such as uniform dose delivery and 
        product quality.

         Private companies may be hesitant to develop 
        plant-based vaccines for a number of reasons, including 
        the lack of crucial information about plant cell 
        biology and the inability to estimate the project cost 
        of developing plant-based vaccine candidates. Federal 
        funding will be required to drive advances in plant-
        based pharmaceutical technologies.

         NSF could play a valuable role in advancing 
        research to enable plant-based production of new health 
        care projects because of the agency's experience in 
        facilitating multidisciplinary research centers, in 
        identifying sound science, and in supporting 
        educational programs that are essential for the success 
        of emerging technologies.

    Dr. Paarlberg discussed why the planting of genetically 
modified (GM) crops has not yet spread in any significant way 
to the developing world and noted that:

         GM crops have been grown widely and 
        successfully for the last five or six years in the 
        U.S., Argentina, and Canada, but consumer resistance 
        has impeded wide-scale use of GM crops, even in 
        countries that initially approved GM crops on both food 
        safety and biosafety grounds.

         No countries in Africa, except South Africa, 
        allow the planting of any GM crops; China and Indonesia 
        are the only Asian countries that allow GM crops to be 
        grown.

         Crop technologies that are created in the 
        private sector and sold through private multinational 
        seed companies are often difficult for poor countries 
        to accept on political grounds. For this reason, 
        academic research will be vital to the successful 
        implementation of GM techniques in food production.

         Some developing countries have refrained from 
        utilizing GM crops, despite years of promising field 
        trials, because of intense opposition from local and 
        European-based NGOs, anti-GM activist groups, and the 
        fear that export commodities would be devalued if found 
        to be GM varieties.

         A rebalance of agribiotechnology research 
        away from the private sector and back into the public 
        sector will be important if we hope to get modern 
        applications of biotechnology to poor farmers in the 
        developing world.

      4.4(j)_Meeting the Demands of the Knowledge-Based Economy: 
         Strengthening Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and 
                         Engineering Education

                             March 7, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-52

Background
    The hearing examined the challenges in undergraduate 
science, mathematics and engineering education at a variety of 
institutional types; explore examples of undergraduate science, 
mathematics and engineering programs that address the relevant 
problems; discuss federal programs that could be developed in 
the future to fill current gaps or stimulate additional change; 
and to consider how H.R. 3130, Improving Undergraduate Science, 
Mathematics, and Engineering Education will address the needs 
of the undergraduate mathematics and science education 
community.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Dr. Carl Wieman, 
Distinguished Professor of Physics, recipient of the 2001 Nobel 
Prize in Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder; (2) Dr. 
Kathleen P. Howard, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, 
Swarthmore College; (3) Dr. Daniel Wubah, Professor of Biology, 
James Madison University; (4) Dr. Steven Lee Johnson, Provost 
and Chief Operating Officer, Sinclair Community College; and 
(5) Dr. Narl Davidson, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and 
Interim Dean of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by stating that if we 
want to maintain our competitive edge in the world, we have to 
do a better job of providing students with the ability to 
function and contribute in today's highly technological world. 
This of course, means better preparing our students for careers 
in science, and mathematics, and engineering, and technology. 
Thinking about the war situation we are in today, it is going 
to be our research efforts that are not only going to develop 
the new smart weapons, but it is also going to be these science 
and math students that are going to develop the tools, and the 
new computers, and the new technologies that are going to 
assist us improving our national security.
    If these challenges are to be met, we must improve our 
science and math education programs. Chairman Smith noted that 
much of the math and science education problems that we are 
facing take root in a K through 12 school system that has 
inadequately excited individuals toward pursuing math and 
science careers. Last year, the House has passed H.R. 1858, a 
bill authorizing NSF to build partnerships for improved 
cooperation between high schools and universities so that 
students are better prepared for college math and science 
curriculum. Consistent with those initiatives, we are now 
beginning to examine how we can improve undergraduate math and 
science education. Chairman Smith stated that today's hearing 
was intended to first help us to determine exactly where the 
problems lie, and consider potential solutions to those 
problems.
    Dr. Wieman discussed the lecture-based teaching methods he 
has developed and used to actively engage students, including 
non-majors in his physics classes. Dr Wieman also discussed the 
difficulties faculty face in implementing novel pedagogical 
strategies because of student resistance to techniques with 
which they are unfamiliar and administrator's wishes to keep 
students happy. Dr. Wieman addressed the importance of making 
instruction relevant to the daily lives of students and the 
need to make courses more attractive to students while 
maintaining their vigor and content delivery. He explained 
that:

         New methods of teaching undergraduate 
        science, mathematics, and engineering education may be 
        very effective but the academic traditions and 
        structures that have developed over the last 500 years 
        makes implementing new techniques very difficult.

         H.R. 3130 focuses on key issues and is an 
        excellent start but it will be important to get 
        widespread support within college departments and among 
        administrators to result in full-scale reform.

         Effective undergraduate education reform 
        requires top-down demand for department-wide reform 
        rather than a lone faculty hero who works to change the 
        educational program one course at a time. In addition, 
        faculty needs to realize that without dramatic 
        improvements in instruction, science courses will 
        suffer from continuing declining enrollment and 
        departments will suffer from cutbacks.

    Dr. Howard discussed the challenges that new faculty 
members face in trying to juggle the demands of research and 
teaching as well as how to engage undergraduate students in 
research classes and laboratories. She stated that:

         Honors degrees awarded to students based on 
        oral and written exams prepared and administered by 
        outside experts on performance challenge students and 
        reward excellence. Faculty receives a great benefit 
        from the honors degrees program in that it provides an 
        external evaluation of the quality of the undergraduate 
        program.

         Having students involved in research during 
        the year and throughout the summer is beneficial to 
        both students and faculty.

         H.R. 3130 is important because it invests in 
        programs that encourage undergraduate research. 
        Participating in research is the best way for students 
        to learn what it means to be a scientist.

         NSF should expand its current programs that 
        help undergraduate institutions purchase state of the 
        art instrumentation so that students can participate in 
        high-quality research experiences.

    Dr. Wubah highlighted the importance of mentoring and 
recruiting talented students to comprehensive undergraduate 
institutions through the NSF supported Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates programs. He also discussed the need for 
additional or targeted programs within NSF's Division of 
Undergraduate Education and the Division of Graduate Education 
to recognize the unique opportunities and challenges of 
comprehensive undergraduate institutions and the students 
enrolled at those institutions. He testified that:

         Our country's continuing global leadership 
        depends on a strong, well-trained work force and 
        citizens who are equipped to function in a complex 
        technological world. Current concerns about our future 
        ability to prepare a scientifically literate citizenry 
        require a change in the distribution of resources for 
        science and technology education.

         It is very important to integrate research 
        and education but this can be very difficult especially 
        at the comprehensive colleges and universities where 
        resources are most lacking.

         It is important to link the student's 
        research experience to something relevant in their 
        everyday life. So they begin to make connections 
        between courses and the real world of scientific 
        research.

         Mentorship is very important in recruiting 
        students to and retaining students in undergraduate 
        science programs and encouraging students to pursue 
        graduate education.

    Dr. Johnson addressed problems community colleges face in 
securing funding for their core academic and transfer programs, 
in facilitating faculty development in a non-research intensive 
environment, and in finding support for the dissemination of 
good models and practices across the Nation. He testified that:

         Given the high percentage of minority 
        students who attend community colleges, these 
        institutions are key entry points for minority students 
        who may want to be scientists, mathematicians, or 
        engineers.

         Funding from the National Science Foundation 
        Advanced Technological Education Program has been very 
        important in supporting the development and expansion 
        of technician training programs at colleges. However, 
        the program needs to be expanded to include support for 
        core mathematics and science courses that all students, 
        and not just technicians-in-training, take at community 
        colleges.

         Community colleges are not as competitive at 
        securing federal funding as 4-year colleges and 
        universities in part because agencies and grant 
        reviewers are used to considering an institution's 
        research program rather than its instructional program 
        when awarding funding.

         Innovation and outreach is accelerated by 
        federal support, State Government support, as well as 
        foundation, private foundation, support. Public 
        community colleges across the country are delivering on 
        their promise of providing solid and accessible higher 
        education and they need to be supported by federal 
        programs and legislation similar to H.R. 3130.

    Dr. Davidson addressed the importance of cultivating talent 
among those students who express an interest in engineering as 
opposed to weeding out interested students in hope of finding 
better talent elsewhere. He testified that:

         Nothing creates enthusiasm for learning like 
        participating in meaningful research projects. One of 
        the most effective undergraduate programs has been the 
        Research Experience for Undergraduates program through 
        which research faculty can receive supplemental funds 
        to include undergraduate students in laboratory 
        research.

         Effective student retention invariably 
        requires an institutional cultural change, and all 
        change at academic institutions academics moves slowly. 
        Georgia Tech has been successful in increasing student 
        enrollment and retention by proving students with 
        additional research opportunities early in the 
        undergraduate experience and by providing student 
        mentoring and peer support opportunities.

         The problem of declining undergraduate 
        enrollment must be attacked from all sides by 
        encouraging pre-college initiatives for K-12 students 
        and their teachers, enhancing the university and 
        college experiences for undergraduate and graduate 
        students, and increasing the diversity of academic 
        faculties in science and engineering.

         NSF should provide small grants for 
        experimental programs and should also support greater 
        exchange among universities with respect to effective 
        recruitment and retention strategies. H.R. 3130 would 
        allow NSF to implement most of the recommendations 
        listed above and then engineering education community 
        strongly supports this bill.

     4.4(k)_The NSF Budget: How Should We Determine Future Levels?

                             March 13, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-62

Background
    The Subcommittee held the hearing to receive guidance and 
advice from the external community on how to determine 
appropriate NSF funding levels as the Committee crafts 
authorization legislation for the agency. The hearing explored 
criteria that should be used in setting NSF budget levels, in 
establishing priorities within the budget, and in restoring 
balance to the federal research portfolio. The hearing also 
examined the impact of current NSF funding on academic and 
private sector research and on the economy in general.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Dr. Stephen 
Director, Professor, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science; 
Robert J. Vlasic Dean of Engineering, University of Michigan; 
(2) Mr. Scott Donnelly, Senior Vice President, Corporate 
Research and Development, General Electric Company; (3) Dr. 
Irwin Feller, Professor of Economics, Pennsylvania State 
University; and (4) Dr. Karen S. Harpp, Assistant Professor, 
Department of Geology, Colgate University.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that the 
Science Committee has been very supportive of NSF and it's 
strong record of leadership and success funding competitive, 
peer-reviewed research, and is interested in our witnesses' 
ideas to improve NSF and their research efforts. NSF's unique 
focus on fundamental scientific research that is not undertaken 
by the private sector is a very important aspect of our federal 
R&D funding. While it is very difficult to quantify the return 
on federal investments in basic research, its footprints are 
unmistakably part of the world around us. Knowledge from NSF-
funded research resulting in modern industries such as 
genomics, information technologies, and communications has 
clearly made our lives better. These technological developments 
have also been one of the major drivers of growth in our 
economy, and are likely to remain so.
    Chairman Smith went on to discuss the NSF fiscal year 2003 
budget request, noting that, after accounting for the proposed 
transfer of three programs from other agencies to NSF, its 
increase was just a modest 3.4 percent. He stated that he 
understood the difficulties that accompany wartime budgets, and 
believed that President Bush should be commended for developing 
a budget that makes some difficult choices. However, Mr. Smith 
noted that he had hoped a model federal agency such as NSF 
would have received a stronger increase. He also remarked on 
the disparity between funding increases for NSF and the 
National Institutes of Health, noting that just a slightly 
smaller increase for NIH, if added to NSF, would result in an 
equivalent 14.7 percent increase for NSF.
    Dr. Director addressed the impact of NSF funding on 
research and education programs at institutions such as the 
University of Michigan. In addition, he discussed the need to 
achieve balance among scientific disciplines and between core 
research programs and priority areas within. He testified that:

         NSF funded research in the areas of 
        information security, detection of airborne hazards, 
        and structural studies to improve building safety are 
        likely to be key in the war on terrorism and will 
        continue to play an important role in national security 
        for years to come.

         While NSF is the lifeblood for thousands of 
        researchers across the Nation, there are many 
        outstanding researchers who are unable to obtain NSF 
        funding due to budget limitations. Last year nearly 70 
        percent of the almost 33,000 NSF grant proposals were 
        not funded, including thousands that were rated as 
        being very good or excellent during the rigorous peer 
        review. With so few excellent proposals being funded 
        our nation runs the risk of losing out on a number of 
        break-throughs or innovations.

         There is almost no increase in the number of 
        American students pursuing science or engineering 
        studies despite the growing demand for technologically 
        trained individuals.

         Congress should provide ample funding to 
        increase the number, size, and duration of NSF grants 
        so that researchers can spend more time doing their 
        research and less time applying for funds. The number 
        of grants also needs to be increased so that all 
        proposals receiving a rating of very good and above are 
        funded.

         Increased funding for NSF will insure that 
        the United States remains the leader in scientific 
        innovation that United States research universities are 
        prepared to meet the needs of the 21st century.

    Mr. Donnelly addressed the impact of federally funded basic 
research, such as that funded by NSF, on industry and the 
economy. He also discussed scientific and technical workforce 
issues and recommended various criteria that could be used to 
appropriate funding levels for NSF. He testified that:

         Advanced technologies such as those supported 
        by NIH funding, are possible only when basic research 
        in physics, engineering and information technology 
        provides tools and technologies that can be transferred 
        into clinical applications.

         Academic research findings need to be 
        translated into advanced applications by industry 
        scientist who develop products and services that feed 
        into the economy.

         There are a number of vibrant programs at and 
        talented students graduating from top medical schools. 
        We need that same vibrancy and talent coming out of our 
        university physics and engineering departments and we 
        must continue to translate basic research into value-
        added products and services.

         Increased funding for the NSF insures vibrant 
        university research programs and terrific students 
        prepared to deliver the next generation of technologies 
        through their work at academic and industrial 
        laboratories.

    Dr. Feller addressed the impact of basic research on the 
economy and also discussed the role economic research can play 
in optimizing the balance between different types of research 
(such as basic research versus applied, or research in the 
physical versus the biomedical sciences). He testified that:

         There is a great concern that the small size 
        of the average NSF award is causing faculty to divert 
        their research programs away from basic research and 
        toward those research areas supported by other federal 
        agencies and may be dissuading students from pursuing 
        careers in research.

         The average award is so small in many cases 
        that the historic coupling of research and education is 
        under strain. This forces faculty to adjust their 
        research agendas to the amount of funding they think is 
        realistic rather than the amount required to realize 
        the full potential of their research.

         Another detrimental affect of under-funding 
        is that students view the lives of their mentors as 
        being too focused on chasing after limited money and, 
        as a result, students often opt out of careers in 
        research.

         Unfortunately, NSF program officers and 
        senior officials are often in a situation of having to 
        trade off funding of individual investigators to 
        support larger research centers and interdisciplinary 
        programs making it even more difficult for faculty to 
        get the money they need to run their independent 
        research laboratories and programs. Adequate funding is 
        needed for support both core programs and priority 
        areas.

         The best investment of federal funds at NSF 
        and other science agencies is through the competitive 
        peer-review process.

    Dr. Harpp discussed the major challenges faced by students 
and faculty who are engaged in undergraduate science, 
mathematics, or engineering education and research. In 
addition, she addressed the criteria that should be used to 
determine the level of NSF funding for education and research 
activities at primarily undergraduate-serving institutions. She 
testified that:

         Major research instrumentation programs are 
        invaluable in enabling faculty at undergraduate 
        institutions to establish state-of-the-art facilities 
        for undergraduate research training. These instruments 
        expose students to the types of equipment they will 
        encounter ultimately in the work force or in graduate 
        school and this is critical.

         Students benefit from participating in 
        authentic research projects through which they are 
        exposed to the entire research process with all of its 
        challenges and rewards. Students emerge generally 
        energized by having discovered something new about the 
        world and excited about making a difference because of 
        their actual original scientific work.

         The demand and desire to build a research-
        rich environment for students has become overwhelming 
        for faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions. In 
        an undergraduate setting, it takes longer to accomplish 
        research goals than at focused research institutions 
        because of limited resources available for building and 
        maintaining laboratory facilities, limited time with 
        each research student, and extensive faculty teaching 
        responsibilities.

         Allocation of funds should be governed by 
        high quality proposals for innovative ideas with the 
        potential to advance the frontiers of science and 
        science education. NSF must take into account that 
        research in undergraduate settings does not progress at 
        the same rate or along the same path as it does at 
        large research universities, but that the research at 
        undergraduate institutions is equally important and 
        valuable because undergraduate institutions provide the 
        essential link between research and education.

     4.4(l)_Preparing a 21st Century Workforce: Strengthening and 
    Improving K-12 and Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering 
                               Education

                             April 22, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-59

Background
    The field hearing, held in Dallas, Texas, evaluated the 
state of K-12 undergraduate science technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) education and to discuss how federal 
programs such as NSF's Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) program 
have impacted K-12 education in Dallas. Additionally, the 
hearing explored educational programs that could be developed 
or expanded to fill current gaps and stimulate STEM, education 
reform efforts and train a scientifically literate workforce.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Ms. Narvella 
West, Executive Director, Science for Dallas Public Schools; 
(2) Dr. Geoffrey C. Orsak, Director, Infinity Project, Southern 
Methodist University; (3) Dr. Neal Smatresk, Dean of Science, 
University of Texas at Arlington; (4) Dr. Sebetha Jenkins, 
President, Jarvis Christian College; (5) Mr. Erza C. Penermon, 
Manager, workforce development, Texas Instruments; (6) Ms. 
Elissa P. Sterry, deputy manager of public affairs, ExxonMobil 
Corporation; and (7) Mr. Norman Robbins, community relations 
manager, Lockheed Martin.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this field hearing by remarking that 
we have understood the need to improve math and science 
education in America for some time now. How to best go about 
it, however, has been a more difficult undertaking to resolve. 
What is clear, though, is that if we want to maintain our 
competitive edge in the world, we have to do a better job of 
preparing our students for careers in science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology.
    Mr. Smith noted that the hearing's witnesses would provide 
a diverse array of expertise representing high schools, 
universities, and the private sector. He also stated that the 
witnesses would be discussing some examples of unique programs 
that Texas has undertaken in education reform efforts, as well 
as reviewing their experiences with the National Science 
Foundation-sponsored programs.
    Ms. West discussed the need for better math and science 
education programs, stating that:

         There has been a lack of accountability in 
        science education.

         There is inadequate infrastructure in the 
        classroom to meet the technology requirements of today.

         College students majoring in math and science 
        are not taught how to teach urban students.

         Adults need to understand why it is important 
        to accelerate learning in math and science, especially 
        for to ensure the future safety and security of this 
        country.

    Dr. Orsak discussed the importance of H.R. 3130, Improving 
Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology 
education, noting that:

         The bill emphasizes the importance of 
        science, mathematics, and engineering education in 
        preparing the country and the workforce to meet the 
        challenge of the 21st century.

         Only two percent of all high school graduates 
        will actually receive an engineering or technical 
        degree and even fewer women and minorities will receive 
        degrees in those areas. The number is much lower for 
        women and minorities.

         If science and engineering enrollment trends 
        are not reversed, the U.S. will struggle in the future 
        to maintain its standing in the global market place.

         It is important that the bill has methods to 
        identify high-performance programs, and has ways to aid 
        these programs.

         There should be a method to increase the help 
        of the corporate community to address workforce needs.

    Dr. Smatresk addressed problems associated with recruiting 
good undergraduate mathematics and science students, commenting 
that:

         The number of students across the country 
        entering undergraduate math and science programs is 
        dropping nationwide.

         When students are struggling through 
        introductory science and math courses, they are often 
        times unaware of the multitude of career choices that 
        will be available to them if they persist in the 
        science and engineering majors.

         There are not enough well trained K-12 
        science and math teachers in the U.S. to adequately 
        prepare students for undergraduate science and math 
        courses.

         Half of all science and engineering students 
        drop out of the program in the first two years.

         Programs are needed that bring schools, 
        teachers and business together.

    Dr. Jenkins commented on the role of Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and the Federal Government, 
noting:

         The most important partner for HBCU is the 
        Federal Government.

         There is a significant under-representation 
        of minorities in the fields of mathematics and science, 
        showing that HBCU are not being well utilized.

         An Experimental Program to Stimulate 
        Competitive Research (EPSCoR)-like program is needed to 
        provide additional support to minority serving 
        institutions.

         HBCUs need to be supported by the Congress 
        and NSF to improve K-12 mathematics and science 
        education for minority students. This would help 
        increase the number of engineers and scientist in the 
        country, and promote a more diverse workforce.

    Mr. Penermon explained the current needs of the semi-
conductor industry and Texas Instruments (TI) and their plan to 
help meet those needs, stating that:

         Industry is struggling with a shortage of 
        qualified workers and the downward trend of enrollment 
        at universities and colleges in engineering and 
        technical programs only exacerbates this problem.

         The biggest problem in attracting qualified 
        persons is making people aware of the opportunities 
        available in the private sector.

         Currently TI has 50 students in a work/study 
        arrangement that allows them to gain work experience 
        and complete their studies.

         It is important that universities utilize 
        industry-approved curricula that will prepare students 
        for the workforce. TI is involved in many programs to 
        help improve K-12 and undergraduate education.

    Ms. Sterry discussed the importance of U.S. students having 
an improved K-12 and undergraduate mathematics and science 
education, and noted that:

         It is critical for ExxonMobil to have a 
        skilled and educated workforce, but there has been a 
        long-term decline in undergraduate engineering 
        enrollment.

         Intern and Co-operative work-study 
        opportunities are the best way for students to learn 
        about opportunities in industry.

         In addition to having research experiences, 
        students must be taught fundamentals and gain basic 
        skills through the university engineering curriculum.

         Minorities and women are still a small 
        portion of the engineering workforce.

         ExxonMobil encourages employees and retirees 
        to help in educational programs through volunteering 
        and matching gift programs.

         American citizens need more math and science 
        skills to compete in today's world.

    Mr. Robbins discussed the level of engineering education 
and the current engineering job market, stating:

         Lockheed Martin contributes in a number of 
        ways to help improve mathematics, science, and 
        engineering education.

         The job market for engineers is expected to 
        double, while the number of engineers continues to 
        decrease.

         In grades 4, 8, and 12, less than 1/3 of U.S. 
        students performed at proficient levels in math and 
        science according to the National Assessment of 
        Educational Progress.

     4.4(m)_Preparing First Responders: A Review of the U.S. Fire 
      Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and 
     Post-9/11 Challenges for Firefighters and Emergency Responders

                              May 6, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-65

Background
    The hearing reviewed a number of issues related to United 
States Fire Administration programs. The goal of this hearing 
was to: provide an overview of U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) 
programs and issues; review implementation and budget 
challenges facing Assistance to Firefighters grant program, and 
examine counter terrorism-related challenges facing 
firefighters and first responders.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Mr. Charles E. 
Cribley, Chief Windsor Township Emergency Services; (2) Mr. 
Larry J. Hausman, Fire Chief, Battle Creek, Michigan Fire 
Department; and (3) Mr. Edward G. Buikema, Director, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Region Five. Also submitting 
written testimony but unable to attend the hearing was Mr. R. 
David Paulison, Administrator, U.S. Fire Administration.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this field hearing by remarking that 
our first responders come to our rescue whenever we need them, 
during natural disasters including tornadoes and hurricanes, 
during car crashes and school shootings, and many, many other 
situations, not the least of which is certainly fires. He noted 
that while the events of 9/11 brought a new focus to fire and 
emergency services, it is all too easy for us to forget that 
they were not just there for us that day, they are there for us 
every day. Fire and emergency services respond to over 16 
million calls annually, without reservation and with little 
regard for their personal safety. Since September 11th, over 30 
first responders have died in the line of duty.
    He stated that there is a considerable likelihood of future 
attacks on American soil that could happen in any number of 
forms--bombs, fires, weapons of mass destruction, attacks on 
our infrastructure, and others--are all conceivable and demand 
a new level of readiness. It is the job of Congress and state 
and local governments to ensure we honor the commitment of 
first responders who protect us day-in and day-out by providing 
them the resources that they need.
    Mr. Cribley testified on the role of the fire and emergency 
crews in local communities, and how to better prepare them for 
the future. Specifically, he described the challenges his fire 
department faces as it transitions from a rural to suburban 
community. Mr. Cribley noted that:

         Windsor Township created a new ``emergency 
        services'' department that merged the ambulance and 
        fire departments, to create a more effective operation.

         All mail sent to the state of Michigan is 
        sorted in the secondary complex within his departments 
        jurisdiction. While personnel is now trained to assess 
        the threat of anthrax, the local service would need 
        help in dealing with the threat if an incident would 
        occur.

         Small community fire departments, while still 
        having a role as an important source of pride and 
        identity for communities, simply cannot effectively 
        handle critical administrative, specialized response, 
        and inter-agency coordination.

         Grants should be given to departments that 
        serve multi-community response districts.

         The FEMA first responder grant program is 
        critical for support in dealing with terrorism, but the 
        role of fire fighters should not be merged with that of 
        one fighting terrorism.

    Mr. Hausman described the state of the Battle Creek Fire 
Department, and how the government has aided, and can continue 
to aid, local fire departments. He explained that:

         The department faces challenges related to 
        equipment acquisition, training, fire prevention, 
        arson, meeting national standards, and recruitment.

         Compliance with National Fire Protection 
        Association standards is becoming more complicated, and 
        has been fragmenting the fire departments of the fire 
        service; an increase in national funding is needed.

         The Battle Creek Fire Department used its 
        USFA grant to install smoke detectors in approximately 
        17,000 dwellings.

         Funding to the USFA for the grant program 
        needs to be increased by 10 fold, and the matching 
        amount should not fluctuate between 10 and 30 percent.

         The assistance program should not be tied in 
        with Homeland defense.

    Mr. Buikema discussed the role of FEMA in responding to 
natural disasters and terrorism, and the post-9/11 challenges 
presented by the reality of a wide range of terrorist threats. 
He testified that:

         FEMA has internally restructured to establish 
        at the headquarters and regional level, the Office of 
        National Preparedness, to be ready for and respond to 
        terrorist acts.

         FEMA's primary responsibility is to enhance 
        first responder capabilities concerning planning, 
        equipment, training, and exercises.

         FEMA is the lead government agency in dealing 
        with the response to terrorist attacks.

         Centralization of the preparedness efforts 
        under FEMA, as outlined in the President's budget, will 
        help address the needs in Homeland defense.

           4.4(n)_H.R. 4664, The National Science Foundation 
                      Reauthorization Act of 2002

                              May 9, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-63

Background
    The hearing examined H.R. 4664, ``The National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002,'' which was introduced by 
Representatives Nick Smith, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sherwood 
Boehlert, and Ralph Hall. The National Science Foundation (NSF) 
currently funds research and education activities at more than 
2,000 universities, colleges, K-12 schools, businesses, and 
other research institutions throughout the United States. 
Virtually all of this support is provided through competitive, 
peer-reviewed grants and cooperative agreements. NSF provides 
approximately 25 percent of the federal support for basic 
research conducted at academic institutions.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from (1) Dr. Daniel Mote, 
President, University of Maryland, College Park; (2) Dr. 
Ioannis Miaoulis, Professor, Mechanical Engineering; Dean, 
School of Engineering, and Associate Provost, Tufts University; 
and (3) Dr. Jerome Friedman, Institute Professor, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology.

Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Smith opened this hearing by noting that it would 
serve to review H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002, and would immediately be followed by 
a Subcommittee markup of the legislation. He stated that while 
this was the second hearing of the year on NSF, the 
Subcommittee has also held numerous oversight hearings on NSF 
since the last authorization for the agency expired at the end 
of fiscal year 2000.
    Mr. Smith went on to describe the details of H.R. 4664, 
noting that the legislation provides 15 percent annual 
increases for NSF, placing the agency on track to double over 
five years. He remarked that, while he maintains a philosophy 
of limited government and intended to continue to push for 
increased private investment in research, continued government 
support for basic research forms the building blocks for the 
applied research that keeps our security, health, and economy 
strong. He stated that understanding the importance of 
continuing this record of success is one of the primary reasons 
he advocates the 15 percent increase, but there are numerous 
other reasons, including increasing the size and duration of 
NSF grants, increasing graduate student stipends, providing 
support for new initiatives in education, cyber security, 
information technology, and nanotechnology, and addressing the 
problem of backlogged major research equipment projects that 
have been waiting for funding.
    Dr. Mote discussed the important role of NSF funding and 
suggested ways in which NSF programs and funding would be 
improved, testifying that:

         Research is the underpinning of the future in 
        commerce, health, and defense.

         There will be a shortage of working 
        scientists and engineers in the near future. We need to 
        be thinking about the long-term implications 
        cultivating a talented workforce that can support the 
        future science and engineering.

         Since fewer agencies are supporting basic 
        research, NSF needs to increase funding for basic 
        research.

         NSF grants need to be larger, and for a 
        longer period of time.

         NSF support is vital to helping young 
        students that are beginning in science and engineering.

    Dr. Miaoulis testified about the current downward trends in 
engineering enrollment and how Tufts has been working to 
reverse the trends. He also commented on the need to improve K-
12 education stating that:

         Most major engineering schools across the 
        country have problems attracting and retaining 
        students, especially minorities and women.

         The number of students enrolling in 
        engineering programs has fallen 15 percent over the 
        last 8 years, and most schools see a 30-50 percent 
        dropout rate from the engineering program.

         NSF funding allowed Tufts to change its 
        engineering curriculum, and as a result, Tufts has seen 
        an increase in the enrollment and graduation rates of 
        all engineering students, including women and 
        minorities.

         All students need to be exposed to 
        engineering applications early in their undergraduate 
        education so that they are technologically literate and 
        understand how technologies work.

    Dr. Friedman discussed the changing role of the government 
in funding basic research, and the future of the NSF and noted:

         In the 1960's two-thirds of all American 
        research activity was government supported, but today 
        two-thirds of research and development is done by 
        industry.

         Most industry research and development is for 
        short-term economic gain, not basic scientific 
        research.

         NSF is beginning to fund large, collaborate 
        research projects and faculties, but the Major Research 
        Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account 
        that funds these efforts has some significant problems.

         NSF should submit a list of approved MREFC 
        projects, in a prioritized order so that legislators 
        and scientists understand NSF's funding plans and 
        priorities.

         NSF's annual budget should contain 
        facilities, construction and operation costs for all 
        MREFC projects as projected for a 5-year period.

               4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                    4.5(a)_Vision 2001: Future Space

                             April 3, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-1

Background
    The hearing explored visionary concepts of America's future 
in space exploration, commercialization, and utilization.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Buzz Aldrin, President, 
Starcraft Enterprises; (2) Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, Chairman of 
the Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University; (3) 
Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Director of the Carnegie Institution's 
Geophysical Laboratory; and (4) Mr. Allen Steele, Science 
Fiction Author.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Aldrin discussed the risk and long-term vision and 
commitment necessary for space exploration, commercialization, 
and utilization to prosper. His five recommendations included 
developing lower cost launch systems, eliminating hampering 
regulations and procedures, charging NASA with investigating 
lower cost transportation systems, and focusing NASA and the 
private sector on the near-term objective of flying ``people'' 
in space. Dr. Aldrin provided a video that would, in his 
opinion, make the launching of boosters and replacement of 
orbiters viable.
    Dr. Krauss spoke of how to find a balance between far-term 
vision and near-term practicality in pursuing space 
exploration, human space exploration, and science.
    Dr. Huntress outlined his vision for America's future space 
program in a systematic, logical, science-driven manner. He 
ultimately envisions a meshing of robotics and human space 
flight for a productive and cost effective mission from planet 
Earth, as well as the creation of a progressive infrastructure 
necessary for future missions.
    Mr. Steele advocated the establishment of a permanent 
spacefaring civilization. He testified that private industry 
rather than NASA is best suited for the commercialization of 
space. He believes our space program should have an element of 
private purpose, as well as public, and should establish a 
Federal Space Agency that would focus entirely upon private 
space development. He proposed three major space objectives 
that can be accomplished by private industry: development of a 
second-generation space shuttle, construction of solar-powered 
satellites, and a return mission to the Moon to establish a 
permanent base.

                          4.5(b)_NASA Posture

                              May 2, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-15

Background
    The hearing addressed NASA's scientific priorities as 
reflected in the budget request, NASA's technology development 
and demonstration activities, and options NASA is evaluating 
for proceeding with the International Space Station. NASA 
Administrator Daniel S. Goldin was the only witness.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Goldin provided testimony on NASA's FY02 budget 
request. He highlighted NASA's major accomplishments and 
technical successes over the past year and identified specific 
management challenges and new priorities for NASA. The biggest 
challenge that NASA must address was the significant cost 
overrun ($4 billion) with the Space Station program.
    The President's FY02 budget request proposed to offset a 
large portion of the cost growth by redirecting funding for the 
Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), the Habitation Module, and the U.S. 
Propulsion Module. In addition, funding for U.S. research 
equipment and associated support will be aligned with the new 
assembly schedule that will result from NASA's ongoing bottoms-
up analysis. NASA estimates that research funding will be 
reduced by 40 percent. The budget request also stated that U.S. 
development would be complete once the Space Station is ready 
to accept the hardware elements of the international partners. 
This milestone, referred to as ``U.S. Core Complete,'' will be 
reached following the successful integration of Node 2, 
currently planned for November 2003. The President's budget 
further committed that any additional cost growth would be 
offset by efficiencies found within the human space flight 
programs and would not affect NASA's other research programs. 
He stated that NASA would be examining privatization of the 
Space Shuttle in order to save funds to offset cost growth on 
the Space Station.
    Mr. Goldin also testified regarding the status and issues 
for each of NASA's enterprises: Human Exploration and 
Development of Space, Space Science, Earth Science, Biological 
and Physical Research, and Aerospace Technology.

     4.5(c)_A Review of Vertical Takeoff and Landing Technology in 
                      the National Airspace System

                              May 9, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-9

Background
    The hearing examined VTOL technology, how VTOL could 
mitigate airport congestion, and federal and industry efforts 
to more fully integrate VTOL into the National Airspace System. 
The hearing also focused on a developmental VTOL aircraft 
concept, known as the DP-2.
    Witnesses were (1) Mr. Anthony A. duPont, founder and 
President of duPont Aerospace Company; (2) Mr. William H. 
Wallace, National Resource Specialist for Rotorcraft 
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration; (3) Dr. John Zuk, 
Chief of the Advanced Tiltrotor Technology Office, NASA Ames 
Research Center; and (4) Dr. Thomas D. Taylor, Chief Scientist 
and Program Manager of Naval Expeditionary Warfare Science and 
Technology, Office of Naval Research.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Wallace testified that use of helicopters and civil 
tiltrotor aircraft hold promise to add capacity to the Nation's 
commercial aviation system by providing new opportunities for 
moving passengers into--and out of--crowded airports. He 
cautioned, though, that new arrival and departure routes, and 
procedures to integrate vertical-flight aircraft into the 
traffic flows at busy airports have not yet been developed. He 
stated that FAA continues to investigate operational and 
regulatory standards for civil tiltrotor aircraft, including 
pilot certification issues.
    Dr. Zuk provided testimony on research conducted by NASA on 
the traffic effects of substituting vertical-lift aircraft for 
short-haul commuter flights at congested airports. Research 
findings indicated that operational capacity increases of up 
ten-percent were possible. In addition, Dr. Zuk testified that 
the introduction of these aircraft into small communities and 
general aviation airports would greatly expand accessibility of 
the national airspace system to under-served communities. Dr. 
Zuk also outlined NASA-sponsored research designed to reduce 
the noise footprint of vertical-lift aircraft.
    Mr. duPont spoke about predicted flying characteristics of 
the DP-2, a developmental vertical take-off and landing 
aircraft that relies on vectored thrust produced by turbojet 
engines. His company is attempting to build the first-ever 
vertical-takeoff jet designed for commercial and military 
markets. He stated that considerable research, design, and 
engineering work must be completed before it could be ready for 
its first flight.
    Dr. Taylor gave a general assessment of the DP-2 aircraft. 
ONR is sponsoring the developmental work of the DP-2. He 
testified that no known obstacles were encountered for the DP-
2, but that the thrust-vectoring design required intensive 
research, and captive flight tests would be required before the 
aircraft would be approved for manned flight.

                  4.5(d)_The Aerospace Industrial Base

                              May 15, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-10

Background
    The hearing focused on the ability of U.S. industry to 
maintain its leadership against primarily European competition.
    Witnesses included: (1) Mr. John Douglass, President, 
Aerospace Industries Association; (2) Mr. Tom Moorman, Partner, 
Booz, Allen & Hamilton; (3) Mr. Gayle White, National Defense 
Industrial Association; and (4) Ms. Heidi Wood, Vice President, 
Morgan Stanley.
Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Douglass testified on trends in aerospace trade and 
U.S. market share in relation to European competition and 
called for a 20 percent increase in NASA research and 
development funds for aerospace technology to compete against 
European R&D subsidies. He also testified about declines in 
U.S. commercial aviation sales and development of Boeing 
supercruiser to compete against the Airbus A380 superjumbo.
    Mr. Moorman testified on trends in the space industrial 
base to support military, commercial, and civil space programs. 
The U.S. space industry has excess capacity for launch vehicles 
and satellite manufacturing. Even with numerous mergers of 
aerospace companies during the 1990s, adequate competition 
exists. However, the deteriorating financial health of these 
companies poses a threat, especially with the growing 
reluctance of companies to invest in restructuring and 
independent research and development.
    Mr. White addressed the shortage of aerospace workers 
skilled in math, sciences, and engineering to meet human 
capital needs in aerospace companies. A survey of the top 10 
aerospace firms revealed that 64 percent of job openings for 
engineers were not filled, and retirements over the next five 
years will result in even more openings. Security clearances 
and pay comparisons with other information technology workers 
further drive workers to other industries.
    Ms. Wood addressed how private investment has flowed out of 
the aerospace sector over the past decade and how investment 
trends relate to human capital trends. Wall Street analysts 
consider aerospace a ``basic industry'' rather than ``high 
technology'' due to this decline.

            4.5(e)_Space Launch Initiative: A Program Review

                             June 20, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-11

Background
    The hearing addressed NASA's procurement practices and 
investments in key technology areas and processes for the 
development of new launch vehicle architectures that will 
increase the national launch capability.
    Witnesses included: (1) Mr. Dennis Smith, Program Manager 
of the Space Launch Initiative (SLI)/2nd Generation RLV Program 
Office, NASA; (2) Mr. Allen Li, Director of the Acquisition and 
Sourcing Management at the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO); (3) Mr. Steve Hoeser, a space launch analyst; and (4) 
Mr. Tom Rogers, Chief Scientist of the Space Transportation 
Association (STA).

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Smith testified that the SLI is a NASA program to 
investigate new space transportation architectures and to 
invest approximately $4.85 billion between FY 2001 and FY 2006 
for risk reduction and technology development efforts 
supporting at least two competing industry solutions. He 
outlined the process for determining the top level requirements 
and program goals for NASA's SLI, as well as measures NASA 
plans to use to achieve a viable vehicle architecture in 2006.
    Mr. Li provided an assessment of NASA's management 
structure and its contributions to past problems with X-vehicle 
programs. He testified that NASA needs to address critical 
areas, such as adequate project funding, cost risk provisions, 
effective and efficient coordination, communication within the 
agency, and periodic revalidation of underlying assumptions, in 
order to avoid problems in future programs.
    Mr. Hoeser provided key observations related to NASA's SLI 
based upon his experience with the Strategic Defense Initiative 
Office's (SDIO) Delta Clipper Experimental Launch Vehicle 
Program. He concludes that the SLI Program will not result in a 
new launch vehicle within the scheduled time frame.
    Mr. Rogers summarized that NASA's SLI is representative of 
``old fashioned'' Cold War thinking that promotes an 
entitlement program for NASA. He proposed that the government 
seek creative ways for financing development of near-Earth 
space and planetary exploration by supporting the private 
sector's efforts in realizing new space markets.

                          4.5(f)_Space Tourism

                             June 26, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-12

Background
    The hearing reviewed the issues and opportunities for 
flying non-professional astronauts in space, the appropriate 
government role for supporting a space tourism industry, use of 
the Space Shuttle and Space Station for tourism, safety and 
training criteria for space tourists, and the potential 
commercial market for space tourism.
    Witnesses included: (1) Mr. Dennis Tito, Space Tourist; (2) 
Mr. Mike Hawes, NASA; (3) Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Astronaut; and (4) 
Mr. Rick Tumlinson, Space Frontier Foundation.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Tito, the first person to pay to visit the 
International Space Station, provided his perspectives on his 
experience aboard the Space Station. He also testified on the 
potential benefit of human space travel and tourism to society, 
as well as his observations on the Russian space program.
    Mr. Hawes, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station 
at NASA, testified on U.S. Government policies and NASA's role 
regarding space tourism. He also addressed the issues related 
to non-government travelers aboard the Space Shuttle and the 
International Space Station and the need for a set of agreed-
upon criteria for selecting crew to fly to the Space Station.
    Dr. Aldrin, provided testimony on what types of activities 
could be enabled or enhanced by space tourism and the major 
hurdles that must be overcome before the space tourism industry 
could be self-sustaining. Dr. Aldrin focused on the need for 
low cost, reliable launch systems as the key barrier to space 
tourism and a major issue for the entire space program.
    Mr. Tumlinson, Space Frontier Foundation, provided 
testimony on his views regarding the appropriate role of the 
government in supporting the space tourism industry. 
Specifically, Mr. Tumlinson testified that the Space Station is 
a research laboratory and not an appropriate destination for 
tourists. Further, he testified that the government should 
pursue policies which promote space tourism, but should not 
compete for business with private sector enterprises.
    During the question and answer period, Mr. Tito claimed 
that the Space Station's life support system is capable today 
of supporting a permanent six-person crew. Mr. Hawes testified 
that the station is not capable of supporting a six-person crew 
as currently configured. The conflict was not resolved in the 
hearing, but NASA's response to the question for the record 
indicates that the station has the capability to support a six-
person crew for limited periods of time.

                      4.5(g)_Life in the Universe

                             July 12, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-17

Background
    The hearing reviewed ongoing efforts with NASA and the 
privately-funded SETI Institute's space science and 
astrobiology programs to search for life elsewhere in the 
universe.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Neil Tyson, Hayden Planetarium; 
(2) Dr. Jack Farmer, NASA Astrobiology Institute/Arizona State 
University; (3) Dr. Ed Weiler, NASA Space Science; and (4) Dr. 
Chris Chyba, SETI Institute.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Tyson testified on the public's intense interest in the 
search for intelligent extraterrestrial life and how humans 
have depicted aliens in movies, magazines, and television. The 
actual discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence will result 
in a profound change in human self-perception.
    Dr. Farmer explained NASA efforts to find microbial (as 
distinguished from intelligent) extraterrestrial life elsewhere 
in the solar system. The efforts are concentrated on Mars and 
Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, where liquid water possibly 
exists. Liquid water is one of the pre-conditions for life to 
form. Several satellite probes are planned during the next 
decade to search for life in the solar system.
    Dr. Weiler testified regarding NASA's Origins Program to 
find extrasolar planets through a series of planned space-based 
telescopes over the next 15 years. The Hubble Space Telescope 
and ground telescopes have found over 70 Jupiter-sized planets 
in other solar systems, and more precise telescopes are needed 
in order to find Earth-like planets in nearby star systems. Dr. 
Weiler characterized the search area and vast distances 
involved with a photograph of the Hubble Space Telescope Wide 
Field Camera. He expressed complete confidence that NASA's 
search will find extraterrestrial life with a 50 percent chance 
of finding intelligent extraterrestrial life.
    Dr. Chyba explained the SETI Institute's Phoenix Program of 
ground-based radio observatories and distributed signal 
processing to search for radio signals from extraterrestrial 
intelligence. The SETI Institute's program is privately funded 
with several philanthropic efforts and has a highly successful 
public outreach program, SETI@Home. Dr. Chyba testified about 
the need for fairness in the competition for NASA research 
grants involving the SETI Institute.

     4.5(h)_Developing the Next Generation Air Traffic Management 
                                 System

                             July 19, 2001

                        Hearing Volume No. 107-6

Background
    The hearing examined industry and government efforts to 
develop the next generation Air Traffic Management (ATM) 
system. Many aviation experts believe the current ground-based 
system cannot be stretched much farther to achieve the capacity 
increases necessary to accommodate predicted growth. In early 
summer the Federal Aviation Administration announced a major 
initiative known as the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) that 
proposed a number of improvements to increase capacity in the 
National Airspace System (NAS) by 2011. If successful, these 
enhancements are expected to add 30 percent capacity, but 
predicted growth in traffic will offset these gains. The 
hearing focused on government and industry efforts to develop 
ATM hardware and systems beyond the ten-year horizon.
    Witnesses were: (1) Professor R. John Hansman, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (2) Mr. Steve Zaidman, 
Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal 
Aviation Administration; (3) Mr. Sam Venneri, Associate 
Administrator, NASA; and (4) Mr. John Hayhurst, President, Air 
Traffic Management, The Boeing Company.

Summary of Hearing
    Professor Hansman testified that the Nation's air traffic 
system is congested and the potential for developing new 
capacity is constrained by the operational concepts employed by 
FAA, as well as landside facilities such as the number of 
runways and gates.
    Mr. Zaidman stated that FAA's Operational Evolution Plan 
will meet near term traffic predictions (for the next ten 
years) but will do so in a way that simply meets expected 
growth in demand. He also stated that FAA no longer does long-
term research and development, relying instead on NASA to 
perform this role. He also cautioned that FAA is reliant on 
industry and academia to meet future challenges.
    Mr. Venneri offered several solutions NASA believes would 
produce new capacity, such as computer-based decision support 
tools for air traffic controllers, the Small Aircraft 
Transportation System, and the development of a global 
communications, navigation, surveillance ATM system. The latter 
initiative, however, would require many years to complete, and 
as a first step toward this goal, Mr. Venneri urged that NASA 
be permitted to pursue the Virtual Airspace Modeling project.
    Mr. Hayhurst described Boeing's air traffic management 
proposal as a satellite-based, networked constellation of 
communications, navigation and surveillance satellites, capable 
of providing precise navigational data to pilots and air 
traffic controllers. It would permit aircraft to fly direct 
trajectories with minimal guidance from controllers. Boeing is 
in the process of developing a requirements document with input 
from all stake-holders and plans to release this document 
during the first half of 2002.

                   4.5(i)_Space Planes and X-Vehicles

                            October 11, 2001

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-22

Background
    The hearing examined space plane technologies and the 
opportunities they would create for civil, military, and 
commercial space-based applications.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Steve Lambakis, Analyst, 
national security and international affairs at the National 
Institute of Public Policy; (2) Mr. Peter Huessy, President, 
PRH & Company; (3) Mr. Mitch Clapp, CEO, Pioneer Rocket 
Company; and (4) Ambassador Henry Cooper, Chairman, High 
Frontier and Applied Research Associates.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Lambakis explained how space plane capabilities would 
transform current commercial, civil, and military space 
activities and how such capabilities would fit into an overall 
U.S. aerospace architecture. He testified that the difficulty 
in determining how the U.S. should proceed in space results 
from an unsettled and fragmented policy concerning the use of 
space.
    Mr. Huessy illustrated operational concepts for a military 
space plane. He summarized that the rapid deployment of a 
military space plane could serve to deny an adversary the 
ability to prosecute a conflict.
    Mr. Clapp's testimony focused on commercial applications 
for space planes and what space plane flight demonstration 
should be pursued before proceeding to an operational system. 
He testified that the X-37 Program provides a significant 
benefit to future reusable space systems by demonstrating in-
space transportation operations.
    Ambassador Cooper addressed how past administrations 
supported DOD and NASA space plane programs and what level of 
U.S. investments is needed for space plane development in the 
future. He testified that since past administrations diverted 
the path of ``build, test, grow'' programs, close Congressional 
oversight is needed to encourage the bureaucracy to continue on 
a path towards an operational space plane.

     4.5(j)_A Review of Civil Aeronautics Research and Development

                             March 7, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-67

Background
    The hearing was held on the Federal Government's proposed 
FY03 budget and investment strategy for civil aeronautics 
research funded by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA). While budget submissions for both agencies suggested a 
vigorous, ongoing research and development program important to 
solving many of our country's aviation-related problems, the 
FY03 funding proposal would shrink NASA's Aeronautics budget by 
$58 million below FY02 levels. Likewise, FAA's Research, 
Engineering and Development program would be reduced by $23 
million below FY02. Agency officials were invited to explain 
the rationale behind their budget submissions. Industry experts 
were asked to give their views about the budget proposals.
    Witnesses were: (1) Mr. Sam Venneri, Associate 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
(2) Mr. Steve Zaidman, Associate Administrator, Federal 
Aviation Administration; (3) Mr. Rich Golaszewski, Executive 
Vice President, GRA Inc.; (4) Mr. David Swain, Chief Technology 
Officer, the Boeing Company; and (5) Dr. John Cassidy, Senior 
Vice President, United Technologies Corporation.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Venneri provided oral testimony of the major 
accomplishments in NASA's Aeronautics R&D program during FY 
2001, singling out successes with the Helios high-altitude 
flying wing aircraft, demonstration of a synthetic-vision 
system for use on commercial aircraft, and prototyping decision 
support tools for use by the FAA air traffic control community. 
He also highlighted the release of NASA's new R&D investment 
roadmap, the ``Aeronautics Blueprint,'' that will be used to 
guide future agency spending decisions.
    Mr. Zaidman discussed FAA's FY 2003 Research, Engineering 
and Development budget request and reviewed the current 
investment strategy. He pointed out that approximately 80 
percent of the budget is spent on safety-related activities 
such as finding solutions related to aging aircraft, aging 
wiring, and composite materials; 10 percent spent on 
environmental research; and 10 percent on weather research. Mr. 
Zaidman emphasized FAA's close working relationship with NASA 
and the Transportation Security Administration on research.
    Mr. Golaszewski testified about the continuing decline in 
spending for aeronautics-related research and development by 
both government and industry, and drew a corollary between this 
trend and our domestic industry's continuing decline in world 
market share for aerospace products. He noted that over the 
previous 15 years R&D investment by government and industry has 
been reduced by one-half. He concluded his oral statement by 
suggesting that the U.S./European Union agreement on government 
investment in large civil airframes be revisited in light of 
robust R&D funding programs put in place by the European Union.
    Mr. Swain stated that the government must continue to 
underwrite high-risk, long-term research programs important to 
the aeronautics industry. Technology spin-offs from these 
programs have had a significant impact on industry and produced 
critical new capabilities for our nation's defense. He also 
spoke about the necessity of pushing forward with research and 
development on a new air traffic management system to replace 
the current system.
    Dr. Cassidy applauded NASA's ``Aviation Blueprint.'' He 
raised concerns, though, about declining investment in research 
and development spending by government and industry. He cited 
the 50 percent decline in NASA aeronautics R&D spending over 
the last five years as a cause for concern. He noted that 
reduced R&D investment ultimately results in fewer new 
technologies and loss of market share for domestic companies 
that rely on NASA to lead the way in high-risk, long-term 
research programs.

            4.5(k)_Space Shuttle and Space Launch Initiative

                             April 18, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-79

Background
    The hearing examined NASA's plans to operate and maintain 
the Space Shuttle and NASA's strategy for developing a second-
generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) to replace the Space 
Shuttle. Specifically, the hearing reviewed NASA's plans for 
Shuttle safety and supportability upgrades, proposed reductions 
in Shuttle flight rate, the status of Shuttle launch 
infrastructure, plans for competitive sourcing of the Shuttle, 
ability of the workforce to support planned missions, and the 
status of studies to extend the operational life of the Space 
Shuttle beyond 2012. In addition, the hearing reviewed NASA's 
plans to develop and demonstrate technologies for a second-
generation reusable launch vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle 
under the Space Launch Initiative. Taken together, NASA's space 
transportation programs may cost $50-$60 billion over the next 
ten years.
    Witnesses included: (1) Mr. Fred Gregory, Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Space Flight, NASA; (2) Mr. 
Richard Blomberg, Chair of NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel; (3) Mr. Sam Venneri, Associate Administrator for 
Aerospace Technology, NASA; and (4) Mr. Gerard Elverum, Member 
of the NASA Space Transportation Subcommittee of the Aerospace 
Technology Advisory Committee.

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Gregory testified that the next decade poses new 
challenges for the Space Shuttle. Mr. Gregory testified that 
over the past ten years, the investment in Space Shuttle 
infrastructure was severely limited, due mainly to annual 
budgets that were unadjusted for inflation and other NASA 
priorities. NASA is investigating the cost and technical 
impacts that limiting the Shuttle flight rate to four flights 
per year will have to Agency programs. Mr. Gregory testified 
that NASA's plans to implement a prioritized list of Space 
Shuttle safety and supportability upgrades. This plan assumes 
that a new vehicle for human space flight transportation will 
be available by early next decade. Mr. Gregory also testified 
about the need and plans to revitalize Space Shuttle 
infrastructure and to retain a skilled workforce of both civil 
servants and contractors. NASA is investigating options of 
competitive sourcing for Space Shuttle operations, and using 
the Space Shuttle as a possible pathfinder to developing new 
technologies that could be used in a next generation RLV.
    Mr. Blomberg testified that the Panel believes the repeated 
postponement of safety upgrades, the delay in restoring aging 
infrastructure, and NASA's failure to look far enough ahead to 
anticipate and correct shortfalls in critical skills and 
logistics availability inevitably increases the risk of 
operating the Space Shuttle. Mr. Blomberg said that the 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel believes it is realistic to 
adopt a Space Shuttle phase-out date in the 2022 to 2025 
timeframe rather than NASA's current phase-out date of 2012. 
Mr. Blomberg observed that any plan to transition from the 
current operational posture to one involving significant 
privatization would inherently involve an upheaval with 
increased risk in its wake.
    Mr. Venneri testified about NASA's strategic goals for a 
next generation space transportation vehicle--to significantly 
reduce the risk of crew loss, reduce ground processing times in 
addition to other life cycle cost drivers, and thus reduce the 
overall costs of access to space. NASA's plan for achieving 
these goals is the Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP). 
Mr. Venneri stated that NASA's current ISTP calls for a 
decision at mid-decade (2006), depending on progress in the 
Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program's technology risk 
reduction, on whether to undertake full-scale development of a 
new human space flight transportation system which would be 
available by early next. Mr. Venneri testified that SLI would 
enable NASA to transition to a buyer of human space flight and 
International Space Station cargo launch services rather than 
as an operator of launch infrastructure.
    Mr. Elverum recommended that NASA define up-front the next 
generation space transportation vehicle system and operating 
requirements then control the design of a new reusable launch 
vehicle by conservatively matching the design to a viable 
funding profile. Mr. Elverum recommended that SLI should have a 
program orientation to produce a robust, low-cost second 
generation RLV by about 2015 and only fund major technologies 
defined by the outcome of detailed, conservative system 
engineering results for credible multi-stage RLV candidates.

                    4.5(l)_NASA's Science Priorities

                              May 9, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-64

Background
    The hearing examined NASA's programs in Space Science, 
Earth Science, and Biological and Physical Research. Also 
examined were strategies used to prioritize the missions and 
science goals within each of these enterprises.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Edward Weiler, NASA Associate 
Administrator for Space Science; (2) Dr. Ghassem Asrar, NASA 
Associate Administrator for Earth Science; and (3) Ms. Mary 
Kicza, NASA Associate Administrator for Biological and Physical 
Research.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Weiler testified on current accomplishments of NASA's 
Office of Space Science, including the recent STS-109 Space 
Shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), 
the future transition from HST to the Next Generation Space 
Telescope, and observations from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory 
and the Mars Global Surveyor. Dr. Weiler strongly advocated the 
Nuclear Systems Initiative proposed in the FY 2003 budget. He 
testified that nuclear power and nuclear electric propulsion 
would dramatically increase the lifetime of spacecraft, enable 
faster spacecraft, and increase science return. He advocated 
the proposal ``New Frontiers'' program of competitive missions 
for solar system exploration, and he stated that a future 
mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt could possibly be funded 
under this program with newer, better technology than currently 
proposed for such a mission.
    Dr. Asrar testified on current status of NASA's Earth 
Science Enterprise, including the deployment of the Earth 
Observing System (EOS) to provide data on the interaction of 
the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and continents. Dr. Asrar also 
discussed NASA's participation in the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program and the Climate Change Research Initiative. 
Dr. Asrar testified that advice from the science community has 
led to a prioritized list of 23 specific research questions to 
be addressed by missions of the Earth Science Enterprise. Dr. 
Asrar testified that one of the primary aims of the Earth 
Science Applications Program is to ``expand and accelerate the 
realization of societal and economic benefits from Earth 
science, information, and technology.''
    Ms. Kicza discussed the status of NASA's Biological and 
Physical Research Enterprise. She testified that research on 
the International Space Station and on the upcoming STS-107 
space shuttle mission will make significant contributions in a 
number of disciplines in both biological and physical sciences. 
Ms. Kicza also testified that, in addition to receiving 
research prioritization advice from the National Research 
Council, NASA has assembled a team of experts (Research 
Maximization and Prioritization (ReMaP) ) task force to help 
assess research priorities for biological and physical 
research. Ms. Kicza stated that NASA has elected to engage an 
internal NASA ISS Utilization Concept Development Team to 
examine options for the management of ISS utilization, 
including the possibility of management of the same station by 
a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).

     4.5(m)_How Space Technology and Data Can Help Meet State and 
                              Local Needs

                              May 20, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-69

Background
    The hearing addressed how data from space-based and 
aircraft-based remote sensing systems can help with land use 
planning, severe weather and natural disaster management, and 
transportation planning for state and local needs.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Ray Williamson, Research 
Professor, George Washington University Space Policy Institute; 
(2) Dr. Edward Martinko, Director, Kansas Applied Remote 
Sensing Program; (3) Mr. Ron Birk, Director, Applications 
Division, Earth Science Enterprise, NASA; and (4) Dr. Kevin 
Price, Professor of Geography, University of Kansas.

Summary of Hearing
    Dr. Williamson testified that state and local communities 
have benefited substantially over the years from federal 
investments in space technologies, including remote sensing, 
global positioning, weather monitoring, and geospatial 
information services. Dr. Williamson showed that the cost and 
risks of natural disasters could be reduced by the predictive 
techniques made possible by investments in Earth science 
research. Dr. Williamson observed that data analysis for Earth 
science research is often under-funded compared to the 
satellite budget, that collected data from Earth science 
satellites is often unused, and that training is needed to 
encourage wider use of the data already available.
    Dr. Martinko testified on how university-affiliated remote 
sensing organizations assist federal, state, and local agencies 
in overcoming the barriers of using satellite imagery. Dr. 
Martinko recommended an often-iterative process of extensive 
research, demonstration projects, pilot studies, and a 
continuing program of outreach with each agency. Dr. Martinko 
recommended funding for the development of decision support 
tools, the establishment of regional centers of expertise to 
provide agencies support with remote sensing applications, and 
data continuity with an open data policy of earth observations.
    Mr. Birk testified on NASA's Earth Science Applications 
Program and the strategy for the program. The overarching goal 
for the Earth Science Applications Program is to bridge the gap 
between Earth science research results and the adoption of data 
and prediction capabilities for reliable and sustained use in 
decision support. Mr. Birk highlighted the program partnerships 
established to work with NASA to assimilate Earth science data 
into decision support systems, and then to implement them 
locally throughout the United States.
    Dr. Price testified on the unique application of remote 
sensing information to agriculture planning and monitoring. Dr. 
Price recommended that the key link to technology transfer of 
remote sensing is the establishment and continued support of 
applied research to bridge between fundamental research and 
commercial product development. Applied research in remote 
sensing increases the number of users, relevance to the 
taxpayer, return on investment, and commercial involvement.

            4.5(n)_NASA Workforce and Management Challenges

                             July 18, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-85

Background
    The hearing examined the Administration's goals for 
transforming the agency over the next five years, the top 
management challenges that must be overcome to realize these 
goals, the challenges NASA faces in reshaping and restructuring 
its workforce, the need for legislation to provide new and 
expanded authorities for recruiting and retaining a high-
quality workforce, and how NASA's legislative proposals on 
human capital support the transformation of the agency and its 
workforce.
    Witnesses included: (1) The Honorable David Walker, 
Comptroller General of the United States; (2) The Honorable 
Sean O'Keefe, Administrator, NASA; and (3) Mr. Mark Roth, 
General Counsel, American Federation of Government Employees 
(AFGE).

Summary of Hearing
    Mr. Walker testified on the General Accounting Office's 
perspective to NASA's top management challenges, focusing on 
its human capital challenges but also including it's financial 
and contract management. He observed that modern, effective, 
credible, and equitable human capital strategies are key to any 
successful transformation effort. He testified that such a 
transformation will take five to seven years, and while a vast 
majority of the transformation efforts can be done within the 
context of current law, that NASA needed additional authority 
to provide reasonable flexibility with appropriate safeguards 
to prevent abuse of employees.
    Mr. O'Keefe testified that the President's Management 
Agenda identified human capital as one of the top five issues 
that need to be confronted. NASA has three times as many 
scientists and engineers over the age of 60 years old as under 
the age of 30 years old, and the human capital pipeline in 
science and engineering undergraduate and graduate schools is 
declining. NASA's strategy is fourfold: 1) to use existing 
authorities under Title 5 and the Space Act of 1958, as 
amended; 2) to develop an agency-wide human capital strategic 
plan to begin targeted hiring objectives, professional 
development strategies, and workforce shaping techniques that 
draw the best benchmarking from across federal agencies; 3) to 
refine NASA's mission and vision to include the inspiration of 
the next generation of explorers through education initiatives; 
and 4) to seek additional legislative authority based on the 
Managerial Flexibilities Act. The areas emphasized in NASA's 
request for additional legislative authorities emphasize the 
need to recruit experienced scientists and engineers for mid-
level entry, to recruit to achieve diversity objectives, to 
retain high performers, to use innovative human capital 
techniques that have been pilot tested in other agencies 
previously.
    Mr. Roth testified on NASA's draft proposals for civil 
service exemptions. Mr. Roth testified that the human capital 
crisis is government-wide, but that it is unwise to make 
necessary civil service changes on an agency-by-agency basis. 
The AFGE opposes most of NASA's human resource proposals, and 
Mr. Roth noted that the primary jurisdiction for this 
legislation is with the Committee on Government Reform. Mr. 
Roth criticized NASA's program for downsizing and outsourcing 
efforts over the past decade and that NASA's human capital 
proposals are paradoxical by offering buyouts to certain 
employees while offering recruitment and retention bonuses to 
others. AFGE opposes an extension of the Interagency Personnel 
Act and NASA's request for direct hire authority. While the 
AFGE supports bonuses, studies have shown that less than one 
percent of eligible federal employees received recruitment and 
retention bonuses due to lack of funds. The AFGE does not 
oppose demonstration projects in general, but NASA's proposal 
needed to be re-drafted to answer certain concerns.

               4.5(o)_The Threat of Near-Earth Asteroids

                            October 3, 2002

                       Hearing Volume No. 107-89

Background
    The hearing examined the progress of NASA toward the 
current goal of identifying and tracking 90 percent of Near-
Earth Objects (NEOs) larger than one kilometer in size by 2008. 
In addition, the hearing explored the question of next steps 
beyond this survey goal, including the costs, benefits, and 
technical challenges of extending the survey to include 
smaller, yet still potentially very hazardous, objects. Agency 
roles and interagency cooperation in the NEO survey effort were 
discussed. The role of amateur astronomers was also discussed, 
in light of the passage of H.R. 5303, the ``Charles `Pete' 
Conrad Astronomy Awards Act,'' introduced by Rep. Dana 
Rohrabacher (R-CA) to reward amateur astronomers who discover 
and track NEOs.
    Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Edward Weiler, NASA Associate 
Administrator for Space Science; (2) Dr. David Morrison, Senior 
Scientist, NASA Ames Research Center; (3) Brigadier General 
Simon ``Pete'' Worden, U.S. Air Force; (4) Dr. Brian Marsden, 
Director, Minor Planet Center, Smithsonian Astrophysical 
Observatory; and (5) Dr. Joseph Burns, Irving Porter Church 
Professor of Engineering and Astronomy, Cornell University.

Summary of Hearing
    Major topics addressed included the risks posed by NEOs, 
the status of the current U.S. survey effort for NEOs, 
recommendations for extending current survey goals to include 
smaller, more numerous objects, and the challenges of data 
management. Dr. Morrison testified on the threat of collisions 
with asteroids and comets. He stated that the greatest risk 
today is not from objects large enough to cause global 
extinctions (such as is believed to have caused the extinction 
of the dinosaurs) but rather from objects large enough to 
perturb the Earth's climate on a global scale by injecting 
large quantities of dust into the stratosphere. Objects of 
about one kilometer in size pose such a threat and are thus the 
target of the current U.S. survey for NEOs. He stated that the 
next logical goal is to search for objects that could kill 
millions of people upon impact, and thus a target of objects 
200-300 meters in diameter would make sense since these pose 
the greatest tsunami danger. Dr. Morrison emphasized that the 
goal of the current survey is not to find objects on their 
final plunge toward Earth, but rather to identify objects in 
nearby orbits for future monitoring. Thus a discovery of an 
object that has already passed the Earth in its orbit is still 
a ``success.''
    Dr. Weiler testified on progress of NASA's current ground-
based survey for NEOs, given the current goal of identifying 90 
percent of Near-Earth Asteroids larger than one kilometer in 
size by 2008. Dr. Weiler stated that there are estimated to be 
about 1000 such asteroids, and that the six groups currently 
funded by NASA for such research have together discovered over 
600 objects and are ahead of the predicted schedule; it is thus 
likely that the 2008 goal will be reached. As for extending the 
survey goal to comprehensively include objects smaller than one 
kilometer in size, Dr. Weiler felt that it was premature to 
decide what an extended goal should be. Dr. Weiler stated that 
if such an extended survey effort were conducted from the 
ground, then NASA should not play a part in the survey effort 
because NASA is primarily an agency for space-based missions. 
He stated that NASA's role is better suited for detailed study 
of particular asteroids and comets, such as the NEAR-Shoemaker 
mission and the upcoming DAWN, Deep Impact, and Stardust 
missions. He also stated that new technology from the Nuclear 
Systems Initiative and the In-Space Propulsion Initiative 
should benefit future missions for detailed studies of 
asteroids and comets.
    Dr. Burns testified on the recommendations regarding NEOs 
from the recent National Research Council report entitled ``New 
Frontiers in the Solar System,'' resulting from the Solar 
System Exploration (SSE) Survey conducted with scientists 
nationwide. One of the primary recommendations from the report 
is for NASA and the National Science Foundation to contribute 
equally to the construction and operation of a Large-aperture 
Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), a 6.5-meter-effective-
diameter, very wide field (~3 deg) telescope that would produce 
a digital map of the visible sky every week, at a total cost of 
$125 million. Dr. Burns stated that the LSST could locate 90 
percent of all NEOs down to 300 meters in size, enable 
computations of their orbits, and permit assessment of their 
threat to Earth. Dr. Burns testified that NASA should continue 
to be involved in ground-based NEO surveys even if the survey 
goals were extended, because of NASA's experience with ground-
based telescopes and because NASA has always been charged with 
using ground-based telescopes if they aided space-based 
missions.
    Dr. Marsden testified on the management of data reported 
daily to the Minor Planet Center of the Smithsonian 
Astrophysical Observatory regarding the observations of 
asteroids and comets. NEOs comprise less that one percent of 
the observations of asteroids as a whole. Dr. Marsden testified 
that the Minor Planet Center collects reports from around the 
world of detections of NEOs and other asteroids and comets and 
publishes confirmed detections electronically in the Minor 
Planet Electronic Circular. Dr. Marsden stated that 
augmentation of the Minor Planet Center staff is essential if 
the number of asteroid discoveries continues to increase, as 
would be expected with an extension of the NEO survey goals to 
include objects of smaller sizes. Dr. Marsden testified that 
most follow-up tracking observations of NEOs are made by 
amateur astronomers and that the Pete Conrad award, introduced 
by Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher and passed by the 
House of Representatives as H.R. 5303, would be an 
encouragement to them. He stated that amateurs also need ready 
access to electronic equipment to make their work possible. Dr. 
Marsden testified that attention should also be given to long-
period comets, which could pose an even greater risk than 
asteroids because they are less predictable.
    General Worden testified that the U.S. military is 
developing sensitive surveillance technologies that could serve 
in a ``dual-use'' capacity by contributing to the detection of 
NEOs. Such technology would augment the current efforts of U.S. 
military telescopes used by NASA in NEO projects such as LINEAR 
Gen. Worden stated that while developing mitigation strategies 
for any threatening object discovered should be a high 
priority, the ``command and control'' structure is even more 
important, providing timely coordination of mitigation plans. 
Gen. Worden stated that the U.S. military could serve in such a 
coordination role. Gen. Worden testified that infalling 
asteroids explode in the atmosphere roughly once a month as 
detected by military surveillance equipment, and that such 
explosions could be mistaken for a nuclear detonation, sparking 
an unwarranted international response in times of international 
tension. He recommended a ``clearinghouse'' structure for quick 
worldwide notification when the U.S. military detects such an 
asteroid impact in the atmosphere.
                                Appendix

                              ----------                              







                          Views and Estimates
               Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 2002

BACKGROUND

    Science and technology are the keystones of our economic 
prosperity: Economists attribute much of the Nation's improvement in 
productivity in recent years to the fruits of research and development 
(R&D)--and that productivity improvement has fuelled the longest period 
of economic expansion in our nation's history.
    Moreover, science and technology have the potential to cure 
numerous domestic and global social ills--disease, poverty, hunger, 
cultural isolation and environmental degradation, to name just a few.
    But advances in science and technology do not come cheap or without 
focused effort; nor are they solely the responsibility of the private 
sector. Throughout our history, and especially in the years since World 
War II, the Federal Government has played a fundamental role 
in underwriting research and development, especially (but not 
exclusively) basic research at the Nation's universities. This 
investment, which has a long history of bipartisan support, has paidoff 
with handsome benefits for all Americans.
    While the percentage of national R&D sponsored by the Federal 
Government has declined in recent years, the federal role remains 
essential. Indeed, as competitive pressures have led many industrial 
enterprises to focus research on projects with shorter-term benefits, 
longer-term research depends more than ever on federal support.
    None of these assertions is new or unfounded. They are, for 
example, discussed in the Committee's report Unlocking Our Future: 
Toward a New National Science Policy, prepared by Congressman Vernon 
Ehlers, at the request of the Speaker, in the 105th Congress.

ISSUES FOR THE 107TH CONGRESS

    In the 107th Congress, the Committee intends to continue to build 
on, and implement the principles in the Ehlers report and similar 
reports that have underscored the need to invest inR&D.
    The Committee will be especially attentive to issues relating to 
education, energy policy and the environment--three issues central to 
the Nation in which the science agencies under the Committee's 
jurisdiction play a significant role.
    No research and development agenda will be successful or long-lived 
without a strong, healthy education system--a system that from 
kindergarten through graduate school ensures that the Nation has a 
scientifically literate citizenry and an adequate science and 
engineering workforce. Currently, our system provides neither. The most 
recent international surveys show American students lagging behind their 
foreign counterparts in science, and American performance gets worse the 
longer students are in school. Moreover, the continuing need to increase 
the number of H091B visas is a glaring indication that too few 
Americans are prepared for jobs that require technical skills.
    In his Budget Blueprint, the President rightly acknowledges that 
the National Science Foundation (NSF) has an important role to play in 
improving science and mathematics education. The Committee looks forward 
to working with the Administration and our colleagues in Congress to 
ensure that NSF has the funding to contribute significantly to federal 
efforts to improve science and math education.
    Energy policy also depends on science and technology--to improve 
the extraction and efficiency of fossil fuels, and to develop newer, 
safer, more efficient and more environmentally benign ways to generate 
and exploit energy. Therefore, the energy supply programs of 
the Department of Energy must be adequately funded. Those programs also 
must be reviewed to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient 
and effective way.
    Environmental policy is also--or certainly ought to be--founded on 
science and technology. Environmental laws and regulations must be based 
on the soundest and most recent research. In addition, R&D can lead to 
environmental solutions by developing more environmentally 
friendly technologies.
    The Committee intends to work to improve the quality of 
environmental research. The Committee will be reviewing the 
organizational structure of research at the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). The Committee is pleased to see more agencies, most 
notably NSF, making a commitment to environmental research--an area in 
which many fundamental questions remain unanswered.
    The Committee will also work to enhance federal research in other 
fundamental areas, such as information technology, which are important 
to our economy. The Committee will once again draw on the 
recommendations of the Congressionally-chartered President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), whose term was 
recently extended by President Bush.
    Finally, the Committee will review the balance within the federal 
research portfolio, which has become a growing concern as the budget of 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has grown far faster than that 
of any other science agency. No one would gainsay the contributions of 
NIH, but nor can anyone deny that scientific progress, even in 
biomedical fields, depends on advances in a wide variety of disciplines.
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration and 
our Congressional colleagues to try to develop ways to determine whether 
the current portfolio is too heavily weighted toward NIH, and, if it is, 
to figure out what a balanced portfolio would be.

                      RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

    These recommendations are general because the President's budget 
document, A Blueprint for New Beginnings, understandably, provides only 
sketchy details at this point for most of the agencies under the 
Committee's jurisdiction.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation
    NSF, which the Committee intends to reauthorize this year, funds 
about 25 percent of the basic research conducted at U.S. universities, 
and a far higher percentage of the research in selected fields. In 
addition, NSF funds programs to improve K0912 and undergraduate 
education, and its fellowships and research assistantships support many 
graduate and post-doctoral students.
    In Fiscal 2001, NSF received a 14 percent increase, the largest 
dollar increase in its history, and some Members of Congress, on a 
bipartisan basis, have called for doubling NSF's budget over five years. 
President Ronald Reagan called for such a doubling in the 1980s.
    The Committee is concerned that the Budget Blueprint calls for only 
a minuscule increase in the NSF budget for FY 2002, and appears to cut 
funding for research grants and/or research equipment (even in current 
dollars). While the Committee understands that macroeconomic constraints 
may prevent NSF from increasing at last year's unprecedented rate, NSF 
should continue to grow in FY 2002 and future years. The Committee looks 
forward to working with the Administration, which has expressed support 
for NSF's mission and programs, to ensure that its funding is 
commensurate with its importance.
    In addition, while the Committee is gratified that the President 
has recognized the essential work of NSF in improving science and 
mathematics education, the Committee believes that greater funding may 
be necessary to carry out that mission. The Administration 
has recommended spending $200 million on a program of new grants for 
partnerships among states, universities and school districts--a 
promising approach. However, the proposal includes only $90 million in 
new funding, and the Committee awaits with interest the specific 
proposal for redirecting current education spending at NSF.
    The Committee is pleased that the Administration will be reviewing 
NSF programs to determine the optimal grant size and duration, and to 
improve management of large projects.

Federal Emergency Management Agency--United States Fire Administration
    The Fire Administration helps localities improve their ability to 
prevent, control and extinguish fires. The enacted authorization level 
(P.L. 10609503) for the Fire Administration programs within the 
Committee's jurisdiction for FY 2002 is $47.8 million.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    NEHRP is an interagency program led by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and including NSF, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The program is credited 
with reducing the loss of life and property from earthquakes through 
improving emergency response, knowledge of earthquake risks, and 
earthquake engineering. Most states face at least some risk from 
earthquakes.
    The enacted authorization level (P.L. 10609503) for NEHRP for FY 
2002 is $108.5 million for the base program, with additional 
authorizations for multi-year efforts to create and operate the Advanced 
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, to create the George 
E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, to study 
the New Madrid fault, which threatens the eastern half of the United 
States; and to fund a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee 
at the Geological Survey.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    The Committee has jurisdiction over EPA research and development 
funded in three appropriations accounts: Environmental Programs and 
Management, including the Science Advisory Board; Science and 
Technology, including Superfund R&D Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
R&D and Oil Spill Research; and State and Tribal Assistance Grants 
(Clean Air Partnership Demonstration Fund).
    The Budget Blueprint provides no indication of funding levels for 
EPA's R&D programs, although it does, encouragingly, state that ``EPA 
intends to improve the role of science in decision-making.'' The 
Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to accomplish 
this, both by reviewing the organizational structure of R&D at EPA, and 
by ensuring adequate funding for R&D programs. In doing so, the 
Committee will draw heavily on the National Research Council's report 
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
published last year.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    The work of NOAA, which accounts for more than half of the 
Department of Commerce's budget, affects every American, particularly 
through the National Weather Service.
    The Committee is pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for an 
increase in funding for NOAA overall and increased funding of $83 
million to continue procurement of the next generation of weather 
satellites. The Committee also notes the Administration's stated 
intention to reallocate funds within NOAA ``to ensure that funds are 
targeted to the highest priority environmental needs.'' The Committee 
awaits, with interest, the specific details of the 
proposedreallocation.
    The Committee believes that the Nation must vastly increase its 
knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere, oceans and climate--areas 
of research in which progress has been made in recent years, largely 
because of the increased availability of technology. The Committee looks 
forward to working with the Administration to ensure that research 
progress continues apace.

Department of Commerce--Technology Administration
    The Budget Blueprint provides few indications about plans for the 
programs under the Technology Administration, which the Committee 
created in 1988 (P.L. 1000948).
    First priority must be given to enhancing the Scientific and 
Technical Research and Services account of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). As NIST celebrates its 100yh 
anniversary, its laboratory programs, which help industry compete at 
home and abroad, are more important than ever.
    The Committee also continues to support the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, which helps smaller manufacturers modernize to remain 
competitive.
    Finally, the Committee looks forward to working with the 
Administration as it reviews the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The 
Committee hopes that ways can be found to structure ATP so it can 
continue to be a catalyst for innovation without being an 
ideological lightning rod. One possible approach would be to increase 
the role of the states in ATP.
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
determine the best method to enable NTIS to inform the public as a self-
sustaining entity.

Department of Transportation--Surface Transportation Research and 
        Development
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
ensure that adequate funding is provided for this account. In 
particular, the Committee is interested in steps that would increase the 
use of alternative fueled vehicles.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)
    The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's civilian energy research, 
development, and demonstration programs and commercial application of 
energy technology activities.
    The Committee is concerned that the Budget Blueprint contains a 
three percent cut in DOE's budget from FY 2001 levels. However, it is 
impossible to analyze the implications of this proposal without further 
details.
    The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of the 
Office of Science, which funds user facilities and academic research. In 
recent years, many user facilities have had to cutback their hours 
because of funding limitations, idling investments that have cost 
taxpayers billions. In addition, the Committee believes that money must 
be budgeted now to address the aging of many DOE facilities and staff. 
The Committee continues to closely monitor the construction of the 
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to ensure 
that it remains on schedule and budget.
    The Committee is pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for 
increased spending on solar and renewable energy research. However, the 
Committee believes that this increased spending should occur regardless 
of the fate of the Administration's proposal to open up the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Energy conservation and 
efficiency programs also must bepart of a comprehensive energy policy.
    The Committee is also pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for 
reforms and investment in the Clean Coal program. The Committee awaits, 
with interest, the details of these proposals. The Committee believes 
the Nation requires a balanced energy supply research portfolio with 
healthy funding for coal, oil, nuclear and renewable energy sources, as 
well as energy efficiency and conservation.
    The Committee shares the Administration's concerns about DOE 
contract management, and its plans to review DOE cost-sharing policies. 
The Committee is pleased with the Administration's praise for the 
program devoted to advanced automotive R&D.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    The Budget Blueprint includes a two percent increase for NASA for 
FY 2002, but it is difficult to assess the adequacy of that request 
without further details.
    Of greatest concern is the future of the International Space 
Station. The Committee continues to support development of the Space 
Station within the $25 billion development cap enacted into law last 
year (P.L. 10609391). The Committee applauds the Administration 
for reviewing the costs of the Space Station and for its commitment to 
solving the Space Station's funding problems within the Human Space 
Flight appropriations accounts. However, the Committee remains concerned 
that the proposed steps to contain the Space Station's cost growth may 
prove inadequate to addressing a $4 billion problem. The Committee is 
especially concerned that NASA does not seem to have any milestones or 
contingency plans to evaluate the success ofits redesign proposals or 
to respond if the redesign saves less money than expected. Moreover,the 
redesign plans could create troubles of their own. For example, 
reducing or eliminating workon the propulsion module and Crew Return 
Vehicle may prolong U.S. dependence on Russia for critical Station 
functions. The Committee awaits additional detail from the 
Administration on its plans to address these issues and to preserve a 
viable research program on a redesigned Space Station.
    The Committee agrees with the Administration's commitment to safe 
operation of the Space Shuttle and its intention to move forward with 
Space Shuttle safety upgrades.
    The Committee appreciates the Administration's commitment to space 
and earth science, particularly its decision to ensure that the Mars 
exploration program and the second generation of Earth Observing 
Satellites are adequately funded. The Committee, noting the 
cancellation of the Pluto-Kuiper Express, believes that NASA should 
develop an integrated science strategy for exploring the outer planets.
    The Committee is concerned by the indication that aeronautics 
programs will be cut, continuing a baleful trend. The Committee urges 
the Administration to quickly appoint the Commission on the Future of 
the Aerospace Industry called for in the Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal 2001 (P.L. 10609398).
    The Committee endorses the principles laid out in the Budget 
Blueprint for the Space Launch Initiative.
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration as 
it reviews ways to strengthen NASA's ``critical capabilities.''
    The enacted authorization level for NASA for FY 2002 (P.L. 
10609391) is $14,625,400.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
develop an integrated R&D strategy for aeronautics. This will require an 
increased investment in research and development, both to ensure the 
health of the U.S. aeronautics industry--which, from its infancy, has 
drawn on federally supported R&D--and to resolve the growing problems 
in air traffic control. Our nation's competitors, especially European 
governments, are making such an investment. If action is not taken now, 
the Nation will face a future crisis. Already, the average age of U.S. 
aeronautical engineers is reaching the upper 40s and a lack of domestic 
wind tunnels is driving U.S. engineers to rent time in European research 
facilities.
    The Committee calls on the Administration to allow modest growth in 
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation to meet the goals of the 
Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 2000 (P.L. 
10609405). That law authorizes $16,478,000 for the Office inFY 2002.
Department of Commerce--Office of Space Commercialization
    The Committee urges continued funding of this office, which has 
played a useful role inpromoting the commercialization of space, 
working with private industry, and making the best use of the Global 
Positioning System. P.L. 10609405 authorizes $608,000 for the Office in 
FY2002.



                       Minority Additional Views
                      FY 2002 Views and Estimates
                     to the House Budget Committee
                             March 16, 2001

Introduction

    Like last year, it is difficult to take a position on the 
Majority's Views and Estimates for FY2002 since the report fails to 
meet its legislative mandate of providing a five-year 
funding recommendation for agencies under our jurisdiction. Perhaps the 
majority's lack of detail reflects the lack of specificity in the 
President's budget document A Blueprint for New Beginnings. Despite its 
failings, however, many of us signed the Majority's Views and Estimates 
to show support for our new Chairman, and because the content of that 
report was both inoffensive and generally pointed in the right 
direction.
    However, our deference to the Chairman should not be viewed as 
indifference to the fate of Federal research funding. What we know of 
the new Administration's budget concerns us. We are pleased to see a 
healthy increase for NIH in the request. Defense basic research may 
also farewell once the final budget is submitted. But the numbers 
available on NSF and NASA cause us deep concern. Neither of these 
premier science agencies receives a requested increase that even keeps 
pace with inflation. Lest some view our reaction to this request as 
overly partisan, we will rely on the reaction of another New York 
Republican to summarize our view: James Walsh, the House VA09HUD09IA 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, dismissed the NSF request 
as falling surprisingly far short fiscally.
    Almost three years ago, the Majority released the oft-cited Science 
Policy Study. That document says that ``. . .to build upon the strength 
of the research enterprise we must make federal research funding stable 
and substantial.'' What that document didn't say is whether that steady 
and substantial funding should trend upwards or downwards in absolute 
terms over time. After all, a Federal research portfolio which slowly 
declines from $90 billion to $80 billion doesshow a steady and 
substantial funding profile. Unfortunately, the Majority's Views add 
noclarification to the vague language of that report. Such ambiguity 
and indecision, in the newly tightened budget climate, is dangerous.
    We want to clearly state that we believe--along with such diverse 
sources as Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Andy 
Grove of INTEL, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security--
that Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for 
continued economic success and security in our high technology economy. 
We also believe that funding for our science agencies--all of our 
agencies, not just a select set--must be increased.

National Science Foundation

    In light of the essential role research plays in driving the 
economy and serving national security, it is disappointing that the 
Administration's requests for NSF and other civilian science agencies 
(with the exception of NIH) are at or below appropriations levels for 
the current fiscal year. For NSF, the budget request proposes a total 
increase of only $56 million (1.3 percent), and all of that and more 
goes to education programs rather than research. Adjusted for 
inflation, this request will result in a three to four percent decline 
in NSF's budget for competitive researchgrants.
    Within this declining budget, NSF is instructed to launch a $200 
million initiative in science education, introduce a new program in 
mathematics research, and maintain existing research initiatives in 
information technology, bio-complexity and nanotechnology. The 
core, discipline-based research programs at NSF will be eroded both by 
inflation and by these new initiatives.
    Of course, the Majority understands the importance of Federally 
supported research and no doubt agrees that NSF plays a vital role in 
support of basic research and education across all fields of science and 
engineering. Unfortunately, their budget guidance fails to follow 
through. We were surprised that the Majority did not recommend a robust 
funding level for NSF. At abare minimum we believe they could advocate 
a funding increase for the Foundation that keep space with inflation for 
all the programs at the agency.
    Vowing to work with the Administration to ensure that funding is in 
line with the agency's importance is an inadequate position in a 
document that will guide the Budget Committee in its mid-March markup of 
a Budget Resolution. We too will work with the Administration, but 
we believe it is necessary to increase the NSF budget for FY 2002 by at 
least 15 percent to enable the Foundation to carry out adequately its 
vital role in support of science and engineering education and research. 
We agree with Dr. D. Allen Bromley, former President Bush's science 
advisor from 1989091993, who made the following statement regarding the 
Administration's FY 2002 funding request in a March 9 New York Times op-
ed:

        ``The Bush budget includes cuts, after accounting for 
        inflation, to the three primary sources of ideas and personnel 
        in the high-tech economy: NSF is cut by 2.6 percent, NASA by3.6 
        percent, and the Department of Energy by an alarming 7.1 
        percent. The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-
        defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment 
        in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple.''

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    With regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
there are several points that need to be made if the Budget Committee is 
to have a proper context for its deliberations. We would note that the 
proposed percentage increase in NASA's funding level is half the average 
increase proposed for the Federal Government's discretionary accounts. 
This increase, which is lower than inflation, when coupled with the 
dismal requests for other civilian R&D agencies, sends a negative 
message about the relative priority that the Administration attaches to 
Federal investments in cutting-edge research and development.
    It is discouraging that the Administration is intent on cutting 
NASA's aeronautics programs, would eliminate two planned space science 
projects (the Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar Probemissions), 
discontinue remote sensing and environmental applications projects, and 
``reduce''information technology programs. No convincing rationale for 
those cuts is provided other than the implicit one of attempting to meet 
an artificially low funding level for NASA as a whole. 
TheAdministration's budget request proposes making significant changes 
to the International Space Station program. We strongly believe that the 
Administration needs to ensure that any actions taken to mitigate the 
effects of cost growth do not wind up undermining the utility of the 
research facility in which we have invested so many taxpayer dollars. At 
a minimum, we would advise the Budget Committee to provide a budget 
increase to NASA that tracks the rate of technical inflation.

Other Agencies

    What we are hearing about the treatment of research accounts at the 
Department of Energy and Interior also concerns us. The budget lacks 
much detail on these areas, but rumors of cuts up to 20 percent seem to 
be dominating the specialized press for these agencies.
    One specific example that has received wide treatment in the press 
can be found in there ports of a seven percent cut to the renewable and 
efficiency energy research programs at the Department of Energy. Such a 
step would be an unwise approach to reducing our dependence on foreign 
oil and diversifying our energy production portfolio. The Bush budget 
and the Majority Views claim an increase in this account, but it would 
not materialize until FY04 and then only under the far-from-certain 
scenario of oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We 
would ask the Budget Committee to recommend that these programs 
continue to grow at a rate equivalent to that approved by the Republican 
Congress over the past several years.

Conclusion

    Finally, many in the science and education community have begun to 
ask whether there is an ``imbalance'' in our research portfolio, with 
too much funding being concentrated in the biomedical sciences. The 
Administration, by flat funding NSF while moving NIH along the 
pathtowards its five-year doubling goal, exacerbates this problem. We 
don't pretend to know what the exact balance among science investments 
should be, but our intuitive sense is that there is already an 
imbalance, and making it worse is not a productive step.
    The Majority's promise to work with the Administration to see 
``if'' the portfolio is too heavily weighted toward the NIH is too weak. 
Frankly, this is a step back from last year's views, when the Majority 
condemned an over-investment in biomedical work to the exclusion 
of other fields. The FY 2001 Committee Views stated that ``contributions 
of computer science, physics, mathematics, engineering and other fields 
to biomedical research illustrate the need to secure funding for 
fundamental science as part of the Federal Government's overall 
research agenda.'' This language is more in keeping with our views.
    We stand ready to work with the Majority in the effort to educate 
the new Administration on the importance of Federal R&D to our economic 
vitality and national security. We stand ready to engage the 
Administration in an ongoing dialogue about the best way to invest in 
the future of our nation. However, we know that the Budget Committee 
cannot wait for that day when the Administration comes to understand the 
obvious--that R&D is the lifeblood of innovation and underlies economic 
growth. Therefore, we have tried to provide at least minimal guidance 
onhow to responsibly treat civilian research accounts in the FY 2002 
budget.



                       Views and Estimates of the
               Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 2003

BACKGROUND

    Science and technology are the keystones of our economic prosperity 
and national security.
    Economists attribute much of the Nation's improvement in 
productivity in recent years to the fruits of research and development 
(R&D)--and that productivity improvement fueled the longest period of 
economic expansion in our nation's history.
    Advancements in science and technology were also critical to the 
Nation's ability to triumph in the Cold War. (Indeed, Cold War-era 
investments in science and technology, especially those made in the wake 
of the Soviet launch of Sputnik, laid much of the foundation for the 
broad, successful scientific and engineering enterprise the U.S. boasts 
today.) New ideas, understandings and technologies spawned by research 
and development are likely to be just asessential to winning the war 
against terrorism.
    Moreover, science and technology have the potential to cure 
numerous domestic and global social ills--disease, poverty, hunger, 
cultural isolation and environmental degradation, to name just a few.
    But advances in science and technology do not come cheap or without 
focused effort; nor are they solely the responsibility of the private 
sector. Throughout our history, and especially in the years since World 
War II, the Federal Government has played a fundamental role 
in underwriting research and development, especially (but not 
exclusively) basic research at the Nation's universities. This 
investment, which has a long history of bipartisan support, has paid off 
with handsome benefits for all Americans.
    While the percentage of national R&D sponsored by the Federal 
Government has declined in recent years, the federal role remains 
essential. Indeed, as competitive pressures have led many industrial 
enterprises to focus research on projects with shorter-term benefits, 
longer-term research depends more than ever on federal support.
    None of these assertions is new or unfounded. They are, for 
example, discussed in the Committee's report Unlocking Our Future: 
Toward a New National Science Policy, prepared by Congressman Vernon 
Ehlers, at the request of the Speaker, in the 105th Congress.

INTERAGENCY ISSUES FOR THE 107TH CONGRESS--Second Session

    In the second session of the 107th Congress, the Science Committee 
will continue to focus on its three top priorities--mathematics and 
science education, energy policy and the environment--as well as coming 
up with new approaches to fighting the war against terrorism 
and undertaking an in-depth review of the space program. Most of the 
Committee's concerns and interests in these and other areas are captured 
in the agency-by-agency discussion in the next section. But three sets 
of central concerns that cut across agency lines need to be reviewed 
first.
Presidential Initiatives
    The Administration's budget highlights four ``multi-agency R&D 
priorities''--work onanti-terrorism, networking and information 
technology, nanotechnology, and climate change. (Analytical 
Perspectives, p. 164) The Committee strongly endorses these 
initiatives, and agrees that they deserve priority in funding.
    The Administration is still developing its procedures for 
developing, managing, prioritizing, and categorizing anti-terrorism R&D. 
This is understandable given how quickly the United States has had to 
change its focus since September 11th. The Committee looks forward to 
working with the Administration in putting together a portfolio of anti-
terrorism R&D that addresses a widerange of threats in both the long- 
and short-term. (The Committee's own initiatives in this area are 
discussed below.)
    The Administration proposes a three percent increase for the 
interagency program on Networking and Information Technology (NITRD). 
The Committee believes this is the bare minimum the program needs. The 
Committee, by voice vote, late last year approved H.R. 3400, which would 
provide the NITRD agencies under our jurisdiction with $35 million more 
in Fiscal Year (FY) 03 than the Administration has requested. Under the 
bill, which is based on the recommendations of the President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), spending on the 
Committee's NITRD agencies would increase from $1.076 billion in FY02 
to $1.157 billion in FY03 to $1.688 billion in FY07.
    The Administration proposes increasing spending on nano technology 
by 17 percent. This promising, broadly applicable technology field 
merits the additional spending. The Committeemay address nano technology 
R&D in legislation later in the year.
    The Administration proposes two new initiatives designed to address 
climate change, over and above the ongoing U.S. Global Change Research 
Program--$40 million for a Climate Change Research Initiative, designed 
to address questions most relevant to policy-makers; and $40 million for 
a National Climate Change Technology Initiative. While the details of 
the initiatives remain to be worked out, the Committee supports this 
new, focused effort. The Committee plans to reauthorize the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program this year.
Anti-terrorism R&D
    Just like the Cold War, the war against terrorism will be won in 
the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. While some R&D must be 
devoted to finding short-term solutions to immediate concerns, the 
Nation must invest in long-term R&D to develop new approaches to both 
current and future threats. The Committee approved two bills last year 
designed to do just that, and is committed to see the programs created 
by them receive adequate funding.
    The Committee, by voice vote, approved H.R. 3394, the Cyber 
Security Research and Development Act, in December, and the House passed 
the bill by a vote of 4000912 in February.The bill would establish new 
research initiatives at both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) designed to 
come up with innovative approaches to computer security, and to draw 
more senior researchers and students into the field. For FY03, the bill 
authorizes $73 million for NSF and $32 million for NIST.
    The Committee also approved, by voice vote, H.R. 3178, the Water 
Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act, which the House 
passed by voice vote. The bill authorizes $12 million in FY03 for R&D 
related to water security at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Balance in the Federal Research Portfolio
    While the Committee believes that the Administration has chosen the 
appropriate priorities for the federal R&D budget, it is nonetheless 
concerned that the biomedical sciences, in general, and the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), in particular, are growing out of all 
proportion to any other element of the R&D budget. Indeed, just the 
increase proposed for the NIH in FY03 is larger than the entire proposed 
research budget for NSF. While the Committee supports the doubling of 
NIH, it is concerned that unless the needs of other agencies are 
addressed, many scientific opportunities will be missed and even health 
research itself will be retarded.
    Similarly, while Defense Department development programs are 
critical to our national security, those programs alone cannot create a 
stable and secure American society or even ensure our protection from 
enemy attacks over the long-term. Yet while the Pentagon is slated to 
receive a 12 percent increase, basic and applied research in the Defense 
Department are flat, and numerous programs in other agencies that 
unarguably contribute to Homeland Security receive tepid increases.
    The Committee will continue to review the balance within the 
federal research portfolio. The Committee looks forward to working with 
the Administration and our Congressional colleagues to develop ways to 
determine whether the current portfolio is too heavily weighted toward 
NIH, and, if it is, to figure out what a balanced portfolio would be.

                      RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation (NSF)
    The National Science Foundation funds about 25 percent of the basic 
research conducted at U.S. universities, and a far higher percentage of 
the research in selected fields. NSF funds basic research across nearly 
all disciplines of science and engineering, making NSF-supported 
research integral to progress in priority areas such as health care and 
national security, among others. Inaddition, NSF funds programs to 
improve K0912 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and 
research assistantships support many graduate and post-doctoral 
students.
    The FY03 budget request for NSF is $5.04 billion, $239.91 million--
or five percent--over the FY02 appropriation. However, $76 million of 
the increase does not represent new spending, but rather is existing 
funding associated with three programs the Administration proposes to 
transfer to NSF--the Sea Grant program, now at the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); hydrology programs 
now at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and certain environmental 
education programs, now at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    The transfers are unlikely to occur, and, in any event, none of the 
transferred money would be available to strengthen existing NSF programs 
or create new ones. After subtracting the transfers, NSF is left with an 
actual proposed increase of about 3.4 percent--or about one 
percent above inflation. This is not a significant increase for an 
agency charged with ensuring the overall health of the Nation's 
university research enterprise--an agency that the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has held up as a model of good management.
    The Committee believes that NSF needs an increase (exclusive of any 
transfers) of at least $420 million, or 8.8 percent, over FY02 levels. 
This request would increase funding for NSF'score science programs, 
enabling NSF to begin funding highly ranked grant proposals that 
are turned down solely for lack of funding; fully fund K0912 education 
programs that have been authorized by the House; and would fund large 
facility projects that have already been approved by the National 
Science Board.

Education and Human Resources
    The Committee is pleased that the budget request for NSF's 
education programs reflects a continued commitment to the Mathematics 
and Science Partnership program, requested at $200 million. The 
Committee thus fully supports this request, which was authorized by 
H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act, which 
the House passed by voice vote lastyear.
    The Committee is also pleased to see that two other programs 
authorized by H.R. 1858, the Noyce Scholarship Program and the Digital 
Library Program, are included in the budget request, albeit at lower 
levels than authorized. The Committee will continue to push for full 
funding of these efforts.
    In addition, the Committee is encouraged to see funding for the 
Tech Talent Program (referred to as the Science Technology, Engineering 
and Mathematics Talent Expansion (STEP) Program), which would be 
authorized by H.R. 3130, the Tech Talent Act, which the Committee plans 
to approve this spring.
    The Committee fully supports the proposed increase in graduate 
fellowship stipends from $21,500 to $25,000 in the current budget 
request.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--United States Fire 
        Administration (USFA)
    The U.S. Fire Administration helps localities improve their ability 
to prevent, control and extinguish fires. The enacted FY03 authorization 
level (P.L. 10609503) for the Fire Administration's Fire Prevention and 
Control programs is $50.0 million; the FY03 budget request is $40.7 
million. This represents a decrease of $9.6 million from the FY02 
Current Estimate of $50.3 million.
    In addition to the Fire Prevention and Control Act programs 
authorized in P.L. 10609503, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 
10609398) authorized the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program 
(administered by USFA) to provide direct assistance to local fire 
departments for training, purchase of equipment, and other purposes. The 
FY02 Defense Authorization Act (P.L.10709107) increased the 
authorization for this program to $900 million per year through 
FY04, and expanded its scope to include grants for equipment and 
training to help firefighters respond to a terrorist attack or an attack 
using weapons of mass destruction. In FY02, this program received $150 
million through the Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriation (P.L. 1070973) and an 
additional $210 million through the Department of Defense (supplemental) 
Appropriations Act (P.L. 10709117), for a total of $360 million.
    In the Administration's FY03 budget request, the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program is incorporated into a FEMA-wide $3.5 billion 
National Preparedness Program. (The grant program is still expected to 
give out an estimated $164.8 million in awards in FY03, 
nonetheless, using unspent FY02 funds.) While the details of the 
National Preparedness Program are not yet in place, the Committee is 
concerned that these funds may be distributed in a manner that 
reduces the dollars that fire departments receive as states take a share 
of the funds for themselves or focus on other responders. The Committee 
strongly recommends that the Assistance to Firefighters awards continue 
to be awarded directly to local career and volunteer fire departments 
through the current competitive process.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    NEHRP is an interagency program led by FEMA and including NSF, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS). The program is credited with reducing the loss 
of life and property from earthquakes through improving emergency 
response, knowledge of earthquake risks, and earthquake engineering. 
Most states face at least some risk from earthquakes.
    The enacted authorization level (P.L. 10609503) for NEHRP for FY03 
is $122.6 million for the base program, with additional authorizations 
for multi-year efforts to create and operate the Advanced National 
Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSS, $44.0 million) and 
to build the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation (NEES, authorized at $4.5 million for FY03).
    The FY03 budget request for NEHRP is $115.7 million, a decrease of 
$10.6 million, or 8.4 percent. This decrease reflects a planned 
reduction from FY02 levels of $10.8 million for NEES construction. All 
NEHRP agencies are flat funded in the President's request: NSF, $33.8 
million; FEMA, $14.7 million; USGS, $47.6 million; and NIST, $2.5 
million. The Committee is concerned that the request for the ANSS is 
only $3.9 million, a fraction of the authorized level.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY & STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    The proposed FY03 budget for the EPA's science and technology 
functions calls for a 6 percent increase over the FY02 appropriation, 
excluding funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriation. The 
Committee supports the EPA's request for funding to help communities 
meet the new arsenic drinking water standards and improve the science of 
cumulative risk assessment. It also supports the additional funding for 
research related to homeland security, such as the detection and 
remediation of biological and chemical contamination in buildings.
    The Committee is concerned, however, that the proposed budget for 
EPA's core science and technology activities (excluding the funding for 
new homeland security research) will decline by four percent from FY02. 
More troubling still, the EPA's core funding for the Office of 
Research and Development, which carries out more than 80 percent of 
EPA's R&D activities is lower thanit was in FY99. In real dollars, this 
represents a decline in funding over the last four years. In addition, 
the Committee recommends restoring funding for the Science to Achieve 
Results (STAR) Fellowships, which have supported hundreds of graduate 
and undergraduate students in the environmental sciences.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    The proposed budget would reduce NOAA funding by $142 million (or 
about four percent) below FY02 levels. The gross figure is somewhat 
misleading, though, as the Administration's budget fully funds the 
critical functions of the Agency and provides significant, needed 
increases for the National Weather Service.
    (Most of the reduction reflects the proposed elimination of 
Congressional earmarks and the proposed transfer of the Sea Grant 
College Program to NSF. The Committee does not support the proposed 
transfer of the Sea Grant program, which needs some reform, but is 
integrally connected to NOAA's mission.)
    The Committee is pleased that the Administration would provide $18 
million in new money for NOAA's portion of the President's Climate 
Change Research Initiative, and $171 million for overall climate 
research. The Committee looks forward to working with the 
Administration to shape and focus this new Initiative.
    The Committee supports the Administration's request of $237 million 
for NOAA's new satellite program (NPOESS)--an increase of $79 million. 
This project, which is jointly funded by the Air Force, is vital to our 
future ability to forecast extreme weather. However, the Committee is 
concerned that despite the estimated $6.5 billion total cost of the 
project, NOAA has no plan to ensure that it will have the capability to 
process, assimilate and distribute all of the new data that NPOESS will 
generate. The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office to 
analyze the new project and report on current and future NOAA satellite 
data management needs.
Department of Commerce--Technology Administration
    The bulk of the Technology Administration's funding goes to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Nation's 
oldest federal laboratory and still a leader inscience and technology 
as reflected by the Nobel Prize awarded last year to one of its 
scientists. The Administration budget proposes to spend $389 million for 
the core NIST laboratory functions (the Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services account) in FY03--an increase of $68 million over 
FY02. The Committee is pleased with this generous request, but believes 
that inlight of the focus on homeland security, additional funding 
could be provided for NIST's computer security efforts and for its 
investigation into the World Trade Center collapse, which could yield 
new ways to strengthen buildings to withstand terrorist attacks and 
natural disasters.
    The Committee is also pleased that the budget request provides 
funding to complete the construction of the Advanced Measurement Lab in 
Gaithersburg and to undertake much needed improvements at NIST's 
laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.
    The Committee takes issue with the proposal to sharply reduce 
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which helps 
smaller manufacturers modernize to remain competitive.
    In FY00 alone (the most recent year for which data is available), 
the program contributed $700 million in new or retained sales, $480 
million in cost savings, and $900 million in new capital investments. 
The proposed budget would end federal support for almost all state 
MEP centers. This change would force most centers to shut their doors 
just as they could be contributing to economic recovery.
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration on 
its proposed reforms to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which may 
at last help put the program on a path to stable funding.
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
determine the best method of enabling NTIS to inform the public as a 
self-sustaining entity.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)
    The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's civilian energy research, 
development, and demonstration programs and commercial application of 
energy technology activities.
    The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget would cut 
programs under the Committee's jurisdiction by 2.4 percent. The proposed 
funding levels fall well below those that would be authorized under H.R. 
4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001, which passed the 
House on August 2, 2001, by a vote of 24009184. To take just 
two examples, H.R. 4 would authorize $45 million for hydrogen R&D in 
FY03, but the request is $39.9 million. H.R. 4 would authorize $113.9 
million for biofuels and biomass (excluding an additional $49 million 
for integrated bioenergy R&D), while the request is $86 million.
    The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of the 
Office of Science, which funds user facilities and academic research. In 
recent years, funding limitations have forced many user facilities to 
restrict the number of hours they are available to researchers, 
causing investments that have cost taxpayers billions to sit idle. In 
addition, many DOE facilities are deteriorating and staff are nearing 
retirement, producing a looming problem that the Committee believes must 
be addressed with increased resources.
    The Committee continues to closely monitor the construction of the 
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
especially in light of a recent report by DOE's Inspector General 
indicating that capabilities and facilities have been pared back to 
keep the program under budget.
    The Committee awaits further details on several of DOE's 
initiatives, including the CleanCoal program and Freedom CAR. While the 
Committee supports the goals of these programs (and has authorized the 
10-year Clean Coal program with strict environmental goals), it 
needs additional details on these programs to assess their ability to 
achieve their goals. Similarly, the Committee awaits further details on 
the way the Administration applied its new performance criteria to the 
fossil fuel accounts that it proposes to cut.
    The Administration's request for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program 
is $257.3 million, far short of the $335 million approved by the House 
in H.R. 4. Fusion's potential to wean the Nation from fossil fuels is 
tremendous, but much research remains to be done before that potential 
can be realized. The Committee notes with approval that the 
Administration is reassessing the potential U.S. role in the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which 
may significantly advance the science by achieving sustained-burning 
plasma. The Committee believes that U.S. participation in such important 
international research endeavors deserves serious consideration.
    Finally, the Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
spend $40 million in DOE on a National Climate Change Technology 
Initiative. The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE has not 
highlighted this proposal in its budget presentations and seems unable 
to provide any detail on how or where it will be carried out. This 
important initiative needs to become a focus within DOE if it is to be 
successful.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    The Administration proposes to increase funding for NASA by 0.7 
percent in FY03, from $14.9 billion in FY02 to $15 billion in FY03. The 
Committee supports the level of the Administration's request.
    The item of greatest concern in the NASA budget is the future of 
the International Space Station (ISS). The Committee continues to 
support development of the Space Station within the $25 billion cost cap 
enacted during the 106th Congress (P.L. 10609391). The 
Committee applauds the Administration for reviewing the costs of the 
Space Station and for its commitmentto solving the financial and 
program management problems as outlined by the ISS Management and Cost 
Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force.
    However, many critical decisions regarding the ISS remain to be 
made. NASA has not yet implemented many of the management reforms the 
IMCE recommended, and NASA has not yet identified the criteria that will 
be used to evaluate the Space Station program. In addition, the Research 
Maximization and Prioritization (REMAP) Task Force NASA established to 
evaluate ISS research priorities will not announce its findings until 
August.
    Despite the uncertainty, the budget assumes $560 million in 
unspecified savings over the next five years; without those savings the 
three-person ``Core Complete'' Space Station cannot be assembled within 
the $25 billion cost cap.
    The Committee agrees with the Administration that safety must be 
the highest priority in the operation of the Space Shuttle. The 
Committee applauds the Administration for examining competitive sourcing 
and privatization of the Space Shuttle, and awaits the results of 
the Administration's reviews, which are expected to be complete by late 
September. The Committee is concerned about the proposal to cut the 
Shuttle safety and supportability upgrades program by about $500 million 
between FY03 and FY07 to absorb unexpected increases in 
Shuttle operations and maintenance costs. The proposed cut is especially 
ill-timed as NASA told Congress last year that at least some of the 
safety upgrades were essential. The Committee expects NASA to develop 
more rigorous and realistic estimates of what it will cost to 
operate, maintain, and upgrade the Shuttle fleet. Estimates must not be 
based on unrealistic assessments of when the Shuttle might be replaced 
with a second-generation launch vehicle. The Committee supports 
increased funds to modernize the launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space 
Center to support planned mission needs.
    The Committee appreciates the Administration's commitment to space 
and Earth science. The Committee, noting the cancellation of the Pluto-
Kuiper mission and the deferment of the Europa mission, agrees that NASA 
should develop an integrated science strategy for exploring the outer 
planets. The Committee believes that investments in new technology, 
such as the Nuclear Systems Initiative, could significantly reduce 
spacecraft travel time and enable a morerobust planetary exploration 
program.
    The Committee supports the Administration's restructuring of NASA's 
Aerospace Technology Enterprise budget to more clearly link the budget 
and management structure to strategic goals. However, the Committee is 
concerned that the aeronautics program, once a core NASA program, does 
not have sufficient funds to usefully address the problems facing 
our aeronautics and aviation system. Moreover, the Committee urges the 
Administration to work to strengthen collaboration between NASA and FAA 
on aeronautics research and technology development.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
develop an integrated R&D strategy for aeronautics. This will require 
increased investment in R&D, both to ensure the safety and security of 
the U.S. air traffic control system and to maintain the competitiveness 
ofthe U.S. aeronautics industry.
    The Committee urges the Administration to increase coordination 
between the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the U.S. 
Air Force regarding streamlining safety regulations for launch site 
operations. U.S. commercial launch providers face significant challenges 
from international competition. The U.S. government must develop 
policies and procedures that promote and encourage this key industry.
Department of Commerce--Office of Space Commercialization
    The Committee urges continued funding of this office, which has 
played a useful role in promoting the commercialization of space, 
working with private industry, and making the best use of the Global 
Positioning System. P.L. 10609405 authorizes $626,000 for the Office 
inFY03.
              Science Committee Minority Additional Views
                      FY 2003 Views and Estimates
                     to the House Budget Committee
                             March 12, 2002

The Administration's FY 2003 R&D Request

    The Administration's FY03 R&D budget request can be summarized 
simply: weapons development increases 12 percent, the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) increases 17 percent,and all other civilian 
and defense R&D is collectively frozen.
    There is a business-as-usual quality to the civilian R&D portfolio. 
As has been the case stretching back well into the Clinton 
Administration, NIH is slated to receive nearly all of the civilian R&D 
increase. But the sense of continuity--perhaps inertia is a better 
word--extends beyond NIH's primacy. Even the multi-agency R&D priorities 
of this budget are holdovers fromthe later Clinton budgets: anti-
terrorism, networking and information technology, nano-technology, and 
climate change.
    Last year's Minority Views noted four major themes in the budget 
submission:

         The request reversed the trend toward parity, 
        achieved in FY01, between defense and non-defense R&D.

         The imbalance between biomedical R&D and R&D in the 
        physical sciences was further exacerbated.

         The budget submission stopped in its tracks the 
        growing consensus that the NSF budget should grow at least at 
        the same rate as the NIH budget.

         Cooperative Federal-industry R&D programs fared 
        poorly.

    Each of these statements is as true for the FY03 submission as it 
was last year:

         Defense R&D constitutes 52 percent of total R&D, the 
        second consecutive budget to reverse a 15-year trend toward a 
        greater civilian share.

         For the first time, the HHS R&D request ($27.683 
        billion) exceeds the R&D request of all other Federal civilian 
        R&D ($26.046 billion).

         The five-year doubling path for NSF, started in FY01, 
        is officially off the rails. The Foundation's increase for R&D 
        is 1.5 percent, well below inflation.

         Several R&D collaborations involving academic, 
        industry, and government remain targeted, including the Advanced 
        Technology Program, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and 
        aviation R&D.

    It is clear to us that except for NIH, federal science funding is 
not a high priority for this Administration. It also appears that the 
trends noted above will persist, given Presidential Science Advisor John 
Marburger's February 15, 2001 statement that ``. . .the life sciences 
may still be under-funded relative to the physical sciences.''

Metrics

    Over this placid environment for R&D, storm clouds lurk. Much of 
the civilian R&D portfolio, the budget warns, will be subject to 
impending programmatic or management reviews, or both. For example, 
funding for much of NASA's science and human space flight accounts 
will depend on future, undefined studies. The FY03 budget implies few 
commitments by the Administration to the continuation of the Space 
Station, Mission to Planet Earth, or the Outer Planetary Program. On a 
smaller scale, the Smithsonian may see some of its science 
portfolio transferred to NSF after further study.
    Utilizing a grading system (red, yellow, and green lights) across 
five management measures, OMB spills much ink asserting that performance 
metrics were applied in making budget allocations. Paradoxically, the 
Department of Defense, with its 12 percent increase, receives fivered 
lights for management. NIH stays on its doubling path even though HHS, 
its parent department, garnered five red lights. NASA manages a yellow 
light for financial management in a sea of red, even though inept 
financial management is cited as the reason for putting the agency's 
flagship program--the Space Station--on life support. Then there is 
NSF, whose score surpassed every Federal department. Its reward is that 
core R&D accounts would grow by a mere $53 million (1.5 percent), which 
is less than inflation. Despite assertions that management 
scores mattered, it appears to us that they had no effect whatsoever on 
a particular agency's budget. Metrics may become the cloak behind which 
politics can carry on as before with a new patina of impartiality.
    In a word, the theme for this year's R&D budget is incremental 
change, but with major programmatic changes pending that will be 
justified with as yet sketchy and opaque management criteria.

Majority Views

    The Majority's Views and Estimates do question some proposed 
Administration cuts andcorrectly note areas where budgetary legerdemain 
masks sub-inflationary increases. However, it is difficult to take a 
firm position on the Majority's Views since they fail to meet the 
legislative mandate of five-year funding recommendations for all 
agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction. Despite its failings, 
however, many of us signed the Majority's Views to show support for the 
Chairman, and because the content of their report was both in offensive 
and generally pointed in the right direction.
    Our deference to the Chairman should not be viewed as indifference 
to the fate of Federal R&D funding. We believe the Majority should have 
gone farther. What particularly concerns us is that R&D requests for 
three premier scientific agencies--NSF, NASA, and DOE--fail to keep pace 
with inflation. It is appropriate to remember the wise words of the 
Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security/21st Century, which 
completed a thorough assessment of the Nation's post-Cold War security 
challenges six months before the attacks of September 11, 2001. The 
report, which accurately predicted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, 
emphasizes that the U.S. ``has seriously under-funded basic scientific 
research'' and recommends that federal R&D funding be doubled by 2010. 
This recommendation is more, not less, relevant in the wake of 
last year's terrorist attacks and underscores the inadequacy of the FY03 
civilian R&D request.
    In this report, we have provided our views of R&D in the 
President's request. What follows is our guidance on specific aspects of 
agency budgets.

National Science Foundation

    In light of the essential role which research plays in economic 
growth and national security, we are disappointed with the 
Administration's request for NSF. The $3.902 billion increase requested 
for NIH is by itself greater than the entire $3.783 billion Research 
and Related Activities account at NSF. According to OMB reporting 
requirements, the portion of NSF'sbudget devoted to research and 
research infrastructure would be increased by only $53 million--or 1.5 
percent--under the President's request (after subtracting transferred 
programs). We believe that NSF should be put on a path to double its 
significant research and education work. H.R.1472, introduced last year 
by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, calls for 15 percent increases 
to NSF's budget and this is what we would suggest to the Budget 
Committee. Were commend that the Function 250 account be adjusted to 
reflect an NSF research budget of $4.17 billion for FY03, with 
concomitant increases in the out-years.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    The proposed increase for NASA is only 0.66 percent, continuing the 
pattern of disappointing NASA budget requests that fail to keep pace 
with inflation. This year's meager increase does not remotely match the 
tasks confronting the agency. The budget request repeatedly defers 
needed funding increases to the indefinite future while downplaying the 
impact of thosedeferrals. For example:

         Funding for aeronautics R&D is once again cut, this 
        year to one-half of its FY98 level. One impact would be NASA's 
        inability to meet its announced 10-decibel aircraft noise 
        reduction target by 2007.

         The Shuttle program suffers a loss of $500 million in 
        safety upgrades, even though we will be dependent on the Shuttle 
        for at least the fifteen years.

         No funding beyond FY03 is provided for follow-on 
        Earth science missions pending completion of an Administration 
        review of global change research.

         The crew capabilities and equipment needed to make 
        the Space Station a useful research facility are eliminated.

    The five-year budget request for NASA will require augmentation if 
NASA is to safely and successfully accomplish its missions. We would 
advise the Budget Committee to provide annual three percent budget 
increases to NASA for five years, so that it can avoid losing 
additional ground to inflation and begin to address its backlog of 
important obligations.

Department of Energy

    The Federal budget picture has changed dramatically since the 
passage of comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4) in August of 2001. 
Therefore, we recommend that the Budget Committee adopt FY03 funding 
levels for functions 250 and 270 that would accommodate thefunding 
level contained in H.R. 4 for FY02. Out-year numbers would also track 
the funding levels contained in H.R. 4, building on the FY02 levels as 
appropriate. In line with H.R. 4, were commend that the Budget Committee 
increase Function 250 by $300 million with instructions that the Office 
of Science receive $3.6 billion in FY03. In Function 270, H.R. 4 
provided $625 million for Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency at 
DOE, and $535 million for Renewable Energy--about $200 million above the 
FY03 request.

Conclusion

    Many in the science and education community are asking whether 
there is an ``imbalance''in our research portfolio, with an over-
concentration of funding in the biomedical sciences. By freezing NSF 
while kicking NIH down the path towards its five-year doubling goal, 
the Administration exacerbates this problem. We don't pretend to know 
what the exact balance among science investments should be, but our 
intuitive sense is that there is already an imbalance, and making it 
worse is not a productive step.
    We stand ready to engage the Administration in an ongoing dialogue 
about the best way to invest in the future of our nation. We hope that 
the Budget Committee will not wait for the Administration to understand 
the lesson of the Hart-Rudman Commission--that R&D, the lifeblood of 
innovation, underlies both economic growth and national security.



