House Report 108-817 - SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

[House Report 108-817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Union Calendar No. 502

108th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 108-817

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

JANUARY 3, 2005

January 3, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

Union Calendar No. 502

108th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 108-817

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

JANUARY 3, 2005

January 3, 2005.--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
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee, RMM*
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California NICK LAMPSON, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
Washington LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRAD SHERMAN, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah VACANCY
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama VACANCY
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Energy

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., DAVID WU, Oregon
Washington MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JO BONNER, Alabama
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
------

Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
NICK SMITH, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
VACANCY
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
7Subcommittee on Research

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas VACANCY
VACANCY
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
------

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas NICK LAMPSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
KEN CALVERT, California DAVID WU, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
Washington BRAD SHERMAN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ROB BISHOP, Utah VACANCY
MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama VACANCY
TOM FEENEY, Florida
VACANCY
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee

* Ranking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and
Subcommittee assignments.
** Vice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee
assignments.
+ The 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
108th Congress, 2003-2004

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

Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science.... 13

1.1--P.L. 108-11, Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2003 (H.R. 1559/H.R. 1297)............. 13
1.2--P.L. 108-136, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (H.R. 1588/S. 1060/H.R. 1118)............. 14
1.3--P.L. 108-153, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act (S. 189/H.R. 766).......................... 15
1.4--P.L. 108-169, United States Fire Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2003 (S. 1152/H.R. 2692)............ 17
1.5--P.L. 108-176, Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2115/H.R. 2734).................. 19
1.6--P.L. 108-201, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (S.
610/H.R. 1085)............................................. 21
1.7--P.L. 108-219, Conveyance of NOAA Vessel to Utrok Atoll
(H.R. 2584)................................................ 23
1.8--P.L. 108-320, Malcolm Baldrige Awards for Nonprofit
Organizations (H.R. 3389).................................. 25
1.9--P.L. 108-360, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 (H.R. 2608/H.R. 3980/
H.R. 3752)................................................. 26
1.10--P.L. 108-375, Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4200/H.R.
4107/H.R. 3966)............................................ 29
1.11--P.L. 108-391, Expressing the sense of the Congress in
recognition of the contributions of the seven Columbia
astronauts by supporting establishment of a Columbia
Memorial Space Science Learning Center (H.J.Res. 57)....... 31
1.12--P.L. 108-423, Department of Energy High-End Computing
Revitalization Act of 2004 (H.R. 4516)..................... 31
1.13--P.L. 108-426, Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special
Programs Reorganization Act (H.R. 5163).................... 33
1.14--P.L. 108-428, To extend the liability indemnification
regime for the commercial space transportation industry
(H.R. 5245/H.R. 3752)...................................... 34
1.15--P.L. 108-456, Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Amendments Act of 2004 (S. 3014/H.R. 1856)................. 35
1.16--P.L. 108-458, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845/H.R. 10)................... 38
1.17--P.L. 108-492, Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004 (H.R. 5382)........................................... 39

Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science........................................................ 41

2.1--H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2004....................... 41
2.2--H.R. 238, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration,
and Commercial Application Act of 2003..................... 42
2.3--H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act.... 43
2.4--H.R. 1081, Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act........ 43
2.5--H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004...... 46
2.6--H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act................ 46
2.7--H.R. 1644, Energy Policy Act of 2003.................... 47
2.8--H.R. 1836, Civil Service and National Security Personnel
Improvement Act............................................ 47
2.9--H.R. 2450, Human Space Flight Independent Investigation
Commission Act of 2003..................................... 48
2.10--H.R. 2801, Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003................ 49
2.11--H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act of 2003................ 50
2.12--H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act of 2004..................................... 51
2.13--H.R. 3550, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users...................................................... 52
2.14--H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation Research and
Development Act of 2004.................................... 53
2.15--H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
of 2004.................................................... 55
2.16--H.R. 3890, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.... 56
2.17--H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act
of 2004.................................................... 57
2.18--H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding
Contributions in Math and Science Education Act of 2004.... 58
2.19--H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization
Act of 2004................................................ 59
2.20--H.R. 4546, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Act......................................... 60

Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the
Committee on Science and Passed by the House of Representatives 62

3.1--H.Con.Res. 189, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) and supporting an
International Geophysical Year-2 (IGY-2) in 2007-2008...... 62
3.2--H.Con.Res. 279, 30th Anniversary of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional
Science and Engineering Fellowship Program................. 62
3.3--H.Con.Res. 301, Supporting the goals and ideals of the
World Year of Physics...................................... 63
3.4--H.Con.Res. 488, Commending NOAA and its employees for
its dedication and hard work during Hurricanes Charley,
Frances, and Ivan.......................................... 63
3.5--H.Res. 222, Commending those individuals who contributed
to the debris collection effort following the Space Shuttle
Columbia accident.......................................... 63
3.6--H.Res. 395, Recognizing the importance of chemistry to
our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of
National Chemistry Week.................................... 64
3.7--H.Res. 490, Commending the achievements of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, and Cornell University in conducting the Mars
Exploration Rover Mission.................................. 64
3.8--H.Res. 507, Expressing profound sorrow of the House of
Representatives on the anniversary of the Space Shuttle
Columbia accident.......................................... 64
3.9--H.Res. 723, Recognizing the 35th Anniversary of the
Apollo 11 Lunar Landing.................................... 65
3.10--H.Res. 820, To congratulate Mojave Aerospace Ventures
for winning the privately funded $10,000,000 Ansari X-Prize
and commend the X-Prize Foundation for spurring this
achievement................................................ 65
3.11--H.Res. 847, Honoring the life of astronaut Leroy Gordon
Cooper, Jr................................................. 65

Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee
Legislative Activities......................................... 66

4.1--Committee on Science.................................... 66
4.1(a) February 13, 2003--Overview of the Federal R&D
Budget for Fiscal Year 2004............................ 66
4.1(b) February 27, 2003--NASA's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
Request................................................ 68
4.1(c) March 5, 2003--The Path to a Hydrogen Economy..... 69
4.1(d) March 12, 2003--The Aerospace Commission Report
and NASA Workforce..................................... 70
4.1(e) March 19, 2003--H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act of 2003............................ 72
4.1(f) March 26, 2003--Dealing With Foreign Students and
Scholars in an Age of Terrorism: Visa Backlogs and
Tracking Systems....................................... 75
4.1(g) April 9, 2003--The Societal Implications of
Nanotechnology......................................... 77
4.1(h) May 14, 2003--Cyber Security Research and
Development............................................ 79
4.1(i) June 4, 2003--H.R. 1118, Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters Act of 2003... 82
4.1(j) July 16, 2003--Supercomputing: Is the U.S. on the
Right Path?............................................ 84
4.1(k) September 4, 2003--The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board Report............................. 86
4.1(l) September 10, 2003--NASA's Response to the
Columbia Report........................................ 87
4.1(m) October 16, 2003--The Future of Human Space Flight 88
4.1(n) October 29, 2003--NASA's Organizational and
Management Challenges in the Wake of the Columbia
Disaster............................................... 91
4.1(o) December 5, 2003--Nanotechnology Research and
Development: The Biggest Little Thing in Texas......... 93
4.1(p) January 23, 2004--Fueling the High Technology
Workforce With Math and Science Education.............. 95
4.1(q) January 23, 2004--Tools for Enhancing Small
Business Competitiveness in the Dallas Area: A Review
of Federal Programs.................................... 98
4.1(r) February 9, 2004--Strengthening Windstorm Hazard
Mitigation: An Examination of Public and Private
Efforts................................................ 101
4.1(s) February 11, 2004--An Overview of the Federal R&D
Budget for Fiscal Year 2005............................ 103
4.1(t) February 12, 2004--U.S. Vision for Space
Exploration............................................ 105
4.1(u) February 25, 2004--The Conflict Between Science
and Security in Visa Policy: Status and Next Steps..... 106
4.1(v) March 3, 2004--Reviewing the Hydrogen Fuel and
FreedomCAR Initiatives................................. 108
4.1(w) March 10, 2004--Perspectives on the President's
Vision for Space Exploration........................... 110
4.1(x) March 17, 2004--H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004................... 112
4.1(y) March 18, 2004--The 2003 Presidential Awardees for
Excellence in Math and Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan
for Success............................................ 114
4.1(z) May 3, 2004--Bioterrorism Preparedness: People,
Tools, and Systems for Detecting and Responding to a
Bioterrorist Attack.................................... 116
4.1(aa) May 5, 2004--U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Preliminary Report..................................... 119
4.1(bb) May 12, 2004--H.R. 4107, Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004......... 121
4.1(cc) May 13, 2004--H.R. 4218, High-Performance
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004................... 125
4.1(dd) June 4, 2004--Transportation Research and
Development: Applications and Opportunities in the
Denver Region.......................................... 127
4.1(ee) June 21, 2004--The Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program: A View From Upstate New York............ 129
4.1(ff) July 21, 2004--Cyber Security Education: Meeting
the Needs of Technology Workers and Employers.......... 131

4.2--Subcommittee on Energy.................................. 135
4.2(a) June 10, 2003--The Future of University Nuclear
Science and Engineering Programs....................... 135
4.2(b) July 10, 2003--Competition for Department of
Energy Laboratory Contracts: What Is the Impact on
Science?............................................... 136
4.2(c) September 25, 2003--Keeping the Lights On:
Removing Barriers to Technology to Prevent Blackouts... 137
4.2(d) November 6, 2003--What Are the Administration
Priorities for Climate Change Technology?.............. 138
4.2(e) December 4, 2003--Review of Non-Oil and Gas
Research Activities in the Houston-Galveston-Gulf Coast
Area................................................... 140
4.2(f) March 24, 2004--Priorities in the Department of
Energy Budget for Fiscal Year 2005..................... 141
4.2(g) May 19, 2004--The Impact of Federal Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D Programs........... 143
4.2(h) May 20, 2004--An Examination of H.R. 3890, A Bill
to Reauthorize the Metals Program at the Department of
Energy................................................. 145
4.2(i) June 24, 2004--Nuclear R&D and the Idaho National
Laboratory............................................. 146

4.3--Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards.. 148
4.3(a) March 13, 2003--Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia:
Strengthening the Science.............................. 148
4.3(b) April 10, 2003--Transportation Research and
Development: Investing in the Future................... 150
4.3(c) June 5, 2003--Manufacturing R&D: How Can the
Federal Government Help?............................... 152
4.3(d) July 15, 2003--NOAA Satellites: Will Weather
Forecasting Be Put at Risk?............................ 154
4.3(e) October 30, 2003--What Is Space Weather and Who
Should Forecast It?.................................... 156
4.3(f) November 5, 2003--Mercury Emissions: State of the
Science and Technology................................. 159
4.3(g) March 11, 2004--Fiscal Year 2005 EPA Budget....... 161
4.3(h) March 24, 2004--H.R. 3980, National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Act of 2004........................... 164
4.3(i) April 28, 2004--Fiscal Year 2005 National
Institute of Standards and Technology Budget: Views
From Industry.......................................... 166
4.3(j) May 19, 2004--Homeland Security Research and
Development at the EPA: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. 168
4.3(k) June 24, 2004--Testing and Certification for
Voting Equipment: How Can the Process Be Improved?..... 171
4.3(l) July 15, 2004--The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Organic Acts................ 173

4.4--Subcommittee on Research................................ 176
4.4(a) May 8, 2003--The National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program: Past, Present, and Future........... 176
4.4(b) June 12, 2003--Plant Biotechnology Research and
Development in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.... 179
4.4(c) July 9, 2003--H.R. 2183, Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2003............................................ 182
4.4(d) July 17, 2003--H.R. 2692, United States Fire
Administration Authorization Act of 2003............... 184
4.4(e) October 30, 2003--Implementation of the Math and
Science Partnership Program: Views From the Field...... 187
4.4(f) March 24, 2004--H.R. 3980, National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Act of 2004........................... 189
4.4(g) March 30, 2004--H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for
Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education
Act of 2004............................................ 192

4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 195
4.5(a) February 12, 2003--Space Shuttle Columbia......... 195
4.5(b) March 6, 2003--A Review of Aeronautics R&D at FAA
and NASA............................................... 196
4.5(c) May 8, 2003--NASA's Integrated Space
Transportation Plan and Orbital Space Plane Program.... 197
4.5(d) June 11, 2003--U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space.. 199
4.5(e) July 24, 2003--Commercial Human Space Flight...... 200
4.5(f) November 5, 2003--H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act
of 2003................................................ 202
4.5(g) March 18, 2004--NASA-Department of Defense
Cooperation in Space Transportation.................... 203
4.5(h) April 1, 2004--Lunar Science and Resources: Future
Options................................................ 205
4.5(i) July 15, 2004--NASA Contests and Prizes: How Can
They Help Advance Space Exploration?................... 206

Appendix

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2004...... 211

Minority Additional Views, FY 2004 Views and Estimates to the
House Budget Committee......................................... 222

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2005...... 226

Science Committee Minority Additional Views, FY 2005 Views and
Estimates to the House Budget Committee........................ 237

Additional Views of Representatives Gordon and Costello.......... 242

Letter to Budget Committee on Agency Waste, Fraud and Abuse...... 243

List of Publications of the Committee on Science (108th Congress) 247

Union Calendar No. 502
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-817

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

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

__________

January 3, 2005.--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
eight 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.
In the 108th Congress, the Science Committee focused its
attention on charting space and ocean policy, strengthening the
U.S. economy by promoting research and innovation, and enabling
the U.S. to better respond to terrorism and other emergencies
by helping first responders.
Less than two months into the 108th Congress, the Space
Shuttle Columbia, with her crew of seven, broke apart during
re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. This national tragedy renewed
debate over the future of human space exploration. The
Committee held several high profile hearings into the cause of
the accident and exercised close oversight of the proceedings
of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), the
independent investigative body convened by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to determine the
cause of the accident.
Since the CAIB report was issued in August 2003, the
Committee actively oversaw NASA's return-to-flight activities,
particularly the implementation of the CAIB recommendation to
establish an Independent Technical Authority at NASA. The
Committee also closely monitoring the cost of return-to-flight
activities, and issues related to future Shuttle flights,
including whether to launch a Shuttle mission to repair the
Hubble Space Telescope.
The Columbia accident also prompted the President to issue
a new vision for NASA--to return humans to the Moon and
continue with a manned mission to Mars. Since that
announcement, the Committee has held hearings and numerous
briefings to evaluate the President's plan. Chairman Boehlert
applauded the President for giving NASA a clear vision for the
future, but also raised questions about the funding of the
proposal and about its potential impact on NASA's work in Space
and Earth Science and aeronautics.
The Committee also passed two key bills related to NASA and
space flight, both of which were signed into law. The NASA
Flexibility Act of 2004, introduced by Chairman Boehlert, gives
NASA new personnel tools to attract and retain a top-notch
technical workforce. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act
of 2004, introduced by Space Subcommittee Chairman Dana
Rohrabacher of California, creates a regulatory regime at the
Federal Aviation Administration for the commercial human space
flight industry, designed to encourage that industry's
development while providing information on the inherent risks
in space tourism and limiting that risk, as appropriate.
While the Committee was engaged in space policy, it was
also leading efforts to revamp ocean policy. In May, 2004,
Boehlert convened the first hearing in the House on the
Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The
report described an oceanic ecosystem that is fragile,
threatened, and in dire need of national attention and
commitment.
Among the more than 200 recommendations included in the
report was a recommendation to pass an organic act for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would
clearly define and codify the agency's mission and functions.
Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
introduced such legislation and held a hearing on it.
Recognizing that innovation is the key to U.S. economic
success, the Committee also focused its efforts on
strengthening the U.S. research enterprise and American
industry. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law
Chairman Boehlert's 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, which authorized a better funded and
coordinated interagency program in nanotechnology--an emerging
field of science that the National Science Foundation estimates
will be a $1 trillion industry within the next decade.
The President also signed into law the Department of Energy
High-End Computing Revitalization Act, which was introduced by
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert of Illinois. The Act
will foster research to improve U.S. supercomputers and make
them more available to U.S. researchers.
Other Committee efforts to improve the economy included the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, which
will help combat a problem that costs U.S. fisheries millions
of dollars; and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act,
which sets up a new interagency program to find ways to limit
damage caused by windstorms and which also reauthorizes the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which has been
successfully discovering ways to limit earthquake damage since
1977. Both bills were signed into law. The algal bloom
legislation was sponsored by Chairman Ehlers and the windstorm
bill by Congressman Randy Neugebauer, a Republican from Texas.
The earthquake legislation began life as a separate bill
introduced by Michigan Representative Nick Smith, Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Research.
Several other measures to help the economy were passed by
the House, including the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act, introduced by Chairman Ehlers, and the
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, introduced by
Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia.
As important as any legislation was the Committee's effort
to ensure that unnecessary visa delays did not discourage the
world's top students and researchers from becoming part of the
U.S. research enterprise. In a series of hearings and through a
Government Accountability Office study, the Committee led a
successful effort to reduce the waiting time for visas.
Chairman Boehlert pointed out repeatedly that casting too wide
a net in the visa process hurt America's research capacity
while doing little to catch terrorists because the effort was
not appropriately targeted.
Terrorism was also on the Committee's mind in other ways.
The Committee continued its close oversight of research and
development at the Department of Homeland Security,
particularly in the area of cyber security.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 also
highlighted the critical role of our nation's first responders.
Two pieces of Committee legislation were enacted into law that
would bolster federal support for U.S. fire and emergency
medical services. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Act established a new program to provide grants to
help fire departments hire firefighters. The Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004 increased
funding for the FIRE grant program--which provides
competitively awarded grants directly to fire departments for
the purchase of needed equipment, vehicles and training--and
broadened the eligibility requirements to allow emergency
medical services to also apply for the grants.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science

1.1--P.L. 108-11, Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2003 (H.R. 1559)

[Legislative note: Title III of H.R. 1559 contains
provisions of H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act.]

Background and Summary of Legislation
Title III of H.R. 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2003, includes provisions initially
introduced as H.R. 1297, the Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act.
These provisions direct the Secretary of the Army to construct
in Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, a memorial marker
honoring the seven members of the crew of the Columbia Orbiter
who died on February 1, 2003, during the landing of Space
Shuttle mission STS-107. Additionally, it authorizes the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to: (1) accept gifts and donations for that or
another memorial or monument to the crew; and (2) transfer any
donations accepted to the Secretary of the Army for the
Arlington National Cemetery memorial.

Legislative History
H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act was introduced on
March 13, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs and the Committee on Science. The bill was sponsored by
Mr. Young of Florida, along with twenty co-sponsors from both
sides of the aisle, and established a memorial at the Arlington
National Cemetery to honor the Space Shuttle Columbia
astronauts that perished on February 1, 2003. On March 26,
2003, the Committee on Science marked up the bill and ordered
the measure reported, without amendment, by a voice vote. The
Committee on Veterans' Affairs considered the measure on April
3, 2003 and ordered it reported, as amended, by unanimous
consent. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs filed H.Rept. 108-
62, Part 1 on H.R. 1297 and the Committee on Science discharged
the measure on April 8, 2003.
Provisions of H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act were
incorporated into Title III of H.R. 1559, Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 which was signed by the
President on April 16, 2003 and became Public Law 108-11.

1.2--P.L. 108-136, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 (H.R. 1588/S. 1060)

[Legislative note: A modified version of H.R. 1118,
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters
Act of 2003 was incorporated into P.L. 108-136.]

Background and Summary of Legislation
On July 16, 2003, the Speaker appointed Science Committee
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, Subcommittee on Research Chairman
Nick Smith, and Science Committee Ranking Minority Member Ralph
Hall as additional conferees to H.R. 1588, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, for consideration of
Sections 852 and 911 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference.
These conference committee deliberations, contained in
H.Rept. 108-354 (conference report to accompany H.R. 1588),
resulted in the enactment of Sections 852 and 911 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which
was signed into law by the President on November 24, 2003.
Descriptions of those provisions follow.

Section 852--Making Fighting Fires SAFER
The Senate amendment, passed on May 22, 2003, contained a
provision authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to
establish a program of grants to fire departments for the
purpose of hiring new firefighters. The amendment was a
modified version of S. 544, which was companion legislation to
H.R. 1118, introduced by Chairman Boehlert. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
The purpose of the program authorized by the amendment (and
its corresponding legislation) is to help communities across
America meet new minimum staffing standards for the fire
services so they have adequate manpower to protect against
fires, acts of terrorism, and other hazards. A similar federal
hiring program to increase the number of police officers
protecting America's communities exists within the Department
of Justice.
The authorization language, as amended in its final form,
authorizes $7.6 billion over seven years for the U.S. Fire
Administration to award grants to fire departments to pay the
salaries and benefits for three years for each new firefighter.
Under the language, all fire departments, volunteer and career,
would be eligible to apply. The grants are for a four-year
period, and must not exceed a total of $100,000 per
firefighter. They require an overall non-federal match minimum
of 37.5 percent (10, 20, 50, and 70 percent in years 1-4 of the
grant, respectively, to phase down local government dependence
on the Federal Government), and recipients are required to
retain new hires for at least one year following the conclusion
of federal funding.
The legislation also explicitly allows volunteer fire
departments, which are also facing significant personnel
shortfalls, to supplement their volunteer force with full-time
firefighters. This is provided through a mechanism in which ten
percent of the total amount appropriated for SAFER is reserved
for recruitment and retention grants to enhance the number of
volunteer firefighters and at least ten percent of the
remaining funds are guaranteed for hiring firefighters at
volunteer and majority volunteer departments. Any unused
amounts are transferred to the recruitment and retention
grants. (For example, if $1 billion is appropriated in Fiscal
Year 2005, $100 million will be set aside for volunteer/
majority volunteer recruitment and retention grants, and an
additional $90 million would be reserved for hiring
firefighters at volunteer/majority volunteer departments.)

Section 911--Coordination of Space Science and Technology Activities of
the Department of Defense
The Senate amendment included language that directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a space science
and technology strategy and to annually review and, as
appropriate, revise such strategy. The section also requires
such strategy to be included as part of the annual National
Security Space Plan and requires the Comptroller General to
review the strategy and report on its results to the defense
committees.

1.3--P.L. 108-153, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act (S. 189/H.R. 766)

Background and Summary of Legislation
Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and
characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is
one of the most promising and exciting areas of science today,
involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines,
with widespread applications in electronics, advanced
materials, medicine, and information technology. For example,
nanotechnology likely represents the future of information
processing and storage, as further advances in computer chips
and magnetic disk drive components will increasingly depend on
nanotechnology innovations. A variety of nanotechnology
products are already in development or on the market, and
experts agree that more revolutionary products will emerge from
nanotechnology research currently underway. Large companies are
investing in nanotechnology development programs, and many
small start-up companies have been founded to develop new
technologies and new products based on breakthroughs in the
understanding of materials at the atomic and molecular level.
The promise of nanotechnology to accelerate technological
change has prompted some to advise caution about pursuing rapid
innovation without a better understanding of where it might
lead us. For example, one of the more salient concerns is the
possible environmental or health impact of nanotechnology
materials. Nanoscale particles, or nanoparticles, because of
their small size, may readily enter living systems with
potentially toxic results. While few comprehensive studies have
been completed, early research suggests that some materials
derived through nanotechnology may be biologically inert and
thus pose little threat. Nonetheless, new materials can
interact with the environment or with living systems in
unexpected ways. Studies of the environmental impacts as well
as of societal and ethical questions associated with the
adoption of these new technologies are needed, and the research
community should be prepared to respond to legitimate questions
about the consequences of new products based on nanotechnology.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a
government-wide research initiative involving 10 federal
agencies. The initiative has grown rapidly from an initial
budget of $464 million in fiscal year 2001 to the $849 million
requested for fiscal year 2004. In 2002, the National Academy
of Sciences conducted a review of the NNI and spoke favorably
of the quality of the research and the opportunities for rapid
technological innovation. However, the review also raised
several concerns and made a number of recommendations,
including: (1) establish an independent advisory board, (2)
develop a strategic plan, (3) effect greater interagency
coordination, (4) promote interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D,
and (5) address potential societal and ethical concerns.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act (P.L. 108-153) addresses these issues with the program as
raised by the National Academy of Sciences and other outside
experts. It requires the President to implement a National
Nanotechnology Program to invest in federal research and
development (R&D) programs in nanotechnology and provide for
interagency coordination of federal nanotechnology activities.
The legislation provides that among other activities, the
program shall: (1) provide grants to investigators; (2)
establish interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers;
(3) accelerate the deployment and application of nanotechnology
research and development in the private sector; and (4) take
specified steps to ensure that ethical, legal, environmental,
and other appropriate societal concerns are considered during
the development of nanotechnology. The National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) will oversee the planning,
management, and coordination of the program.
The legislation also requires the President to establish a
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office to provide
technical and administrative support to the program, serve as
the point of contact on federal nanotechnology activities,
conduct public outreach, and promote access to and early
application of the technologies, innovations, and expertise
derived from program activities.
The National Research Council is required to triennially
evaluate the program, and as part of the first triennial
evaluation, to conduct studies to (1) determine the technical
feasibility of molecular self-assembly for the manufacture of
materials and devices at the molecular scale; and (2) assess
the need for standards, guidelines, or strategies for ensuring
the responsible development of nanotechnology.
In addition, by authorizing a federal nanotechnology
research and development (R&D) program in statute, the act
assures stable, long-term support for these efforts.

Legislative History
On February 13, 2003, Committee on Science Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert introduced H.R. 766. It was referred solely
to the Committee on Science. The Committee held hearings on the
measure on March 19, 2003 and April 9, 2003 and reported the
measure, as amended, by a voice vote on May 1, 2003. Several
amendments were adopted at the markup, including amendments to:

Make technical changes, increase
authorization levels, and give the President greater
flexibility to designate an advisory committee.

Require interdisciplinary research centers to
exchange technical information and best practices; to
partner with states and industry; to make use of
existing expertise in their regions and of ongoing
micrometer-scale R&D; and to accelerate
commercialization of nanotechnology.

Require that the annual report include budget
information on spending for research programs on
societal and ethical concerns.

Require that the Interagency Committee
develop a plan for using Federal programs, such as the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and
the Small Business Technology Transfer Research (SBTTR)
Program, in support of commercialization of
nanotechnology and that the annual report include an
assessment of the implementation of the plan and a
report on the amount of SBIR and SBTTR funds supporting
the plan.

The House passed H.R. 766, as amended, on May 7, 2003 by:
Y-405; N-19; Roll Call No. 167. On May 8, 2003, H.R. 766 was
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It was then informally
conferenced with the Senate companion bill, S. 189, which
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 18, 2003,
and passed the House by voice vote on November 20, 2003. The
bill was signed by the President on December 3, 2003 and became
Public Law 108-153.

1.4--P.L. 108-169, United States Fire Administration Reauthorization
Act of 2003 (S. 1152/H.R. 2692)

Background and Summary of Legislation
In the early 1970's, a report by the President's National
Commission on Fire Prevention and Control entitled America
Burning presented a dismal assessment of fire safety in the
United States. In response to the report, Congress created the
United States Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire
Academy. USFA is housed within the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and is charged with helping to prevent and
control fire-related losses. It was established in 1974, and by
1998, had helped reduce civilian fire deaths from over 12,000
per year to under 4,000. Additionally, using nearly any
measure--number of fires, deaths, injuries, or property
losses--the statistics are on an improving trend.
Despite this significant progress, the United States still
has one of the worst fire safety records in the industrialized
world. The per capita death rate remains two to three times
that of several European nations and at least 20 percent higher
than most developed countries. Fire remains the cause of
approximately 3,700 deaths and $11 billion in economic damages
each year, and every 18 seconds a fire department responds to a
call somewhere in the United States.
USFA's mission is to provide leadership, coordination, and
support for the Nation's fire prevention and control, fire
training and education, and emergency medical services
activities, particularly for America's 26,350 fire departments.
USFA programs include the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program and programs for data collection, public education and
awareness, training, and research.
Title I of P.L. 108-169 re-establishes the position of USFA
Administrator and reauthorizes USFA from FY 2004 through FY
2008.
Title II addresses firefighting research and coordination.
It allows the Administrator to provide assistance in fire
prevention and control technologies and directs the
Administrator to: (1) develop new, and utilize existing,
measurement techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating
firefighting technologies; (2) evaluate the compatibility of
new and existing equipment and technology; and (3) support the
development of new standards through national voluntary
consensus standards organizations for new firefighting
technologies.
The measure directs the Administrator to require that new
equipment or systems purchased through the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program meet or exceed established
applicable voluntary consensus standards though the
Administrator can waive this requirement under specified
conditions. However, a grant applicant who proposes to purchase
new equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed applicable
voluntary consensus standards must include in the application
an explanation of why such equipment or systems will serve the
needs of the applicant better than equipment or systems that do
meet or exceed such standards. The grant applicant can also
include a second grant request in the application in the event
the primary grant request is not approved on the grounds of the
equipment not meeting such standards.
The Administrator is also required to: (1) provide
technical assistance and training to State and local fire
service officials to establish nationwide and State mutual aid
systems for dealing with national emergencies; (2) develop and
make model mutual aid plans for both intrastate and interstate
assistance available to State and local fire service officials;
and (3) report to Congress on the need for a strategy
concerning deployment of volunteers and emergency response
personnel, including a national credentialing system, in the
event of a national emergency. The Department of Homeland
Security must report to Congress on plans for revisions to the
Federal Response Plan and its integration into the National
Response Plan, including how the revised plan will address
response to terrorist attacks, particularly in urban areas,
including fire detection and suppression and related emergency
services.
The measure authorizes the Superintendent of the National
Academy for Fire Prevention and Control to train fire service
personnel in: (1) strategies for building collapse rescue; (2)
the use of technology in response to fires; (3) response,
tactics, and strategies for dealing with terrorist-caused
national catastrophes; (4) use of and familiarity with the
Federal Response Plan; (5) leadership and strategic skills,
including integrated management systems operations and
integrated response; (6) strategies and tactics for fighting
forest fires; (7) integration of terrorism response agencies
into the national terrorism incident response system; and (8)
response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at U.S.
ports, including fires on the water and aboard vessels. It also
requires the Superintendent to offer at the Academy and at
other sites courses and training assistance as necessary to
accommodate all geographic regions and needs of career and
volunteer firefighters.

Legislative History
On July 10, 2003, Subcommittee on Research Chairman Nick
Smith and Subcommittee on Research Ranking Minority Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced H.R. 2692. It was solely
referred to the Committee on Science. On July 11, 2003, the
measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Research. The
Subcommittee held a hearing on July 17, 2003 and ordered the
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote that same day.
The Full Committee ordered the measure reported, as amended, by
a voice vote on July 22, 2003.
The Senate companion bill, S. 1152, United States Fire
Administration Reauthorization Act, was introduced by Senator
John McCain on May 25, 2003. An informal pre-conference on the
reported versions of the two bills was held, and the full
Senate passed the measure, as amended, by unanimous consent on
November 20, 2003. The bill was then approved by the House by a
voice vote the next day. It was signed by the President on
December 6, 2003 and became Public Law 108-169.

1.5--P.L. 108-176, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act
(H.R. 2115)

[Legislative note: A modified version of H.R. 2734, Federal
Aviation Administration Research and Development
Reauthorization Act, was incorporated into P.L. 108-176.)

Background and Summary of Legislation
Many of the provisions in Title VII of H.R. 2115, the
Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act were based
on provisions included in H.R. 2734, legislation introduced in
the House by Rep. Forbes (VA-04). This bill was reported to the
House by the Science Committee on July 22, 2003. A description
of Title VII of the bill follows.

Title VII--Aviation Research

Section 701 authorizes spending for Federal Aviation
Administration Research and Development programs in the
following amounts--$346.3 million for FY 2004; $356.2 million
for FY 2005; $352.2 million for FY 2006; and $356.3 million for
FY 2007.
Section 702 directs the FAA Administrator to establish a
scholarship for service program designed to recruit and prepare
students for careers in aviation. Scholarships will be awarded
competitively, with recipients agreeing to serve as full-time
employees of FAA, working two years for each year of
scholarship awarded. This Section specifies student eligibility
criteria, and exceptions to service. The Administrator is
authorized to spend up to $10 million annually for this
program.
Section 703 directs the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to establish a scholarship
for service program designed to recruit and prepare students
for careers in aviation. Scholarships will be awarded
competitively, with recipients agreeing to serve as full-time
employees of NASA, working two years for each year of
scholarship awarded. This Section specifies student eligibility
criteria, and exceptions to service. The Administrator is
authorized to spend up to $10 million annually for this
program.
Section 704 directs the FAA Administrator to continue a
program awarding grants to nonprofit concrete and asphalt
pavement research foundations to improve the design,
construction, rehabilitation and repair of airfield pavements.
Section 705 directs the FAA Administrator to review
airfield pavement standards to ensure that they meet the
agency's 20-year pavement life requirement.
Section 706 requires the FAA to conduct research promoting
development of analytical tools to improve existing aircraft
certification methods, and to reduce the cost for certification
of new products.
Section 707 adds, as an eligible activity, research on the
impact of new technologies and procedures for training pilots
and air traffic controllers.
Section 708 establishes a Center for Excellence for applied
research and training in the use of advanced materials in
aircraft.
Section 709 directs the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) within
the Federal Aviation Administration to manage work related to
the development of a next generation air transportation system
capable of safely and efficiently handling forecasted air
traffic in the year 2025. The JPDO shall oversee and coordinate
research and development between FAA, NASA, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Commerce, and other relevant federal agencies. It will also
ensure that private industry, user groups, labor, general
aviation, and space access companies will be consulted. The
JPDO is directed to produce a national strategic plan to
Congress, followed by annual updates and changes, if any, to
the strategic plan. $50 million is authorized for each of the
years FY 2004 through FY 2010.
Section 710 directs the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a Senior Policy Committee to provide guidance and
oversight of the work of the Joint Planning and Development
Office. Members shall be the Secretary (or the designee) of the
Department of Transportation; the Department of Defense; the
Department of Homeland Security; and the Department of
Commerce; and the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Section 711 directs the FAA Administrator to establish a
rotorcraft research and development initiative, with the
objective of developing and demonstrating in a relevant
environment, within 10 years, technologies enabling rotorcraft
to operate more quietly, safely, and efficiently.
Section 712 directs the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a four-year pilot airport cooperative research
program that identifies problems shared by airport operating
agencies that can be solved through applied research. $10
million is authorized for each of the four years. No later than
6 months after the expiration of the program, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a report on the program, including
recommendations on whether it should be made permanent.

Legislative History
H.R. 2734, the Federal Aviation Administration Research and
Development Reauthorization Act, was introduced by
Representative J. Randy Forbes on July 15, 2003 and referred to
the Committee on Science. On July 22, 2003 the Committee
considered the measure and ordered it reported, as amended, by
a voice vote. The Committee filed H.Rept. 108-405, Part I on
December 8, 2003. Provisions of H.R. 2734, Federal Aviation
Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act,
were incorporated into H.R. 2115, Vision 100--Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act.
On July 15, 2003, the Speaker appointed Chairman Boehlert,
Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Costello as additional conferees to
H.R. 2115, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
for consideration of Section 102 of the House bill, and
Sections 102, 104, 621, 622, 641, 642, 661, 662, 663, 667, and
669 of the Senate amendment. These conference committee
deliberations resulted in inclusion of provisions of H.R. 2734,
the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development
Reauthorization Act, into H.R. 2115. On October 29, 2003, the
Committee of Conference filed H.Rept. 108-334 on H.R. 2115. The
House agreed to the conference report by: Y-211; N-207; Roll
Call No. 592--clearing the measure for the Senate on October
30, 2003. The Senate agreed to the conference report on
November 21, 2003 by a voice vote--clearing the measure for the
President. On December 12, 2003, the President signed H.R.
2115, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
which became Public Law 108-176.

1.6--P.L. 108-201, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (S. 610/H.R.
1085)

Background and Summary of Legislation
In May 2002, NASA proposed to the Committee a list of
changes to civil service law designed to improve NASA's ability
to recruit and retain highly skilled scientists, engineers, and
program managers. The agency proposed additional changes in
February 2003. NASA found it needed additional recruitment and
retention tools because of the declines in university
enrollment for U.S. students in technical fields, increased
hiring competition from industry and academia for technical
skills, and a lack of minority and gender diversity in the
scientists and engineers (S&E) talent pool. NASA also
identified several workforce trends within the agency that
posed a significant threat to its ability to support its
technical programs and address the agency's management
challenges. From fiscal year 1993 to 2000, NASA reduced its
civil service workforce by 26 percent. Within NASA's S&E
workforce, the over-60 population outnumbers its under-30
population by nearly three to one. At some NASA centers, the
ratio is more than five to one. By contrast, in 1993, the
under-30 S&E workforce outnumbered the over-60 group by almost
two to one. Approximately 15 percent of NASA's S&E employees
are currently eligible to retire, and within five years, almost
25 percent of NASA's S&E workforce will be retirement eligible.
The NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 makes the
following policy changes:

Provides the Administrator of NASA the
authority to compensate certain excepted personnel at
the basic rate payable for level III of the Executive
Schedule.

Amends federal employee provisions to
establish separate workforce authorities and personnel
provisions for NASA.

Requires the NASA Administrator, before
exercising any such authorities, to submit to
Congressional committees a written workforce plan and
to obtain plan approval from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM).

Includes among NASA workforce authorities the
authority to: (1) pay recruitment, redesignation,
relocation, and retention bonuses in exchange for
service agreements; (2) make term appointments of one
to six years and permanent conversions; (3) fix basic
rates of pay for critical positions; and (4) extend
intergovernmental personnel act assignments to up to
four years.

Directs the Administrator to establish a
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science
and Technology Scholarship Program to award
scholarships to individuals in return for contractual
agreements under which such individuals agree to serve
as full-time NASA employees for two years for each year
of such scholarships.

Authorizes the Administrator to appoint
directly to the General Schedule of Compensation for
Federal Employees in GS-7 through GS-12 positions
individuals in professional and research fields who
meet specified educational requirements.

Authorizes the Administrator to pay the
travel, transportation, and relocation expenses of
certain new appointees to the same extent and in the
same manner as the payment of such expenses for
transferred employees.

Authorizes the Administrator, with the
approval of OPM, to set the pay of an employee paid
under the General Schedule at any step within the pay
range for the grade of the position if such employee
possesses unusually high or unique qualifications and
is assigned new duties, without a change in position,
or to a new position.
Legislative History
The NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 was principally
drafted in the Committee on Science with support from the
Committee on Government Reform. Chairman Boehlert introduced
H.R. 1085 on March 5, 2003, with Mr. Bishop, Mr. Burgess, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Baker, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wicker,
and Ms. Eshoo as original co-sponsors and jointly referred to
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Government
Reform.
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics on March 12, 2003. A hearing was held by the Full
Committee on March 12, 2003. The Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a markup on June 26, 2003, and ordered the
measure reported, as amended, to the Full Committee by a voice
vote. On July 22, 2003, the Committee considered H.R. 1085 and
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a Roll Call Vote:
Y-21; N-14. The Committee filed H.Rept. 108-244, Part 1 on
August 4, 2003. Provisions of H.R. 1085, NASA Flexibility Act
of 2003, were incorporated into S. 610, NASA Flexibility Act of
2004, Senate companion measure.
On March 13, 2003, Senator Voinovich introduced S. 610,
NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, along with Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Carper as co-sponsors. On June
17, 2003 the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held a
markup and ordered the measure reported, with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, by voice vote. The Committee filed
S.Rept 108-113 on July 28, 2003. The Senate passed S. 610, as
amended, by a voice vote on November 24, 2003. The measure was
received in the House and held at the desk on November 25,
2003.
On January 28, 2004, the House passed S. 610, without
amendment, by a voice vote-clearing the measure for the
President. On February 3, 2004, the House agreed to H.Con.Res.
354, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act Technical Corrections Act
by a voice vote. This measure permitted the correction of
technical errors in the enrollment of S. 610, NASA Flexibility
Act of 2003. On February 10, 2004, the Senate agreed to
H.Con.Res. 354, by a voice vote--clearing the enrollment of S.
610 for the President. On February 24, 2004, the President
signed S. 610, NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, which became
Public Law 108-201.

1.7--P.L. 108-219, Conveyance of NOAA Vessel to Utrok Atoll (H.R. 2584)

Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
oceanographic research vessel that will transfer under this
legislation is the McArthur, which was decommissioned on May
20, 2003. This ship is 175 feet in length, has a draft of 12
feet, a displacement of more than 1,000 tons, a cruising range
of 6,600 nautical miles, and cruising speed of ten knots. It
was constructed by the Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Company
in Virginia. This vessel was commissioned in December of 1966
and was used by NOAA for more than 35 years to conduct
chemical, meteorological, and biological sampling for several
large scale programs. The majority of the McArthur's work was
performed in several National Marine Sanctuaries on the West
Coast of the United States.
The Utrok Atoll is one of the 29 low coral atolls that
comprise the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It has a current
population of about 600 people, and the atoll is slightly
smaller than one square mile. During the period of nuclear bomb
testing, the residents of the Utrok Atoll were exposed to the
effects of radiation caused by a miscalculation of the effects
of the March 1954 Bravo Hydrogen bomb test on Bikini Island.
Regrettably the fallout from this test drifted to several
neighboring islands including Utrok, which is approximately 255
miles from the bomb site. Since that time, Utrok residents have
suffered increased rates of thyroid cancer and birth defects.
This vessel will provide an essential means of
transportation to those living on the atoll and the 3,000
residents living throughout the Marshall Islands to the
Department of Energy's Whole Body Counting Facility in the city
of Majuro. This city is the capital of the Marshall Islands and
it is more than 250 miles from the Utrok Atoll. This facility
was dedicated on July 19, 2003, and it is designed to monitor
radioactivity in the people of Utrok. It is currently difficult
to provide access to these medical facilities because of not
only its location but the cost and infrequency of airline
transportation. In addition, the transferred vessel will be
used for any resettlement of residents, to transport tons of
potassium fertilizer and equipment required for radiation
cleanup and environmental monitoring and to periodically ship
U.S. Department of Agriculture food to Utrok. This food is
necessary to supplement the diet of the residents of Utrok
because the food grown on the island is contaminated with
radioactive Cesium-137.
H.R. 2584 stipulates that the Secretary of Commerce may
convey to the Utrok Atoll government all rights, title and
interests to a decommissioned NOAA vessel. In addition, the
legislation requires that the vessel be in operable condition
at the time of transfer and that any responsibility or
liability for maintaining the vessel in the future is conveyed
to the Utrok government.
Legislative History
H.R. 2584 was introduced on June 24, 2003, by Congressman
Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS). The legislation was referred to the
Committee on Resources and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans.
On October 29, 2003, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. The Committee on Resources filed H.Rept.
108-378 on November 18, 2003. In that report is an exchange of
letters between the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Resources acknowledging that the Committee on Science has
jurisdiction over the legislation.
On November 21, 2003 the measure passed that House by a
voice vote. It was then received in the Senate and referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On March 24, 2004, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation discharged the measure. The measure
passed the Senate the same day, as amended, by unanimous
consent. It was then received by the House and held at the
desk.
The House agreed to the Senate amendments and the measure
passed the House on March 29, 2004. H.R. 2584 was signed by the
President on April 13, 2004 and became P.L. 108-219.

1.8--P.L. 108-320, Malcolm Baldrige Awards for Nonprofit Organizations
(H.R. 3389)

Background and Summary of Legislation
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards were
established in 1987 to promote improved quality assurance and
management in U.S. companies and organizations. The Awards
recognize those that have substantially benefited the economic
or social well-being of the United States through outstanding
improvements in the quality of their goods and services that
result from the effective practice of quality management. The
Awards were intended to raise awareness about the importance of
quality and performance to competitiveness, and establish a
process to disseminate information about successful strategies
and best practices.
The mechanism for making these awards, established in the
law, is a public-private partnership housed in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Authority was
provided in the underlying statute to seek and accept gifts
from public and private sources to carry out the program.
Today, NIST is responsible for the development of the criteria
under which each award is made, the training of the examiners
who will review applicants to the awards program, and the
publication of criteria and related information for
dissemination to the public. Collectively these activities are
known as the Baldrige National Quality Program. The American
Society for Quality (ASQ) assists in the administration of the
award program under a contract with NIST. The Foundation for
the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award was created to raise funds
to permanently endow the partnership. Prominent leaders from
U.S. organizations serve as Foundation Trustees.
The awards are made on the basis of the Baldrige Criteria,
which are based on seven general categories: leadership;
strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement,
analysis, and knowledge management; human resource focus;
process management; and business results. The Criteria
constitute a methodology companies and other organizations can
apply themselves to improve quality and productivity.
Companies or organizations that compete for the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award participate in an application
and examination process in which the NIST trained examiners
audit the organization or company and score them according to
the Baldrige Criteria. Each applicant receives a feedback
report at the end of review process which provides an analysis
of the applicants' strengths and recommendations for
improvement. Award winners are required to share information on
their practices and strategies with other U.S. organizations,
which they do through the annual Quest for Excellence
conference, and a variety of other public sessions.
Since the passage of the law, the Baldrige Criteria have
become commonly used by companies worldwide to increase their
performance. In addition, a large number of the U.S. States
have established their own state-level Baldrige Award systems
to recognize excellence, and have begun to establish categories
in addition to those offered at the national level. One of
these categories is the nonprofit category. A nonprofit
category permits entities from the nonprofit sector not
involved in health care or education, or entities of Federal,
State, or local government not similarly employed, to compete
on the basis of the Baldrige Criteria. This category has proven
especially popular and nonprofits and States where this
category is recognized have urged Congress to establish a
nonprofit category within the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award.
Legislative History
On October 29, 2003 Congressman Brad Miller introduced H.R.
3389, to amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 to permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to
be made to nonprofit organizations, and the bill was referred
to the Committee on Science. On February 2, 2004, the bill was
discharged from the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology,
and Standards.
On February 4, 2004, the Committee on Science considered
H.R. 3389. No amendments were offered and the Committee
favorably reported the bill by voice vote and filed H.Rept.
108-419.
On March 3, 2004, H.R. 3389 was considered by the House and
passed without amendment. H.R. 3389 was then received by the
Senate the following day and was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Committee discharged
the measure on September 23, 2004, and it passed the Senate the
same day. H.R. 3389 was signed by the President on October 5,
2004 and became P.L. 108-320.

1.9--P.L. 108-360, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (H.R. 2608)

Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 108-360 includes H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Title
I), H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of
2004 (Title II), and the authorization levels in H.R. 3752, the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (Title III).

Title I, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

A culmination of efforts, largely in response to the great
Alaskan earthquake of 1964 and San Fernando earthquake of 1971,
led to the creation of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-124). NEHRP is a long-term, comprehensive,
multi-agency earthquake hazards mitigation program designed to
minimize the loss of life and property from earthquakes. The
participating agencies are the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Science
Foundation (NSF), and National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).
Since its inception, NEHRP has contributed significantly to
reducing vulnerability to earthquakes. Perhaps most notable is
the vast improvement in the ability to design a built
environment that can resist significant earthquake shaking with
little or no damage. NEHRP research and mitigation has also
produced valuable tools for mitigating earthquake hazards,
including new national hazard maps, improved seismic design
provisions for new buildings, guidelines for the rehabilitation
of existing buildings, loss estimation methodologies,
performance-based design methodologies, and real-time shake
maps for first responders and other public officials.
Reauthorization of NEHRP is contained in Title I of P.L.
108-360. The measure requires that program activities be
designed to: (1) develop effective measures for earthquake
hazards reduction; (2) promote the adoption of such measures by
Federal, State, and local governments, national standards and
model code organizations, architects and engineers, building
owners, and others with a role in planning and constructing
buildings, structures, and lifelines; and (3) improve the
understanding of earthquakes and their effects on communities,
buildings, structures, and lifelines through interdisciplinary
research. Further, it establishes an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, to be chaired by the
NIST Director and requires the NIST Director to establish an
Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction. It also
moves the responsibility for planning and coordinating the
program from FEMA to NIST.
The measure authorizes appropriations for carrying out the
Act for: (1) FEMA for FY 2004 through 2006, including for
supporting the development of performance-based, cost-
effective, and affordable codes for buildings, structures, and
lifelines; (2) USGS for FY 2004 through 2008, including funds
for the completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research
and Monitoring System; (3) NSF for FY 2004 through 2006,
including for the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation; and (4) NIST for FY 2004 through 2006,
including for supporting the development of the codes specified
above.

Title II, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

The United States currently sustains several billion
dollars each year in property and economic losses due to
windstorms. While estimates of annualized windstorm damages are
variable and limited in scope, the National Weather Service
estimates that between 1995 and 2002, hurricanes, tornadoes,
and thunderstorm winds caused on average $4.5 billion in damage
per year. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers
has estimated windstorm damages to be in excess of $5 billion
per year. A variety of cost-effective windstorm hazard
mitigation measures exist, and many more are undergoing
research and development. It is unclear to what extent these
mitigation technologies have been adopted, but it is generally
agreed that they have been under-utilized, and that significant
improvements in the wind resistance of buildings and other
structures will not be achieved without improved incentives at
the local and individual level. This fact, combined with
growing populations in coastal areas particularly susceptible
to major windstorms, has led to substantial increases in the
overall windstorm vulnerabilities. Evaluations of the size,
scope, and effectiveness of current mitigation efforts have
found significant room for improvement.
Provisions contained in Title II of P.L. 108-360 refer to
the establishment of a National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program, the objective of which is to achieve major measurable
reductions in losses of life and property from windstorms. The
program is to consist of the following primary mitigation
components: (1) improved understanding of windstorms; (2)
windstorm impact assessment; and (3) windstorm impact
reduction, which shall be implemented through activities such
as data collection and analysis and research and development.
Research activities authorized under this Act are to be peer-
reviewed and the components to be designed to be complementary
to, and avoid duplication of, other hazard reduction efforts.
The legislation requires the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish an
Interagency Working Group consisting of representatives of NSF,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
NIST, FEMA, and other federal agencies as appropriate. The
working group is to develop an implementation plan for
achieving program objectives and transmit biennial reports on
the status of the program. The OSTP Director is also required
to establish a National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact
Reduction.
The measure authorizes appropriations for FY 2006-2008 for
FEMA, NSF, NIST, and NOAA.

Title III, Commercial Space Transportation

Title III of H.R. 2608 authorizes appropriations to the
Department of Transportation for the activities of the Office
of Commercial Space Transportation for fiscal years 2005
through 2009. These levels were incorporated from H.R. 3752,
the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, a modified
version of which (H.R. 5382) became Public Law 108-492 on
December 23, 2004. For further information, see the legislative
summary for P.L. 108-492.

Legislative History
H.R. 2608
On June 26, 2003, Subcommittee on Research Chairman Nick
Smith, Representative Brian Baird, and Representative Zoe
Lofgren introduced H.R. 2608. The measure was referred to the
Committee on Science and Committee on Resources. The Committee
on Science ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice
vote on July 22, 2003, and on August 14, 2003, the Committee on
Resources discharged the measure. The House passed the measure
under suspension, as amended, by a voice vote on October 1,
2003.
On October 2, 2003, H.R. 2608 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. The Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space held a hearing on June 24, 2004, and on July 22, 2004,
the Full Committee ordered the measure reported, without
amendment, favorably.
H.R. 3980
On March 17, 2004, Representative Randy Neugebauer
introduced H.R. 3980 and it was referred to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
On March 19, 2004, the measure was referred to the Subcommittee
on Environment, Technology, and Standards and the Subcommittee
on Research of the Science Committee and a joint subcommittee
hearing was held on March 24, 2004. The Full Science Committee
held a markup of the measure on March 31, 2004 and ordered the
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote.
On June 28, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services and
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure discharged the
measure and on July 8, 2004 the House passed H.R. 3980, as
amended, by: Y-387; N-26; Roll Call No. 338. On July 12, 2004,
the measure was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Combined legislation
An informal pre-conference led to the incorporation of H.R.
3980, as amended, and the authorization levels from H.R. 3752
into H.R. 2608, expansion of the NEHRP authorization through FY
2009, and other minor changes. The Senate passed H.R. 2608, as
amended, by a voice vote on October 6, 2004. On October 8,
2004, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a voice vote.
The measure was signed by the President on October 25, 2004 and
became Public Law 108-360.

1.10--P.L. 108-375, Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4200)

[Legislative note: H.R. 4107, Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004, was incorporated into the
House/Senate conference report on H.R. 4200. Also, modified
language from H.R. 3966, ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal
Access to Campus Act of 2004, was included in P.L. 108-375.]

Background and Summary of Legislation
On August 28, 2004, the Speaker appointed Science Committee
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, Subcommittee on Research Chairman
Nick Smith, and Science Committee Ranking Minority Member Bart
Gordon as additional conferees to H.R. 4200, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, for
consideration of Section 596 of the House bill and Sections
1034, 1092, and Title XXXV of the Senate-passed version (S.
2400).
These conference committee deliberations, contained in
H.Rept. 108-767 (conference report to accompany H.R. 4200),
resulted in the enactment of Sections 1034 (renamed as Section
914), 1092, and Title XXXV (renamed as Title XXXVI). Section
596 of the original House-passed bill and Section 1034 of the
Senate version was not included in the final legislation, which
was signed by the President on October 28, 2004. Descriptions
of the aforementioned provisions follow.

Title XXXV--Assistance to Firefighters

The Senate version of the legislation, passed on June 23,
2004, contained a Title reauthorizing the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program within the Department of Homeland
Security. The amendment was a modified version of S. 2411,
which is companion legislation to H.R. 4107, introduced by
Chairman Boehlert on April 1, 2004.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, commonly
known as the FIRE Act, makes competitive awards to fire
departments nationwide for the purchase of equipment, vehicles,
and training. The program's main function is to improve the
baseline readiness for day-to-day firefighting activities
performed by fire departments. Since its inception, the FIRE
Act program has distributed more than $1 billion to nearly
17,000 paid and volunteer fire departments nationwide. More
than 20,000 departments have applied for the $750 million
available under the program for FY 2004.
The authorization language, as amended in its final form,
amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974,
reauthorizing $4.8 billion for the FIRE Act through FY 2009
($900 million in FY 2005, $950 million in FY 2006, and $1
billion each year thereafter). While the bill leaves the FIRE
Act mostly unchanged, it does make several programmatic
changes, including: transferring the program from the
Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic
Preparedness back to the U.S. Fire Administration; expanding
eligibility requirements to include non-profit, non-hospital
Emergency Medical Service squads; increasing the grant-size
cap; and reducing federal matching requirements for
jurisdictions serving more than 50,000 people.
Section 1034--Nondisclosure of Certain Products of Commercial Satellite
Operations
The Senate version of the legislation included a section
making federal disclosure requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act inapplicable with respect to land remote
sensing information collected by the United States, including
any such information provided to a State, local, or tribal
government. Additionally, it requires the head of each agency
having or supplying such information to take all necessary
steps to protect such information from public disclosure.
Section 1092--Clarification of Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Level for a
National Institute of Standards and Technology Account
The Senate version of the legislation contained a section
clarifying and supporting the reprogramming of FY 2004 funding
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Specifically, the section clarifies that the Secretary of
Commerce shall make all determinations based on the Industrial
and Technology Services funding level of $218,782,000 for
reprogramming and transferring of funds for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership.
Section 596--Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps and Recruiter Access
at Institutions of Higher Education
The original House-passed version of H.R. 4200 contained a
section expanding the list of covered federal funds that would
be denied to an institution of higher education if the
Secretary of Defense determines that the college or university
prohibits or prevents military recruiters from accessing the
institution for Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC)
recruitment. The expanded list includes the Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Energy National Nuclear
Security Administration, Central Intelligence Agency, and the
Department of Transportation. It also requires the Secretary of
Defense to request information from colleges and universities
verifying their support of ROTC programs in the upcoming
academic year. The language was struck during conference
negotiations and was not included in the final version of H.R.
4200.

1.11--P.L. 108-391, Expressing the sense of the Congress in recognition
of the contributions of the seven Columbia astronauts by supporting
establishment of a Columbia Memorial Space Science Learning Center
(H.J.Res. 57)

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.J.Res. 57, sponsored by Ms. Roybal-Allard and co-
sponsored by 53 other Members from both sides of the aisle,
expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the space science
learning center in Downey, California, should be designated as
the Columbia Memorial Space Science Learning Center; and (2)
the Government, along with public and private organizations and
persons, should continue to cooperate in the establishment of
such center.
Legislative History
H.J.Res. 57 was introduced on May 22, 2003 and solely
referred to the Committee on Science. On October 5, 2004, the
Committee discharged the bill, and the House agreed to suspend
the rules and pass H.J.Res. 57, as amended, by voice vote. On
October 6, 2004 it was received in the Senate and held at the
desk. The Senate passed H.J.Res. 57 by unanimous consent, on
October 10, 2004--clearing the measure for the President. On
October 30, 2004, the President signed H.J.Res. 57, Expressing
the sense of the Congress in recognition of the contributions
of the seven Columbia astronauts by supporting establishment of
a Columbia Memorial Space Science Learning Center, which became
Public Law 108-391.

1.12--P.L. 108-423, Department of Energy High-End Computing
Revitalization Act of 2004 (H.R. 4516)

Background and Summary of Legislation
High-performance computing--also called supercomputing,
high-end computing, and sometimes advanced scientific
computing--refers to the use of machines or groups of machines
that can perform very complex computations very quickly. High-
performance computers are, by definition, the most powerful
computers in the world at a given moment in time. They are used
to solve highly complex scientific and engineering problems, to
simulate physical systems that are often difficult to study
experimentally, or to manage vast amounts of data.
The Federal Government promotes high-performance computing
in several different ways. First, it funds research and
development (R&D) at universities, government laboratories and
companies to help develop new computer hardware and software;
second, it funds the purchase of high-performance computers for
universities and government laboratories; and third, it
provides access to high-performance computers for a wide
variety of researchers by allowing them to use government-
supported computers at universities and government labs. In
recent years, federally-supported efforts appear to have lost
momentum as the focus of computing activities began shifting
from high-performance computing to less specialized computing
and networking technologies.
The purpose of P.L. 108-423 is to authorize a program at
the Department of Energy (DOE) to support research and
development to advance high-end computing systems and to
develop and deploy such systems for advanced scientific and
engineering applications. The measure authorizes appropriations
for the program for FY 2005-2007. P.L. 108-423 directs the
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Director of the Office
of Science, to implement a research and development program
(involving software and hardware development) to advance high-
end computing systems and to develop and deploy them for
advanced scientific and engineering applications. The program
is to include research into (1) multiple architectures, which
may include vector, reconfigurable logic, streaming, processor-
in-memory, and multithreading architectures; and (2) software
development on optimal algorithms, programming environments,
tools, languages, and operating systems for high-end computing
systems, in collaboration with architecture development
efforts.
The Secretary is to establish and operate facilities to (1)
conduct advanced scientific and engineering research and
development using Leadership Systems, i.e. high-end computing
systems that are among the most advanced in the world in terms
of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems;
(2) develop potential advancements in high-end computing system
hardware and software; and (3) provide access to such systems
on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis to researchers in U.S.
industry, institutions of higher education, national
laboratories, and other federal agencies. The Secretary must
establish at least one High-End Software Development Center,
which shall concentrate efforts to develop, test, maintain, and
support optimal algorithms, programming environments, tools,
languages, and operating systems for high-end computing
systems. The Secretary must also use the expertise of a center
to assess research and development in high-end computing system
architecture.
Legislative History
On May 13, 2004 the Science Committee held a hearing on a
measure that addressed federal high-performance computing
research and development activities, including activities in
the Department of Energy. Subsequently, H.R. 4516 was
introduced by Subcommittee on Energy Chairwoman Judy Biggert
and Representative Lincoln Davis on June 4, 2004, and it was
solely referred to the Committee on Science. On June 7, 2004 it
was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy. The Subcommittee on
Energy held a markup on June 15, 2004. Chairwoman Biggert
offered an en bloc amendment, which was adopted by a voice
vote, and the Subcommittee ordered the measure reported, as
amended, to the Full Committee by a voice vote. The Full
Committee considered the measure on June 16, 2004 and ordered
the bill reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The House
passed H.R. 4516 under suspension, as amended, by a voice vote
on July 7, 2004.
On July 8, 2004 H.R. 4516 was received in the Senate and
solely referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. On September 15, 2004 the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources ordered the measure reported, favorably, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and on October 10,
2004 the Senate passed H.R. 4516, as amended, by unanimous
consent. On November 17, 2004 the House agreed to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4516 by a voice vote. The President signed
the measure on November 30, 2004 and it became P.L. 108-423.

1.13--P.L. 108-426, Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Reorganization Act (H.R. 5163)

Background and Summary of Legislation
Authority for research and development at the Department of
Transportation is spread across several agencies and
administrations, including the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA). While each agency and administration
controls its own specific research according to its own
mission, duplication and a lack of coordination can result. The
byproduct of such `stove-pipe' research efforts are
inefficiencies and poor strategic planning. The RSPA research
role in the Department has been criticized for being unclear,
and confused with additional responsibilities unrelated to
research such as the responsibilities for the Office of
Pipeline Safety.
The need to clarify the role of RSPA with respect to both
research and pipeline safety, as well as the need to avoid
Department-wide research duplication and inefficiency, lead to
the conclusion that RSPA should be reorganized into two new
administrations.
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA), created by this Act, succeeds to all the research
authority currently exercised by RSPA, and includes such other
duties and powers prescribed by the Secretary that advance the
research goals of RITA. RITA will help the department avoid
duplication of research efforts without forcing individual
agencies and administrations to abandon their own unique
research challenges, goals and plans. RITA will also provide
strategic clarity to the Department's multi-modal and
intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the
multifaceted research agenda of the Department.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), created by this Act, shall be responsible for the
duties and powers related to pipeline or hazardous materials
transportation and safety vested in the Secretary by chapters
51, 57, 61, 601, and 603 of Title 49, United States Code. PHSMA
will improve the Department's oversight and regulation of
pipeline safety and hazardous materials.
Legislative History
H.R. 5163 was introduced on September 29, 2004 by Chairman
Young and Ranking Minority Member Oberstar and referred to
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Science.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines discharged the
bill on September 29, 2004. On September 29, 2004, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee considered H.R.
5163. No amendments were offered and the Committee favorably
reported the bill as amended by the Subcommittee by a voice
vote. On October 6, 2004 the Science Committee discharged the
bill and the Committee on Transportation filed H.Rept. 109-749.
On October 7, 2004, H.R. 5163 was considered by the House.
The measure passed the House by a voice vote. H.R. 5163 was
received by the Senate on October 7, 2004 and passed without
amendment on November 16, 2004. H.R. 5163 was signed by the
President on November 30, 2004 and became P.L. 108-426.

1.14--P.L. 108-428, to extend the liability indemnification regime for
the commercial space transportation industry (H.R. 5245/H.R. 3752)

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 5245 extends liability insurance and financial
responsibility requirements with respect to commercial space
transportation through December 31, 2009. It also directs the
Secretary of Transportation to arrange with a nonprofit entity
for a study: (1) regarding the liability risk sharing regime in
the United States for commercial space transportation; (2) to
assess methods by which the liability risk sharing regime could
be eliminated and whether alternative steps would be needed to
maintain a viable and competitive U.S. space transportation
industry if it were eliminated; and (3) to examine liability
risk sharing in other nations with commercial launch capability
and evaluate the direct and indirect impact that eliminating
the regime would have on the competitiveness of the U.S.
commercial space launch industry in relation to foreign
commercial launch providers and on U.S. assured access to
space.
Legislative History
On October 7, 2004, Mr. Boehlert, along with Mr. Gordon as
a co-sponsor, introduced H.R. 5245, To extend the liability
indemnification regime for the commercial space transportation
industry, which was solely referred to the Committee on
Science. This bill contained language previously located in
H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.
The Committee discharged the measure on October 8, 2004, and on
the same day, the House passed the bill by voice vote--clearing
the measure for the Senate. On November 16, 2004 the Senate
passed the bill, without amendment--clearing the measure for
the President. On November 30, 2004, the President signed H.R.
5245, To extend the liability indemnification regime for the
commercial space transportation industry, which became Public
Law 108-428.

1.15--P.L. 108-456, Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of
2004 (S. 3014/H.R. 1856)

Background and Summary of Legislation
Algae are microscopic, single-celled organisms present in
aquatic environments. Under normal conditions, these organisms
are benign and serve a critical role as energy producers at the
base of aquatic food webs, supporting the growth of higher
organisms. Under certain circumstances, however, the population
of a single algal species or several related species can
rapidly increase in abundance, creating what is referred to as
an `algal bloom.' Algal blooms have many adverse effects on
ecosystems and human health. `Harmful algal blooms' (HABs) are
blooms that produce toxins dangerous to humans and aquatic
animals. `Hypoxia,' caused by the decomposition of algal
blooms, is a condition where oxygen levels in the water become
depleted to levels unable to support aquatic life.
HABs have occurred throughout recorded history, however in
the past 30 years the rate of occurrence and the duration of
HABs have increased substantially. In the past year alone, HABs
were implicated in the death of 72 manatees in Florida and 57
dolphins and 319 sea lions in Southern California. Warnings for
people to avoid swimming because of HABs were posted in parts
of the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie for much of the summer of
2003. HABs present a major threat to aquatic environments and
to human health because of the toxins released during the
events. These compounds can kill or injure large quantities of
aquatic animals that come in direct contact with them. Also,
the toxins can accumulate in animals that are not susceptible
and cause illness when they are later consumed by humans, who
are susceptible to the toxins. Some toxins are so potent that
consumption of a single contaminated clam or mussel can be
enough to cause illness. Humans may also be harmed directly by
skin contact or inhalation of spray from toxin-contaminated
water. To protect the public when harmful algae are detected,
State and local governments must close beaches to swimmers and
shellfish beds to commercial and recreational harvesting, and
seafood distributors may need to recall already harvested
shellfish.
Average economic impacts from HABs total $50 million per
year in the United States, although severe single events have
cost that amount alone to localities. The economic impacts of
HABs include costs associated with conducting research and
monitoring programs; short-term and permanent closures of
harvestable shellfish and fish stocks; reductions in seafood
sales; mortalities of wild and farmed fish, shellfish,
submerged aquatic vegetation, and coral reefs; declines in
tourism; and treatment of human illness.
Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed
by bacteria in the water. The decomposition process consumes
oxygen, creating an environment in which plants and animals
cannot survive. Concern about hypoxia has focused primarily on
the Gulf of Mexico, where a hypoxic zone the size of New Jersey
appears each summer and persists for much of the season. This
renders the affected area, which normally contains some of the
most valuable fisheries in the United States, essentially
lifeless. Other areas of the country that experience chronic
hypoxia include the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and
Sarasota Bay. In 2003, the hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay was
the worst ever observed, with reports of crabs leaping out of
the water gasping for oxygen. The most recent analysis by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
indicates that more than half of the country's estuaries
experience hypoxia at some time each year.
Most experts agree that the major cause of hypoxia is
nutrient pollution in the watersheds of coastal areas. The dead
zone in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates the regional and
national scale of this problem. The Mississippi River Basin
includes drainage from 31 states and carries farm chemicals,
treated sewage discharge, storm water runoff, and pollutants
from factories and refineries to the Gulf. Given the economic
importance and large geographic distribution of the pollutant
sources, this presents a challenging national management
problem.
Hypoxia can be caused by any type of algal bloom, not only
by blooms of toxin-producing algae. Macro algal, or seaweed,
blooms also can lead to hypoxia. Numerous factors, including
nutrient pollution and introduction of invasive species from
ballast water, cause macroalgal blooms. The result of these
seaweed blooms can be shading or smothering of other organisms
that need sunlight to survive, habitat degradation, and hypoxia
as the seaweeds decompose.
In 1997, an outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida focused public
and Congressional attention on harmful algal blooms in the
Chesapeake Bay and was partly responsible for prompting the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of
1998 (HABHRCA). The legislation was referred to the Committee
on Science, in addition to the Committee on Resources, and
became Title VI of Public Law 105-383, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1998. HABHRCA established an Interagency
Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia and required four reports from
that task force: the National Harmful Algal Bloom Assessment,
the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Assessment, the Gulf of Mexico
Hypoxia Action Plan, and the National Hypoxia Assessment. The
first three were published; the last is finished and awaiting
publication. Additionally, a Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force was established to implement the
Gulf of Mexico Action Plan. This watershed task force consists
of federal, State and local stakeholders and meets regularly to
discuss the implementation process.
HABHRCA authorized funding for HAB and hypoxia research
through NOAA. In particular, the Act supported the Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program that the
Clinton Administration had launched in 1996. This program
supports basic research necessary to understand HABs and to
produce models to forecast bloom development, persistence and
toxicity. Grant applications are solicited from universities,
private research institutions, and federal agencies and are
awarded through a merit-reviewed system. NOAA coordinates
ECOHAB with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
Office of Naval Research (ONR). HABHRCA also supports the
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB)
program, in which local resource managers and scientific
institutions form partnerships to enhance existing water and
shellfish monitoring programs with new technology, with the
ultimate goal of building sustainable regional partnerships
that provide managers with crucial information in time for
critical decisions needed to mitigate HAB impacts.
The authorizations in HABHRCA expired in fiscal year (FY)
2000, however NOAA has continued to receive around $17 million
annually for HAB and hypoxia research. HABs and hypoxia
continue to affect communities throughout the United States and
there remains much to learn about what can be done to control
these events. The research performed under these programs can
help local resource managers develop tools for quickly
detecting HABs, providing them longer lead time in warning the
public about swimming and seafood consumption. Additionally,
while research under the 1998 Act provided insights into many
marine HAB events, the area of freshwater HABs has not received
as much attention. Freshwater HABs are increasing in
occurrence, especially in the Great Lakes, and are not as well
understood.
Legislative History
Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 1856, the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of
2003, on April 29, 2003, at which time the bill was referred to
the Committee on Science, and, in addition, to the Committee on
Resources. On March 13, 2003, the Environment, Technology, and
Standards Subcommittee held a hearing on the state of the
science in understanding, predicting, and responding to HABs
and hypoxia.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on June 5, 2003 to consider the bill. Two amendments were
adopted by voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the
bill, H.R. 1856, as amended, by voice vote.
On July 22, 2003, the Committee on Science considered H.R.
1856. The Committee adopted an amendment by voice vote. The
Committee favorably reported the bill as amended, by voice
vote. The Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 108-326 on October
24, 2003. The measure was then referred to the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Resources. The measure
was discharged by the Committees of Referral on April 2, 2004.
The House considered H.R. 1856 on July 7, 2004 and it
passed as amended. The Senate received H.R. 1856 on July 8,
2004 and referred it to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. The companion bill, S. 3014,
passed the Senate without amendment on November 20, 2004. The
House considered S. 3014 on November 20, 2004 and it passed by
unanimous consent. The President signed S. 3014 on December 10,
2004, which became P.L. 108-456.

1.16--P.L. 108-458, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (S. 2845/H.R. 10)

Background and Summary of Legislation
On November 27, 2002, President Bush signed legislation
creating the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States--more commonly known as the 9/11 Commission. The
Commission was directed to investigate the ``facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001.'' To fulfill its mandate, the 9/11 Commission
reviewed over 2.5 million pages of documents, conducted
interviews of some 1,200 individuals in ten countries, and held
19 days of public hearings featuring testimony from 160
witnesses. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued its
report on the investigation. S. 2845, the 9/11 Recommendations
Implementation Act, is in response to the recommendations made
in this report.
S. 2845 aims to improve the security of the United States
by strengthening the organizations and authorities of the
United States intelligence community. It will provide for
reform of government organizations and systems, improve
terrorism prevention and prosecution, increase border security,
and enhance international cooperation and coordination. The
overall goals of this legislation are to prevent terrorist
attacks against the United States and its interests and to
better position the intelligence community to meet the global
threats of the future.
S. 2845 includes several provisions that are relevant to
the Science Committee. It amends the Clinger-Cohen Act to
provide for enhanced agency planning for information security
needs. It also enhances the inter-operability of public safety
communications by establishing an inter-operability program
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and
Technology Directorate. DHS will operate the program in
collaboration with the Department of Commerce and the Federal
Communications Commission. The bill authorizes a total of
$117,358,000 for the program over five years (FY 2005 to 2009).
S. 2845 also includes many provisions to improve
transportation security. It requires DHS and the Department of
Transportation to develop a National Strategy for
Transportation Security, which will include research and
development (R&D) objectives in support of transportation
security needs. An additional $20 million is authorized for R&D
on advanced biometric technology applications to aviation
security, and $1 million is authorized for a competitive center
of excellence that will develop and expedite the Federal
Government's use of biometric identifiers. The bill also
instructs the Transportation Security Administration to consult
the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the use
of biometrics technology in airport access control systems.
Several other DHS R&D programs are authorized in S. 2845,
including $250 million for R&D and installation of detection
systems for biological, chemical, radiological, and explosive
materials; $100 million for R&D into improved explosive
detection systems for aviation security; and $100 million for
R&D related to enhanced air cargo security technology as well
as for deployment and installation of enhanced air cargo
security technology (a grant program for technology development
is required under this provision as well). All of these efforts
are to be carried out by the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA).
Other provisions related to the Science Committee's
jurisdiction are: (1) establishment of an Office of Geospatial
Management within the DHS Office of the Chief Information
Officer; (2) a sense of Congress that the Secretary of Homeland
Security should promote national preparedness standards; (3) a
sense of Congress that Congress must pass legislation in the
first session of the 109th Congress to reform the system for
distributing grants to enhance State and local government
terrorism preparedness; (4) provision of the Director of
National Intelligence with access to the capabilities of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy national
laboratories, including the National Infrastructure Simulation
and Analysis Center; and (5) establishment of pilot programs by
DHS on the northern U.S. border that test advanced technologies
for border security and on the southwestern U.S. border that
test systematic surveillance by remotely piloted aircraft.
Legislative History
On September 24, 2004 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
introduced H.R. 10. The measure was referred to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and in addition to the
Committees on Armed Services, Education and the Workforce,
Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Government Reform,
International Relations, the Judiciary, Rules, Science,
Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means, and Select
Homeland Security. The Committee on Science was granted an
extension for the referral of H.R. 10 on October 4, 2004 and
discharged the measure on October 5, 2004. The House passed
H.R. 10 on October 8, 2004 by: Y-282; N-134; Roll Call No. 523.
On October 16, 2004 the House passed the Senate companion
bill, S. 2845, as amended, and asked for a conference. The
Committee of Conference filed H.Rept. 108-796 on December 7,
2004. The House agreed to the resulting conference report on
December 7, 2004 and the Senate agreed to the conference report
on December 8, 2004. The President signed the bill on December
17, 2004, and it became P.L. 108-458.

1.17--P.L. 108-492, Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004
(H.R. 5382)

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004, was designed to promote the development of the emerging
commercial human space flight industry by putting in place a
clear, balanced regulatory regime. The bill was drafted as an
amendment to the existing Commercial Space Launch Act to
minimize disruption and confusion.
The bill assigned to the Secretary of Transportation
jurisdiction over commercial human space flight and requires
the Secretary to craft a streamlined experimental certification
process for suborbital reusable launch vehicles. Pursuant to
the legislation, the Secretary of Transportation must ensure
that only one license or permit is required to conduct human
space flights. By its licensing or permitting of flights, the
United States does not certify the safety of the flights for
passengers or crew.
The bill required the Secretary of Transportation to
protect the general public health and safety when licensing
commercial human space flights. The bill also addressed
qualifications for crew and space flight participants.
Specifically, the crew must receive training and satisfy
medical standards. Space flight participants must undergo
appropriate medical exams and training requirements, and must
provide written informed consent for their participation. For
the first eight years after enactment of the legislation, the
Secretary of Transportation may only issue regulations
governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle if the
design or operation has indicated likely safety problems
through operational experience.
The bill extended the existing liability indemnification
regime to the commercial human space flight industry, but
excludes launches under an experimental permit.
Legislative History
On November 18, 2004 Mr. Rohrabacher introduced, along with
Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Gordon, H.R. 5382, Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act of 2004, which was solely referred to the
Committee on Science. On November 19, 2004, the Committee
discharged the measure and the House agreed to suspend the
rules and debate the bill. On November 20, 2004 the House
agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5382
by: Y-269; N-129; Roll Call No. 541. On the same day the
measure was received in the Senate and held at the desk. The
Senate passed H.R. 5382, without amendment, by unanimous
consent on December 8, 2004--clearing the measure for the
President. The bill was presented to the President for
signature on December 16, 2004. The President signed H.R. 5382,
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, on December 23,
2004, which became Public Law 108-492.

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

2.1--H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 6 is omnibus energy legislation, whose stated purpose
is ``To enhance energy conservation, research and development
and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply
for the American people, and for other purposes.'' The Science
Committee has jurisdiction over part of the bill, primarily the
authorization of Research and Development at the U.S.
Department of Energy, but also the reauthorization of Price-
Anderson and research, development, demonstration and
commercial application programs authorized in other titles
including Hydrogen, Clean Coal, and Vehicles.
The Science Committee's Energy research bill, H.R. 238 was
introduced by Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Ralph Hall
on January 8, 2003 and after amendment in committee, was
incorporated in great part into H.R. 6 (see Sec. 2.2 on H.R.
238 below). The conference report for H.R. 6 passed the House,
but failed to pass the Senate. A separate authorization of the
DOE's computing research program (see Sec. 1.12, P.L. 108-423/
H.R. 4516 above) was passed by both Houses and signed into law.
Legislative History
Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2003, on
April 7, 2003. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and, in addition, to the Committees on Science, Ways
and Means, Resources, Education and the Workforce,
Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services and
Agriculture.
On April 9, 2003. the Committees of Referral discharged the
bill. The Committee on Rules filed H.Rept. 108-69 on H.Res.
189, providing for consideration of H.R. 6. On April 10, 2003,
the House completed general debate and began consideration of
amendments. The House passed H.R. 6 on April 11, 2003, by: Y-
247; N-175; Roll Call No. 145.
On April 29, 2003, H.R. 6 was received in the Senate and
held at the desk. The Senate passed H.R. 6 on July 31, 2003,
after agreeing to an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
by a voice vote. The Senate insisted on its amendment,
requested a conference with the House, and agreed to appoint
conferees. On September 4, 2003, the Senate appointed the
following conferees: Senators Domenici, Nickles, Craig,
Campbell, Thomas, Grassley, Lott, Bingaman, Dorgan, Graham, FL,
Wyden, Johnson, Baucus.
On September 4, 2003, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 6 and agreed to a conference. On September 5,
2003, the Speaker appointed the following House conferees--from
the Committee on Science: For consideration of Sections 11009,
11025, 12301-12312, 14001-14007, 14009-14015, 14029, 15021-
15024, 15031-15034, 15041, 15045, Division B, Section 30301,
Division E, and Division F of the House bill and Sections 501-
507, 509, 513-516, 770-772, 807-809, 814-816, 824, 832, 1001-
1022, Title XI, Title XII, Title XIII, Title XIV, Sections
1502, 1504-1505, Title XVI, and Sections 1801-1805 of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Representatives Boehlert, Biggert, and Hall. On September 5,
2003, the Speaker appointed Mr. Costello in lieu of Mr. Hall of
Texas for consideration of Division E of the House bill, and
Mr. Lampson in lieu of Mr. Hall of Texas for consideration of
Section 21708 and Division F of the House bill, and Sections
824 and 1223 of the Senate amendment and modifications
committed to conference.
On November 17, 2003, the Committee of Conference filed
H.Rept. 108-375. The House agreed to the conference report on
November 18, 2003 by: Y-246; N-180; Roll Call No. 630--clearing
the measure for the Senate. The Senate considered the
conference report on November 19, 20, 21, 2003. No further
legislative action was taken on this measure in the 108th
Congress.

2.2--H.R. 238, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application Act of 2003

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 238, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration and
Commercial Application Act of 2003, authorizes R&D funding,
enumerates goals and establishes new administrative procedures
for energy research, development, demonstration and commercial
application programs. The first three sections of Title One
include quantitative near-term and long-term goals for energy
efficiency, distributed energy and electric energy systems,
renewable energy, fossil energy, nuclear energy, and hydrogen.
Title I authorizes programs in: energy efficiency; distributed
energy and electric energy systems, renewable energy, nuclear
energy, fossil energy, science, hydrogen and management. Title
II designates the head of the Office of Science as an Assistant
Secretary and transfers health and nuclear regulation at DOE
non-military labs to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It
also includes other non-R&D management provisions. Title III
establishes demonstration program of alternative fuel, clean
diesel and fuel cell school buses. Title IV establishes a
demonstration program of alternative fueled, advanced vehicles
and supports infrastructure used in inter-modal transportation.
Title V authorizes a Clean Coal Initiative involving projects
that meet technical, environmental, and financial criteria. It
also establishes clean coal ``centers of excellence'' at
universities.
Legislative History
H.R. 238 was introduced by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert on
January 8, 2003 and referred to the Committee on Science and
the Committee on Resources. On February 20, 2003 it was
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy. On March 20, 2003 the
Subcommittee discharged the bill. The Committee on Science met
on April 2, 2003 and ordered the measure reported, as amended,
by a voice vote. On May 22, 2003, the Committee filed H.Rept.
108-128, Part I. Provisions of H.R. 238 were incorporated into
H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2004. See H.R. 6 for further
legislative action.

2.3--H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 912, the Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act,
was named to honor Pete Conrad for his tremendous contributions
to the aerospace community over the last four decades as an
astronaut and an explorer of the highest caliber. The bill
creates an awards program for amateur astronomers who discover
new near-Earth asteroids and contribute the greatest service to
the Minor Planet Center of the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory. H.R. 912 would help augment existing government
capabilities for tracking, monitoring, and cataloguing natural
space objects by promoting private citizens to observe the
heavens.
Legislative History
On February 25, 2003, Representative Dana Rohrabacher
introduced H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards
Act, a bill to award amateur astronomers for their outstanding
contributions to tracking and discovering near-Earth asteroids,
which was solely referred to the Committee on Science. The
measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics on March 17, 2003 and on October 8, 2003, the
Subcommittee considered the bill and ordered the measure
reported, without amendment, to the Full Committee by a voice
vote. The Committee considered the measure on February 4, 2004
and reported the bill, as amended, by a voice vote. The
Committee filed H.Rept. 108-418 on February 11, 2004. On March
3, 2004, the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R.
912, as amended, by: Y-404; N-1; Roll Call No. 35. The measure
was received in the Senate on March 4, 2004 and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2.4--H.R. 1081, Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act

Background and Summary of Legislation
Aquatic invasive species damage infrastructure, disrupt
commerce, crowd out native species, reduce biodiversity and
threaten human health. Non-native species have been brought
into the U.S., both intentionally and unintentionally, since
the European discovery of the New World. Trappers introduced
nutria (a rodent similar to a muskrat) to bolster the domestic
fur industry, others introduced the purple loosestrife plant
because it added rich color in gardens, but both have now
become serious threats to wetlands. Many unintentional
introductions have resulted from species hitching a ride in
ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the U.S. Zebra
mussels, for example, came into the Great Lakes through ballast
water from ships.
Most non-native species do not survive because the new
environment does not meet the species' biological needs. In
many cases, however, the new species will find favorable
conditions, such as lack of natural enemies, or an environment
that fosters propagation, that allow it to survive and thrive
in a new ecosystem. Only a small fraction of these non-native
species become `invasive species', which are defined as plants,
animals, microorganisms or viruses that are: (1) non-native to
the ecosystem under consideration, and (2) whose introduction
causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or
harm to human health. However, this small fraction has caused
enormous economic and environmental damage.
One example of an invasive species is the zebra mussel,
which was introduced into the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s
through the ballast water of ships. Ballast water is water
carried by ships to provide stability and adjust a vessel's
trim for optimal steering and propulsion. Ballast water is
considered by many scientists to be the primary pathway by
which aquatic invasive species are introduced into U.S. waters.
Zebra mussels clog lakes and waterways and adversely affect
fisheries, public water supplies, irrigation, water treatment
systems, and recreational activities, and have been an immense
financial burden on entities in the Great Lakes. In saltwater
habitats, the European green crab has been associated with the
demise of the soft-shell clam industry in New England, with an
estimated cost to the industry of $44 million a year. While
precise economic impacts are difficult to assess, a study by
Cornell University scientists estimates that the total annual
economic losses and associated control costs of invasive
species (both aquatic and terrestrial) in the U.S. is about
$137 billion a year.
Invasive species also cause environmental damage that is
even more difficult to quantify. For example, sea lamprey
control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 to
$15 million annually. However, we do not have a good measure of
the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader. In fact,
invasive species are now the number two threat to endangered
species, right behind habitat loss. Quantifying the loss due to
extinction of these species is nearly impossible.
Congress has long recognized the damage that invasive
species cause. One of the more recent congressional actions was
the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990. This legislation established a federal
program to prevent the introduction of, and to control the
spread of, unintentionally introduced aquatic nuisance species.
In 1996, Congress amended the 1990 Act with the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA). This legislation continued to
focus on aquatic invasive species by creating a voluntary
national ballast water management program and a mandatory
ballast water management program for ships entering the Great
Lakes. Ballast water management can be done in two ways: (1)
ballast water can be exchanged at sea, replacing species-rich
water picked up at ports with open ocean water that contains
far fewer organisms, and (2) ballast water can be treated with
a technology, such as chlorination. To date, there are no
treatment technologies widely used to treat ballast water. NISA
also required the Coast Guard to study and report to Congress
on the effectiveness of ballast exchange or other technologies
in controlling invasive species.
However, NISA and the underlying 1990 legislation have been
criticized for not going far enough to prevent the introduction
of aquatic invasive species. Further, the agencies responsible
for implementing the Act have been criticized for failing to
carry out many of its provisions, including setting standards
for ballast water treatment, conducting ecological assessments,
and prescribing management actions. In response, agencies have
argued that the law is ambitious and that funding has been
inadequate. In addition, these failures have also been driven
in part by a lack of scientific information on the underlying
processes that lead to invasion.
The research that has been done has been largely reactive,
focusing on how to control specific invasive species, such as
the sea lamprey, once they are already established and causing
harm. Once an invasive species is established, it is virtually
impossible to eradicate and very difficult to control.
Additional research on how to manage species at the earlier
stages of the invasion process, when prevention, eradication
and restoration are still possible, is critical and would allow
for more proactive management. H.R. 1081 would provide a
foundation for our understanding of how to prevent invasive
species from ever entering U.S. waters.
For example, it is difficult to know how to prevent
invasive species from entering the United States without a good
understanding of how they get here, an understanding that H.R.
1081 would develop through the pathway surveys conducted in the
bill. Planned importations of non-native species can be more
effectively screened for their potential to invade with a
thorough understanding of the characteristics that make a
species invasive and an ecosystem vulnerable, a profile that
would be created in this legislation. Finally, without good
technologies to eradicate species in ballast water, it is
difficult to prevent invasive species from entering U.S. waters
through ships' ballasts (a known pathway). H.R. 1081 authorizes
the development and demonstration of such technologies. These
are just a few of the critical management questions that will
be informed by research conducted under this legislation.
One of the major barriers to the prevention of the
introduction of invasive species is the lack of a clear,
mandatory standard for the treatment of ballast water in ships
to prevent introduction in non-native species. It is the
responsibility of the Coast Guard to set this standard,
however, it has been difficult to determine an environmentally
protective standard without adequate research on how the risk
of establishment relates to the quantity of introduced species,
or conditions of introduction. Section 9 of H.R. 1081
establishes a research program to support the setting,
implementation and evaluation of ship pathway standards.
Invasive species enter U.S. waters every day bringing with
them greater environmental and economic harm. While the
invasive species cost the United States billions in damages,
very little is invested in how to prevent introduction and
avoid this damage. More research, targeted at how to prevent
these species from arriving in the first place, is critical to
a more proactive and cost-effective invasive species policy.
Legislative History
Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 1081, the
Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act on April 29, 2003, at
which time the bill was referred to the Committee on Science,
and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Resources, and House Administration. The
Committee on Science ordered the measure reported, as amended,
by a voice vote on June 4, 2003. H.R. 1081 was discharged by
the Committees of Referral on April 2, 2004.

2.5--H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004, was
introduced because the full range of applications from NASA's
Earth Science and commercial remote sensing satellite data and
other forms of geospatial information to meet the needs of
State, local, regional, and tribal agencies has not been
adequately explored or exploited. This bill establishes a NASA
program of competitively-awarded grants for pilot projects that
use government and commercial remote sensing capabilities and
other sources of geospatial information to address State,
local, regional and tribal agency needs. It authorizes
$15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for
the program.
Legislative History
On March 13, 2003, Representative Mark Udall introduced
H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003, a bill to
encourage the development and integrated use by the public and
private sectors of remote sensing and other geospatial
information. The measure was solely referred to the Committee
on Science. On April 28, 2003, H.R. 1292 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The Subcommittee ordered
the measure reported, without amendment, to the Full Committee
on October 8, 2003. The Committee considered the measure on
February 4, 2004 and ordered the bill reported, as amended, by
a voice vote. On February 18, 2004, the Committee filed H.Rept.
108-423.

2.6--H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act

Background and Summary of Legislation
On January 16, 2003, at 10:39 a.m., the STS-107 Columbia
launched into orbit for a 16-day microgravity research mission.
Columbia was the oldest orbiter in the Shuttle fleet. In 1981,
it was the first Space Shuttle to fly into Earth orbit. This
was the 113th Shuttle Mission for Columbia. On board were seven
astronauts: Crew Commander Rick Husband (Colonel, U.S. Air
Force), Shuttle Pilot William McCool (Commander, U.S. Navy),
Payload Commander Michael Anderson (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S.
Air Force), Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Ph.D., Mission
Specialist David Brown (Captain, U.S. Navy), Mission Specialist
Laurel Blair Salton Clark, M.D. (Captain, U.S. Navy), and
Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon (Colonel, Israel Air Force).
At 8:15 a.m. EST, on February 1, 2003, Columbia decelerated
to begin the re-entry phase into the atmosphere for a planned
landing at Kennedy Space Center. At 8:52 a.m., Columbia crossed
over the coast of California. At 8:58 a.m., Columbia was over
New Mexico. Loss of communication with the crew and of data
occurred shortly after 8:59 a.m. About 16 minutes before its
scheduled landing, the Shuttle broke up while traveling at
12,500 miles per hour at an altitude of 207,135 feet over East
Central Texas, resulting in the loss of both the Columbia and
its crew.
H.R. 1297 would authorize the construction of a memorial
honoring the seven crew members of STS-107 Columbia, all of
whom excelled in their careers and died while fulfilling their
dreams of traveling in space.
Legislative History
Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in
addition to Science on March 13, 2003. The Committee on Science
ordered the measure reported, without amendment, by a voice
vote on March 26, 2003. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs
ordered the measure reported, in the nature of a substitute, by
unanimous consent on April 3, 2003. The Committee on Veterans'
Affairs filed H.Rept. 108-62, Pt. 1 on April 8, 2003. The
Committee on Science discharged the measure on April 8, 2003.
Provisions of H.R. 1297 were incorporated into Title III of
H.R. 1559, Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2003, which was signed by the President and became P.L. 108-11
on April 16, 2003.

2.7--H.R. 1644, Energy Policy Act of 2003

Background and Summary of Legislation
This is the portion of the omnibus energy legislation
reported out by the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was
subsequently referred to the Science Committee. Since the
Science Committee had already passed H.R. 238, the Committee
discharged the bill after an exchange of letters acknowledging
the Committee's area of shared jurisdiction with Energy and
Commerce. Four bills, including H.R. 1644 and H.R. 238, became
the basis for H.R. 6, the omnibus energy legislation considered
on the House floor. (See Sec. 2.1 above for a description of
H.R. 6.)
Legislative History
Representative Joe Barton introduced H.R. 1644 on April 7,
2003. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
and, in addition, to the Committees on Science, Resources,
Education and the Workforce, and Transportation and
Infrastructure. On April 8, 2003 the Committee on Energy and
Commerce filed H.Rept. 108-65, Part 1. The Committees of
Referral discharged the measure on April 9, 2003. Provisions of
H.R. 1644 were incorporated into H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of
2003. See H.R. 6 for further legislative action.

2.8--H.R. 1836, Civil Service and National Security Personnel
Improvement Act

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 1836, Civil Service and National Security Personnel
Improvement Act, provided NASA flexibility in paying salaries
and bonuses, as well as in hiring and retaining employees, that
were not provided in existing civil service law. Specifically,
the bill provided NASA with authority to: (1) pay recruitment,
redesignation, relocation, and retention bonuses; (2) make term
appointments of one to six years and take related personnel
actions; (3) fix basic rates of pay for critical need, senior-
level positions; (4) extend intergovernmental personnel act
assignments to up to four years; (5) involve in demonstration
projects such numbers of individuals as determined by NASA's
Administrator (current law limits the number to 5,000); and (6)
provide voluntary separation incentive payments in excess of
the dollar amount limitation otherwise applicable.
Additionally, the bill required the Administrator to submit
a written workforce plan and an evaluation to specified
congressional committees and obtain approval of the plan by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The bill also authorized
the Administrator to: (1) arrange for the assignment of a NASA
employee to a private sector organization for up to two years
or of an employee of a private sector organization to NASA; (2)
appoint distinguished scholars as employees, without regard to
specified competitive service examination and certification
provisions; (3) pay travel, transportation, and relocation
expenses of new appointees subject to the conditions currently
applicable to employees transferred in the Government's
interest; (4) deem periods of certain non-federal service as
federal service for certain newly appointed employees for
annual leave qualification purposes (and provides for annual
leave accrual for certain senior-level employees based on rate
of pay); (5) appoint individuals for limited terms to Senior
Executive Service positions; and (6) set the pay of a General
Schedule employee at any step within the pay range for the
grade of the position based on the employee's superior
qualifications or NASA's special need.
Finally, the bill required the Administrator to establish a
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science and
Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships (for up to
four academic years) in exchange for service agreements in
order to recruit and prepare students for NASA careers.
Legislative History
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in
addition to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Science on April 29, 2003. The Committee on Government
Reform filed H.Rept. 108-116, Pt. 1 on May 19, 2003. The
Committee on Science discharged on July 25, 2003. The Committee
on Armed Services discharged on July 25, 2003. Referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means on June 3, 2003. The Committee on
Ways and Means discharged on July 25, 2003.

2.9--H.R. 2450, Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission
Act of 2003

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation
Commission Act of 2003, directs the President to establish an
independent, nonpartisan commission within the executive branch
to investigate and report to the President, Congress, and the
public on any accident or deliberate act that results in the
loss of: (1) a space shuttle; (2) the International Space
Station or its operational viability; (3) any other U.S. space
vehicle carrying humans; (4) any space vehicle carrying U.S.
citizens; or (5) a crew member or passenger of any such space
vehicle. The bill also requires the President to issue an
executive order establishing such a commission within seven
days after such an incident.
Requires the National Transportation Safety Board to: (1)
assume responsibility for investigation of such an incident
immediately after its occurrence; and (2) transfer
investigative responsibility to such a commission as soon as
the commission holds its first meeting.
Legislative History
On June 12, 2003, Representative Gordon, along with 19
other co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 2450, Human Space Flight
Independent Investigation Commission Act of 2003, which was
solely referred to the Committee on Science. The bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on June
19, 2003. On October 8, 2003, the Subcommittee ordered the
measure reported, as amended, to the Full Committee by a voice
vote.

2.10--H.R. 2801, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003

Background and Summary of Legislation
During the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Commerce
issued a series of reports that documented the existence of a
``digital divide''--the disparity in access to technology
between Caucasian and minority populations--at minority serving
institutions (MSIs). MSIs are defined by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 to be institutions of higher education that
have a combination of different minority groups totaling at
least 50 percent of their enrollment.
The digital divide series of reports prompted the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO)
to assess the computing resources, networking and connectivity
of its member historically black colleges and universities
(HBCUs). The study found that 88 percent of HBCUs had access to
T-1 lines, the minimum standard for connectivity and generally
considered insufficient to support capabilities beyond Internet
and World Wide Web connectivity. Larger bandwidth, for faster
connections and more web-based applications, was available to
half of reporting institutions. The study also found the larger
problem not to be the availability of networking capacity, but
rather its use. Even though high-speed lines were available at
half of the institutions, only 7.5 percent reported using them.
Similarly, of the 29 percent of HBCUs with access to wireless
technology, only 43 percent were using it. It was not clear why
many HBCUs weren't using high speed connections even when it
was available to them, though some speculated that it had to do
with finance, lack of strategic planning, faculty motivation
and training. Anecdotal information indicates that the problems
at other MSIs are similar to those found at the HBCUs.
The purpose of H.R. 2801 is to help close the digital
divide, and strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide
instruction in digital and wireless network technologies. The
bill would establish a $250 million per year grant program,
called the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Program, within the Department of
Commerce's Technology Administration. It also directs the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Technology to: (1) establish an
advisory council to advise on the best approaches toward
maximum Program participation by eligible institutions; and (2)
ensure that grant awards are made to all types of eligible
institutions.
Legislative History
H.R. 2801 was introduced by Representative Randy Forbes and
Representative Edolphus Towns on July 21, 2003, and was
referred to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. It was subsequently referred to
the Subcommittee on Research on July 21, 2003 and discharged by
the Subcommittee the following day. The Full Committee ordered
the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote on July 22,
2003. The Committee on Science filed report H.Rept. 108-789,
Pt. 1 on November 19, 2004.
Note: The bill was originally introduced as H.R. 2183 and
established the grant program in the National Science
Foundation (NSF). But after consultation with Chairman
Boehlert, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senate companion bill
sponsor Senator George Allen (R-VA), the legislation was
altered and re-introduced as H.R. 2801, and the grant program
was moved from NSF to the Department of Commerce.

2.11--H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act of 2003

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act of 2003, amends the
Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) to prohibit CSLA license
holders from launching or re-entering a space flight
participant unless: (1) the participant has received training
and met medical or other standards specified in the license;
(2) the participant is informed of the safety record of the
launch or re-entry vehicle type; and (3) the launch or re-entry
vehicle is marked to distinguish it from an aircraft in a
manner specified by the Secretary of Transportation.
The bill also requires the Secretary to create, and report
to Congress on progress in implementing a streamlined, cost-
effective, and enabling regulatory framework for the U.S.
commercial human space flight industry. Additionally, the bill
extends current indemnification provisions for commercial space
transportation through calendar 2007. The bill also requires
the Secretary to arrange with the National Academy of Public
Administration to study and report to Congress on the liability
risk-sharing regime for U.S. commercial space transportation.
H.R. 3245 redesignates the Department of Commerce's Office
of Space Commercialization as the Office of Space Commerce
(OSC), and requires the Secretary of Commerce to delegate to
the Director of OSC the Secretary's licensing authority for
private remote sensing space systems (satellite photo systems).
Also, the bill amends the Technology Administration Act of 1998
to reflect this delegation of authority and to give the
Director of OSC responsibility for serving as Executive
Secretary for the Interagency Global Positioning System
Executive Board.
Legislative History
On October 2, 2003, Representative Rohrabacher introduced,
along with Mr. Gordon and Mr. Hall, H.R. 3245, Commercial Space
Act of 2003, which was solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On October 6, 2003, the measure was referred to the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The Subcommittee ordered
the measure reported, without amendment, to the Full Committee
by a voice vote on October 8, 2003.

2.12--H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of
2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
Arming our first responders with the best technologies,
equipment, and training to react in the event of a catastrophic
terrorist attack is vital for protection of the Nation.
Terrorism preparedness grants for first responders must be
allocated quickly to where the risk is greatest.
Since 2001 roughly $11 billion has been appropriated to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for distribution to State
and local governments for terrorism preparedness. However, in
some states, there has been considerable delay in dispensing
these funds to first responders. There are numerous reasons for
the backup of funds, which H.R. 3266 attempts to rectify,
including a lack of advance planning by State and local
governments, a confusion at all levels of government regarding
grant requirements, timelines, use of funds, and DHS
application and obligation procedures. Moreover, DHS terrorism
preparedness grant funds currently are allocated to each state-
based on rigid and arbitrary formulas that were established
immediately after September 11, 2001, instead of formulas based
on a comprehensive risk analysis.
H.R. 3266 would reform the manner in which DHS issues
grants to enhance the ability of States, local governments, and
first responders to prevent, prepare for, mitigate, and respond
to acts of terrorism. The bill does not create a new terrorism
preparedness grant program. Rather, it directs the Secretary of
DHS to establish ``essential capabilities'' that different
types of communities should obtain in order to prepare for
potential terrorist acts, improves the grant process by
streamlining and speeding the delivery of federal grant
assistance for first responders to build these essential
capabilities in a measurable fashion, and establishes a
consolidated structure for evaluating and prioritizing grant
applications based on the level of risk of a terrorist attack.
Sections 3, 7, and 10 are relevant to the Science
Committee's jurisdiction and are summarized below.
Section 3 states that only DHS grants to states and regions
for the purpose of improving the capabilities of first
responders are affected. It directs the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish essential capabilities for terrorism
preparedness based on the level of need of the area. The Task
Force on Essential Capabilities for First Responders,
established by the Secretary, shall aid the Secretary in
determining essential capabilities. Section 3 also lists the
activities that the grants can be used for and specifically
states that they can not be used to supplant local funds or
support traditional missions of first responders. Eighty
percent of the grant must be made available to the first
responders after 45 days and grant recipients are required to
submit an annual report. In addition, after two years, a 25
percent matching requirement takes effect. Lastly, this section
requires the Secretary to establish national standards for
equipment performance and training.
Section 7 states that it is the sense of the Congress that
interoperable emergency communications systems that meet
national voluntary consensus standards should be developed and
promulgated as soon as practicable for use by first responders.
Section 10 authorizes $3,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2006
for making covered grants.
Legislative History
H.R. 3266 was introduced on October 8, 2003 by
Representative Christopher Cox and was referred to the Select
Committee on Homeland Security and the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Judiciary, and Energy
and Commerce. The measure was later referred to the Committee
on Science on April 2, 2004 and discharged that same day.

2.13--H.R. 3550, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users, is a comprehensive six-year authorization bill to fund
the Nation's highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and
public transportation programs. Authorizations are made from
the Highway Trust Fund, which is paid for by taxes on gasoline.
This legislation follows two other comprehensive six-year
highway bills, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA), passed in 1991, and the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998.
Several titles of H.R. 3550, including titles authorizing
highway safety, motor carrier safety and public transportation
programs, contain research provisions within the jurisdiction
of the Science Committee. Most of these are found in Title V of
the legislation which funds highway research including surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, the intelligent transportation systems program, the
university transportation centers, and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
Legislative History
H.R. 3550 was introduced by Chairman Don Young, Ranking
Minority Member Jim Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri,
and Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member William Lipinski and
69 co-sponsors, including Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Ehlers, on
November 20, 2003 and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure met on March 24, 2004 and
adopted, by voice vote, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri.
Subsequently by unanimous consent, the Committee approved and
ordered the bill favorably reported to the House. On March 29,
2004 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure filed
H.Rept. 108-452, Pt. 1.
The bill was then referred to the Committees on Education
and Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Resources, and Science on
March 29, 2004. The measure was discharged by the Committees of
Referral on March 29, 2004. On April 2, 2004 H.R. 3550 passed
the House.
The Senate received H.R. 3550 on April 8, 2004. The Senate
passed S. 1072, the Senate companion bill, on May 19, 2004.
On May 20, 2004 the Senate appointed conferees, and on June
3, 2004, the House appointed conferees. Conferences were held
on June 9, June 23, and July 7, 2004.

2.14--H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of
2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
The U.S. transportation system faces tremendous challenges.
Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on the Nation's
highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe
congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on
State and local transportation budgets. Constructing and using
transportation infrastructure can damage air and water quality
and strain natural resources. Changing patterns of where people
live and work demand an innovative response to ensure that we
meet future needs and limit environmental impacts.
Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation
system depend on solid research. Research on pavements can lead
to materials that are more durable and last significantly
longer than current materials. Research on operations can lead
to the design of better road configurations to avoid dangerous
intersections or highway merges. Research on information
technologies, specifically Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS), can lead to the development of technologies to manage
the transportation system in real time, making it possible to
respond to incidents and alter traffic signals instantaneously.
Research on the linkages between transportation and the
environment can help discover ways to increase mobility while
minimizing the impact on the environment and human health.
Finally, research in the social sciences, such as on
transportation trends, is vital to planners who must make
informed decisions to ensure that we meet future transportation
needs.
Since passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 (P.L. 102-240), research and
development (R&D) has had a prominent place in the surface
transportation authorization bill. Both ISTEA and the
subsequent Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), which was passed in 1998 (P.L. 105-178), contained
significant funding for surface transportation research and
development. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over
surface transportation R&D, and in the 105th Congress the
Science Committee reported out the Surface Transportation
Research and Development Act, H.R. 860. During the 108th
Congress, the Science Committee passed H.R. 3551, intended to
be a blue print for surface transportation R&D in the larger
authorization bill, H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (TEA-LU).
Over the six-year life of TEA-21 (1998-2003), the Federal
Government invested approximately $2.9 billion (or about $500
million per year) in surface transportation R&D (primarily
highway R&D) under Title V. The funding for these activities
came from gas tax receipts deposited in the Highway Trust Fund.
Although this is a significant R&D investment, the federal
transportation R&D investment under TEA-21 represented less
than one percent of federal spending on surface transportation.
Many experts see this level of investment as too low. By
comparison, the Federal Government invests approximately 10
percent of total health care spending on R&D. While Congress
increased funding for overall transportation programs by about
40 percent in TEA-21, funding for transportation R&D remained
relatively flat.
In addition, transportation R&D is highly decentralized,
with the Federal Government, States, universities, the National
Academy of Sciences, and the private sector each playing an
important role. In TEA-21, Congress further decentralized R&D
by increasing the proportion of R&D funds that went directly to
States, while decreasing the federal share of R&D dollars. This
decentralization, coupled with inadequate investment, has
created significant gaps in the R&D agenda.
H.R. 3551 takes specific steps to increase surface
transportation research spending, tie research spending to
overall transportation spending, and fill many critical gaps.
These gaps include environmental R&D, long-term fundamental
research, policy research (addressing such things as changing
demographic, economic, and social trends), performance
measurement and evaluation R&D, and research addressing
institutional barriers to deployment (particularly for ITS
technologies).
H.R. 3551 authorizes programs to fill these gaps. These
include: authorizing the Surface Transportation Environment
Cooperative Research Program (STECRP) and ensuring that the
program carries out the agenda developed by the Transportation
Research Board; authorizing the Future Strategic Highway
Research Program (also laid out in a report by the
Transportation Research Board) to address renewal, safety,
reliability, and capacity; authorizing greater funding for
exploratory advanced research; authorizing a trends research
program to look at the impact of changing demographics and a
changing economy on the surface transportation system; and
authorizing research into the institutional barriers to the
deployment of intelligent transportation systems.
H.R. 3551 also strives to ensure the highest quality
research by requiring that all research and development grants,
contracts and cooperative agreements be peer reviewed and
awarded on a competitive basis. It also requires that all
research and development activities include a component of
performance evaluation to ensure that our dollars are well
spent. Finally, H.R. 3551 strengthens the strategic planning
requirements to ensure that research is focused on helping to
achieve the overall goals of the surface transportation system,
such as reducing congestion and increasing safety.
Legislative History
H.R. 3551 was introduced by Chairman Vernon Ehlers on
November 20, 2003 and referred to the Committee on Science, in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
On January 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Science Committee met to
consider H.R. 3551. Five amendments were agreed to by voice
vote and the Subcommittee favorably reported the bill.
On February 4, 2004, the Full Science Committee met to
consider H.R. 3551; two amendments were offered and were agreed
to by voice vote. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 3551.
On September 7, 2004 the Science Committee filed H.Rept. 108-
662.

2.15--H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
Manufacturing remains a key sector of the U.S. economy.
According to the Bureau of the Census, between 1988 and 2000,
the U.S. manufacturing trade balance for advanced technology
products remained positive (though shrinking), whereas all
other products went from an annual deficit of $100 billion to
one of more than $300 billion.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
plays a critical role in helping maintain and advance the U.S.
manufacturing industry. NIST's two laboratories, in
Gaithersburg, MD and Boulder, CO, and its extramural
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program support
research and development (R&D) and technology transfer that are
directly relevant to the manufacturing sector's needs.
MEP centers help increase the competitiveness of small- and
medium-sized manufacturers in areas involving technological
change, lean manufacturing (`lean' principles include perfect
first-time quality, waste minimization by removing all
activities that do not add value, continuous improvement,
flexibility, and long-term relationships), and acquisition of
equipment, as well as business organization. MEP center costs
are divided approximately equally among the Federal Government,
the State the center serves, and the center's clientele, who
pay fees for services. The federal share of MEP was funded at
approximately $105 million from Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 to FY
2003 before the funding was cut to $39 million in FY 2004. The
Administration's FY 2005 request was also $39 million. The $39
million may not be enough to fund all the existing centers, and
the Administration has been seeking funds from other agencies
to add funds to MEP in FY 2004.
In June 2004, the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) published a report on the MEP program that concluded
that the MEP program was the only federal program that helped
smaller firms modernize and compete successfully. The NAPA
report also said that there were emerging challenges facing
smaller firms, such as how to economically introduce the use of
information technology into small manufacturing enterprises,
and that MEP would have to introduce some changes in its
current business model to help firms overcome these challenges.
Legislative History
On November 21, 2003, Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers
introduced H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act, which was referred to the Committee on
Science.
On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards met to consider the bill. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered and was
adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported
the bill H.R. 3598, as amended, by a voice vote.
On June 16, 2004, the Committee on Science met to consider
H.R. 3598. Fourteen amendments were offered and four were
adopted by a voice vote and ten were defeated. The motion to
adopt the bill as amended passed by a roll call vote of 19 yeas
and 13 nays. The Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 108-581 on
July 1, 2004.
On July 9, 2004, H.R. 3598 passed the House, as amended, by
a voice vote. On July 12, 2004 the Senate received the measure
and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

2.16--H.R. 3890, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988

Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 3890 amends the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation
and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. The bill authorizes
appropriations equal to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for
fiscal year 2005 and $20 million each year for fiscal years
2006 through 2009 for DOE. The bill also includes provisions to
include research and development on advanced sheet and bar
steels, and the potential for technologies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions as a consideration in research planning. The bill
also repeals a section related to programs that have been
inactive at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Legislative History
On March 4, 2004 Representative Melissa Hart introduced
H.R. 3890, a bill to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988, which
was referred to the Committee on Science.
H.R. 3890 was jointly referred to the Subcommittee on
Energy and the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards on March 8, 2004. The Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on the bill on May 20, 2004. The bill was discharged by
the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards on
June 7, 2004. The Subcommittee on Energy held a markup on June
15, 2004 and ordered the measure reported, as amended, to the
Full Committee by a voice vote. On June 16, 2004, the Committee
considered the measure and ordered it reported, as amended, by
a voice vote. The Committee filed H.Rept. 108-579 on July 1,
2004. The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3890,
as amended, by a voice vote on July 7, 2004. H.R. 3890 was
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on July 8, 2004.

2.17--H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
Chemical manufacturing is the source of many products upon
which we depend, such as medicines, plastics, fuels, and
fabrics. However, chemical manufacturing has also sometimes
resulted in harm to human health and the environment because it
often uses hazardous materials and generates hazardous
byproducts. The goal of green chemistry--most commonly defined
as chemistry and chemical engineering that involves the design
of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the
use or generation of hazardous substances--is to minimize or,
ideally, to eliminate this harm by using safer materials and
manufacturing processes. By considering chemical hazards in the
design of products and processes, chemists can design chemicals
to be safe, just as they can design them to have other
properties, such as color or texture. It is sometimes
characterized as ``benign by design'' to emphasize that it is
green intentionally. Examples of green chemistry include the
development of pesticide alternatives that are effective at
killing target organisms, but are benign to non-target
organisms and do not persist in the environment, and the use of
the benign solvent supercritical carbon dioxide in dry cleaning
processes instead of toxic perchloroethylene.
Besides the inherent advantages to human health and the
environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages and
improvements to worker safety, public safety, and national
security. However, significant impediments exist that
discourage businesses from pursuing such alternatives, such as
a workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry, lack of existing
green chemistry alternatives, lack of demonstrated green
chemistry alternatives, costs of up-front capital investment,
lack of regulatory drivers, and inertia.
The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004
would direct the President to establish an interagency green
chemistry R&D program to promote and coordinate federal
research, development, demonstration, education, and technology
transfer activities related to green chemistry. The National
Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency
would lead an Interagency Working Group to coordinate federal
green chemistry activities. The Working Group would also
include the Department of Energy and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, as well as any other agency the
President designates.
Other goals of the program include: (1) examine methods by
which the Federal Government can create incentives for use of
green chemistry processes and products; (2) facilitate the
adoption of green chemistry innovations; (3) expand education
and training of undergraduate and graduate students and
professional chemists and chemical engineers in green chemistry
science and engineering; (4) collect and disseminate
information on green chemistry research, development, and
technology transfer, including incentives and impediments to
development and commercialization; (5) support economic, legal,
and other appropriate social science research to identify
barriers to commercialization and methods to advance
commercialization of green chemistry; and (6) provide for
public input and outreach to be integrated into the program by
the convening of public discussions.
The legislation authorizes the program at a level of $33
million in fiscal year (FY) 2005, rising to $38 million in FY
2007, and specifices that such funds must come from within
existing authorizations. The program would support R&D grants,
including grants for university-industry partnerships, support
green chemistry R&D at federal labs, and promote education
through curricula development and fellowships.
Legislative History
H.R. 3970 was introduced by Representative Phil Gingrey on
March 16, 2004, and was referred solely to the Committee on
Science. The Committee held a hearing on the measure on March
17, 2004 and a markup on March 31, 2004, continuing on to April
1, 2004. The Committee ordered the measure reported, as
amended, by a voice vote on April 1, 2004. Amendments accepted
at this markup included amendments to make technical changes,
list green chemistry activities as allowable activities for
Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers, make non-profits
eligible to participate, and establish partnerships to retrain
chemists and chemical engineers in green chemistry.
The Committee filed report H. Rept. 108-462 on the measure
on April 14, 2004. On April 21, 2004, the House passed H.R.
3970, as amended, under suspension by: Y-402; N-14; Roll Call
No. 121. The measure was received in the Senate on April 22,
2004 and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.

2.18--H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in
Math and Science Education Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
Private sector involvement in education, particularly by
businesses, is an important though oft-overlooked aspect of the
U.S. education system. Today, nearly 70 percent of all school
districts now engage in some form of business partnership--an
increase of 35 percent since 1990--with businesses contributing
an estimated $2.4 billion and 109 million volunteer hours.
These relationships can boost student test scores, contribute
to overall student achievement, and enhance the student
experience.
From a human capital perspective, these relationships
between a corporation and a school can boost employee morale,
earning the employer, and its employees, recognition as a
``good neighbor.'' In turn, this can improve overall employee
satisfaction and productivity. From a financial and community
perspective, these relationships can provide a revenue stream
to schools while also building customer loyalty for the
business. In addition, school improvement can contribute to the
economic health of the community.
H.R. 4030 seeks to recognize the outstanding contributions
of private sector entities in improving math and science
achievement by directing the National Science Foundation to
establish a Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions
in Math and Science Education awards program. Five medal
recipients will be chosen each year by the Director based on
their contributions to student achievement in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Only private entities
that have been involved with a school in a sustained manner for
at least two years are eligible. Private entities that partner
with a for-profit or non-profit entity are eligible as well.
Legislative History
H.R. 4030 was introduced by Subcommittee on Research
Chairman Nick Smith on March 25, 2004, and it was referred
solely to the Committee on Science. On March 26, 2004, the
measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Research. The
Subcommittee held a hearing and markup on March 30, 2004 and
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote the
same day. Amendments adopted at the Subcommittee markup
included one to make technical changes and one to clarify that
women and minorities are included among those for whom evidence
of improved student achievement would be given priority
consideration.
The Full Committee ordered the measure reported, as amended
to make technical changes, by a voice vote on March 31, 2004
and filed report H. Rept. 108-465 on April 20, 2004. The House
agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4030, as amended, by:
Y-411; N-7; Roll Call No. 122 on April 21, 2004. On April 22,
2004, the measure was received in the Senate and referred to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

2.19--H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004

Background and Summary of Legislation
High-performance computing--also called supercomputing,
high-end computing, and sometimes advanced scientific
computing--refers to the use of machines or groups of machines
that can perform very complex computations very quickly. High-
performance computers are, by definition, the most powerful
computers in the world at a given moment in time. They are used
to solve highly complex scientific and engineering problems, to
simulate physical systems that are often difficult to study
experimentally, or to manage vast amounts of data.
The Federal Government promotes high-performance computing
in several different ways. First, it funds research and
development (R&D) at universities, government laboratories and
companies to help develop new computer hardware and software;
second, it funds the purchase of high-performance computers for
universities and government laboratories; and third, it
provides access to high-performance computers for a wide
variety of researchers by allowing them to use government-
supported computers at universities and government labs.
In recent years, federally-supported efforts appear to have
lost momentum as the focus of computing activities began
shifting from high-performance computing to less specialized
computing and networking technologies. For example, while the
National Science Foundation is committed to providing access to
the fastest computers through supercomputer centers, it has
also said it will place greater emphasis on distributed
collections of many computers (known as ``grid computing''),
which may not provide computing capability equal to that of the
fastest supercomputers.
Responding to concerns that U.S. efforts to develop and
deploy high-performance computers may have lagged, in 2003 the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) created an
interagency task force--the High-End Computing Revitalization
Task Force (HEC-RTF)--to examine federal high-performance
computing programs and make recommendations for improvement.
Their report is entitled the Federal Plan for High-End
Computing.
H.R. 4218 would update the High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991 and focus federal computing efforts to reverse the
trend of the diminishing dominance of the U.S. in high-end
computing. The bill requires the High-Performance Computing R&D
Program, and specifically, NSF and the Department of Energy
Office of Science, to assure the U.S. research community
sustained access to world-class high-performance computing
systems for solving scientific and engineering problems. The
bill also requires the program to support all aspects of high-
performance computing for scientific and engineering
applications, including software, algorithm and applications
development, development of technical standards, development of
new computer models for science and engineering problem
solving, and education and training in all the disciplines that
support advanced computing.
The bill requires the Director of OSTP to ``develop and
maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for
the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by
the research community in the United States.'' This and other
provisions in the bill are designed to ensure a robust ongoing
planning and coordination process so that the national high-
performance computing effort remains at the leading edge of
supercomputing technologies.
Legislative History
H.R. 4218 was introduced by Subcommittee on Energy
Chairwoman Judy Biggert on April 27, 2004, and was solely
referred to the Committee on Science. The Committee held a
hearing on the measure on May 13, 2004 and a markup on June 16,
2004, at which it ordered the measure reported, without
amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee filed report H. Rept.
108-580 on July 1, 2004. On July 7, 2004, the House agreed to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4218, as amended, by a voice
vote. The measure was received in the Senate on July 8, 2004
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

2.20--H.R. 4546, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act

Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
was established by Executive Order in 1970. At that time
Executive Reorganization Plans had the effect of law. Since
then, various parts of NOAA have been authorized by Congress,
but there is no underlying ``organic act'' defining the mission
and function of the agency.
The Oceans Act of 2000 established the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy to examine the Nation's ocean policy and make
recommendations for improvements. On April 20, 2004 the
Commission released its preliminary report, which included 200
recommendations for an improved national ocean policy. One of
the recommendations is that Congress should pass an organic act
for NOAA. The Commission also suggested organizing NOAA's
functions around specific themes rather than the current line
office structure.
H.R.4546 incorporates these recommendations in Title I as a
general organic act and by outlining NOAA's missions and
functions under three categories: weather, operations and
services, and research and education. The bill as introduced
does not include NOAA's activities concerning fisheries
management or the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Currently NOAA has a structure of six line offices: the
National Ocean Service (NOS), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), the National Weather Service (NWS), the
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service
(NESDIS), the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR),
and the Office of Program Planning and Integration (PPI). H.R.
4546 provides NOAA the flexibility to perform the functions
described in the bill under the current organizational
structure or by moving towards a structure that reflects the
categories set forth in H.R. 4546.
Legislative History
H.R. 4546 was introduced by Chairman Vernon Ehlers on June
14, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Science and,
additionally, to the Committee on Resources. The Subcommittee
on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House Science
Committee met to consider H.R. 4546 on September 29, 2004. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute was passed and the
measure was ordered to be reported as amended to the Full
Committee.

Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on
Science and Passed by the House of Representatives

3.1--H.Con.Res. 189, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) and supporting an International
Geophysical Year-2 (IGY-2) in 2007-2008

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the
first International Geophysical Year (IGY) held in 1957-1958
which was an internationally coordinated effort to observe and
collect data about earth science. More than 60,000 scientists
from 67 countries participated in this event. H.Con.Res. 189
endorses the idea of a second IGY.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 189, was introduced by Representative Udall of
Colorado on May 21, 2003 and solely referred to the Committee
on Science. The Committee ordered the measure reported, as
amended, by a voice vote on February 4, 2004 and filed H.Rept.
108-422 on February 18, 2004. The House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.Con.Res. 189 by: Y-420; N-3; Roll Call No. 83
on March 24, 2004. It was received in the Senate and referred
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on March 25, 2004.

3.2--H.Con.Res. 279, 30th Anniversary of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science Congressional Science and Engineering
Fellowship Program

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution recognizes a valuable educational program
that gives scientists an opportunity to step out of the
laboratory and into the political process by working as
legislative assistants in Member offices and congressional
committees. Over 800 scientists have participated in this
program and contributed not only their scientific expertise,
but also a fresh perspective to policy-making.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 279 was introduced by Representative Ehlers of
Michigan on September 15, 2003 and solely referred to the
Committee on Science. The Committee ordered the measure
reported, without amendment, on October 16, 2003 by a voice
vote. On October 28, 2003, the House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.Con.Res. 279, without amendment, by a voice
vote. It was received in the Senate on October 29, 2003 and
referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

3.3--H.Con.Res. 301, Supporting the goals and ideals of the World Year
of Physics

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution supports the goals and ideals of the World
Year of Physics and at the same time celebrates the 100th
anniversary of Einstein's development of the theory of
relativity. It recognizes the important contributions of
physicists to technological progress and the health of many
industries.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 301 was introduced by Representative Ehlers of
Michigan on October 15, 2003 and solely referred to the
Committee on Science. On July 7, 2004, the Committee discharged
the resolution and the House agreed to suspend the rules and
pass H.Con.Res. 301, without amendment, by a voice vote. It was
received in the Senate on July 8, 2004 and finally referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
on September 7, 2004.

3.4--H.Con.Res. 488, Commending NOAA and its employees for its
dedication and hard work during Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution recognizes the dedication and long hours of
service rendered by the employees of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration during the hurricane season of 2004.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 488 was introduced on September 9, 2004 and
solely referred to the Committee on Science. On September 22,
2004, the Committee discharged the resolution and the House
agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Con.Res. 488, as
amended, by a voice vote. It was received in the Senate and
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation on September 23, 2004.

3.5--H.Res. 222, Commending those individuals who contributed to the
debris collection effort following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution honors the search teams of NASA, Department
of Homeland Security, FEMA, EPA, FBI, DOD, DOT, U.S. Forest
Service, Park Service, Texas National Guard, Louisiana National
Guard, fire crews from 42 states, State and local authorities,
as well as many farmers, land owners, and citizens who assisted
in the recovery of nearly 85,000 pounds of debris, from the
Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Recovery of this debris has
been invaluable to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board in
their efforts to determine the cause of the accident.
Legislative History
H.Res. 222 was introduced on May 7, 2003 by Representative
Hall of Texas and solely referred to the Committee on Science.
On May 13, 2003, the Committee discharged the measure and the
House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Res. 222, without
amendment, by: Y-411; N-0; Roll Call No. 185.

3.6--H.Res. 395, Recognizing the importance of chemistry to our
everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National
Chemistry Week

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution recognizes the contributions of chemical
scientists and engineers to the technological progress and the
health of many industries that deliver the foods, fuels,
medicine and materials that are part of our every day lives.
Legislative History
H.Res. 395 was introduced on October 10, 2003 by
Representative Holt of New Jersey and solely referred to the
Committee on Science. The Committee ordered the measure
reported, without amendment, by a voice vote on October 16,
2003. The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Res.
395, without amendment, by a voice vote on October 28, 2003.

3.7--H.Res. 490, Commending the achievements of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
and Cornell University in conducting the Mars Exploration Rover Mission

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution congratulates the Mars Exploration Rover
team--NASA, JPL, and Cornell University--for their success in
landing the Spirit Rover on Mars on January 3, 2004.
Legislative History
H.Res. 490 was introduced by Mr. Dreier of California on
January 20, 2004 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On January 21, 2004, the Committee discharged the
measure and the House agreed to suspend the rules and H.Res.
490, without amendment, by: Y-389; N-0; Roll Call No. 4.

3.8--H.Res. 507, Expressing profound sorrow of the House of
Representatives on the anniversary of the Space Shuttle Columbia
accident

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution acknowledges the one-year anniversary of
the Space Shuttle Columbia accident.
Legislative History
H.Res. 507 was introduced by Mr. Burgess of Texas on
January 28, 2004 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On February 3, 2004, the Committee discharged the
measure and the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass
H.Res. 507, without amendment, by: Y-397; N-0; Roll Call No.
12.

3.9--H.Res. 723, Recognizing the 35th Anniversary of the Apollo 11
Lunar Landing

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution honors the 35th Anniversary of the Apollo
11 Lunar Landing by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and
Michael Collins.
Legislative History
H.Res. 723 was introduced by Representative Hall of Texas
on July 19, 2004 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On July 20, 2004, the Committee discharged the measure
and the House began a lengthy debate on the resolution. On July
21, 2004, the motion offered by Mr. Hall to suspend the rules
and agree to H.Res. 723 passed by: Y-416; N-0; Roll Call No.
402.

3.10--H.Res. 820, To congratulate Mojave Aerospace Ventures for winning
the privately funded $10,000,000 Ansari X-Prize and commend the X-Prize
Foundation for spurring this achievement

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution acknowledges Mojave Aerospace Ventures for
capturing the Ansari X-Prize on October 4, 2004. This marks the
first privately-funded investment effort to successfully enter
outer space without federal funding.
Legislative History
H.Res. 820 was introduced by Representative Rohrabacher of
California and solely referred to the Committee on Science on
October 5, 2004. The Committee discharged the resolution on
October 7, 2004 and the House agreed to suspend the rules and
pass H.Res. 820, as amended, by a voice vote.

3.11--H.Res. 847, Honoring the life of astronaut Leroy Gordon Cooper,
Jr.

Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution acknowledges the achievements of Leroy
Gordon Cooper, Jr. who passed away at his home in Ventura,
California on October 4, 2004.
Legislative History
H.Res. 847 was introduced by Mr. Ballenger of North
Carolina and solely referred to the Committee on Science on
October 8, 2004. The Committee discharged the resolution on
November 19, 2004 and the House agreed to suspend the rules and
pass H.Res. 847, without amendment, by a voice vote.

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)_Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for Fiscal Year 2004

February 13, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-1

Background
On February 13, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to consider President Bush's fiscal year 2004 (FY04)
budget request for research and development. Four
Administration witnesses reviewed the proposed budget in the
context of the President's overall priorities in science and
technology. The Science Committee held a separate hearing on
February 27 on the budget request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. The Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing later in the year on
the budget request for research and development at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The witnesses were: (1) John H. Marburger, III, Science
Advisor to the President; Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy; (2) Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Commerce; (3) Rita R. Colwell, Director, National
Science Foundation; and (4) Robert G. Card, Under Secretary for
Energy, Science, and Environment, U.S. Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marburger summarized a few of the highlights of the
President's FY04 budget request during his testimony. He stated
that the Administration received advice from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the committees
of the National Science and Technology Council, and the House
Science Committee while preparing this budget. The budget
includes a record high level of support for federal research
and development (R&D). Compared to the FY03 request, the FY04
request represents a $123 billion, or seven percent, increase
in federal R&D. Some of the specific programs highlighted
include (all increases use the FY03 request as a baseline):

The National Science Foundation (NSF)
receives a $453 million (9 percent) increase. In
particular, funding for physical science at NSF
increases by $100 million (13 percent), and graduate
stipends increase by $5000 per year with the number of
stipends awarded increasing as well.

The Department of Energy's budget is
increased by three percent to $5.2 billion.
Construction funds for the Spallation Neutron Source
are reduced and redirected towards R&D. When this is
factored in, the Office of Science budget increases by
$140.5 million (4.6 percent).

The new Department of Homeland security will
have R&D responsibilities for developing chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures.
The FY04 request includes $803 million for these
activities with another $3.2 billion spread over many
agencies for R&D directed at combating terrorism.

Significant investment in pre-K-12 math and
science education is included in the FY04 request with
an emphasis on evidence-based educational programs as
called for in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.

Dr. Bodman testified on the R&D in the Department of
Commerce budget request, whose Technology Administration,
including the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) fall under the Science Committee's jurisdiction. He
testified that the Commerce Department has redirected its
spending to reflect four key priorities: (1) foster the
Nation's economic growth; (2) secure the homeland; (3) upgrade
facilities; and (4) implement the Administration's Climate
Change Research Initiative (CCRI). He added:

NOAA receives $3.3 billion, a $190 million (6
percent) increase. These funds will allow NOAA to
advance understanding of marine and atmospheric
resources. The FY04 request includes $65 million, a
$7.7 million increase, for homeland security efforts,
including upgrading the NOAA weather operation to an
all-hazards warning network.

One of the highlights of NOAA's work is in
climate research. Climate research funding is increased
from $17 million to $296 million and includes funding
for the U.S. Global Climate Research Program and the
Climate Change Research Initiative.

The Technology Administration receives $505
million with $497 million going to NIST and the rest
going to the Office of Technology Policy. This funding
reflects a focus on NIST's core mission rather than on
extramural programs like the Advanced Technology
Program or the Manufacturing Extension Program.

Dr. Colwell testified that NSF is requesting $5.48 billion
for FY04, a $453 million (9 percent) increase over last year's
request. Ninety-five percent of this money goes directly to
research and education activities. She also emphasized that
NSF's priorities are determined through continuous consultation
with the research and education communities. She added:

The Math and Science Partnership Program, the
centerpiece of the No Child Left Behind initiative,
receives $200 million, $4 million goes to the Noyce
Scholarship Program, and graduate stipends are raised
to $30,000 per year.

The physical sciences will receive a 12.7
percent increase to bring the total physical sciences
funding to over $1 billion.

NSF has budgeted $303 million for information
technology research, $249 million for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, and $100 million for
biocomplexity in the environment.

The budget for major research equipment and
facilities construction projects gets the largest
dollar increase. Its budget is increased by $219
million to $1.3 billion.

Mr. Card highlighted three areas that directed the
Department of Energy's (DOE) thinking when coming up with their
FY04 budget request. They were:

DOE's energy strategies for generation of
carbon-free electricity through hydrogen. The two
initiatives supported are President Bush's hydrogen
initiative, including FreedomCAR, and an expanded
carbon sequestration initiative.

DOE's management of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste. Programs supported include the
Environmental Management Accelerated Cleanup Program,
the Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle Programs, and the Yucca
Mountain Repository Program.

DOE is placing a growing emphasis on
nanotechnology, computation, and genomics. These
technologies underpin all departmental initiatives.

To support these initiatives, DOE has
aggressively implemented the President's Management
Agenda to streamline management, intensify project
oversight, and improve e-government programs.

4.1(b)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request

February 27, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-3

Background
On February 27, 2003, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on NASA's FY 2004 budget request. The hearing
examined NASA's plans and programs and the rationale for the
funding levels in the agency's FY 2004 budget. The committee
received testimony from the Honorable Sean O'Keefe, NASA
Administrator.
The hearing's intent was not to review the status of the
then ongoing investigation into the Columbia accident, but, in
addition to examining the FY 2004 budget request, was to
examine how the grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet would
affect other programs.
Summary of Hearing
Member's focused their line of questioning, not on the
Space Shuttle Columbia Accident, but on the FY 2004 budget
request and it's impact on existing programs, as well as how
NASA planned on addressing the grounding of the Space Shuttle
fleet.
Administrator O'Keefe took the opportunity to announce the
start of Project Prometheus, a major initiative (three billion
dollars over the next five years) within NASA to develop and
demonstrate nuclear power and propulsion systems, as well as
NASA's move to Full Cost Accounting.
Member's questioned the agency's proposed decrease in
funding for Aeronautics Research and Development by 4.5 percent
over the next five years. Members cited the recently released
Aerospace Commission Report, chaired by former Science
Committee Chairman Robert Walker, as evidence of a need for
continued investment in this area.
Additional areas of focus were the zeroing out of programs
such as the Rotorcraft Research and Development, and the
Alternate Access to Station Programs. Clarification was
provided to the Committee that illustrated that the Rotorcraft
Research and Development Program Budget line was deleted, but
the funding was continuing through another budget line.
However, the Alternate Access to Station Program was indeed
zeroed out, with the only remaining activity being conducted in
the form of a study funded with FY03 funds.
When describing the investigation that was to follow,
Chairman Boehlert stated, ``I hope our investigation will be
more about fixing problems than fixing blame--although
determining accountability obviously is important. But beyond
such immediate concerns, I hope we will address the harder
question about whether the benefits outweigh the risks when we
send people into space at this time and in the current fashion
when unmanned missions can almost entirely match the quality of
human participation.''

4.1(c)_The Path to a Hydrogen Economy

March 5, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-4

Background
In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush
announced the creation of a new Hydrogen Initiative--a $1.2
billion, five-year research and development program to develop
the technology and the hydrogen infrastructure for vehicles
whose only emissions would be water vapor. The Hydrogen
Initiative would build on FreedomCAR, a $500 million research
program announced last year by the Administration to develop
fuel cell powered vehicles. Both programs would be operated by
the Department of Energy (DOE). The Committee held the hearing
in order to answer three broad questions:

1) LWhat are the greatest hurdles the country will face
in converting to a hydrogen economy? To what extent is
a federal effort needed to clear the way?

2) LWhat specific and comprehensive goals are needed
for the Hydrogen Initiative to ensure the fastest
possible development and widespread utilization of
hydrogen?

3) LWill technology research alone lead to a transition
to hydrogen, or will it be necessary to apply policy
tools? How should a research and development effort
take these policy choices into account?
Summary of Hearing
Members heard from the following witnesses about what the
hydrogen economy might look like, and what it will take to get
there: David Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, Alan C. Lloyd,
Ph.D., 2003 Chairman, California Fuel Cell Partnership, Joan
Ogden, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Princeton Environmental
Institute, Dr. Larry Burns, Vice President, Research,
Development and Planning, General Motors and Don Huberts, Chief
Executive Officer, Shell Hydrogen. The witnesses were
optimistic about the possibilities of hydrogen, although they
did not expect widespread adoption of hydrogen vehicles for at
least two or three decades. Several technical challenges were
outlined, although the witnesses were confident that they could
be overcome.
David Garman testified that the Hydrogen Initiative would
not harm the renewable and energy efficiency research already
taking place at DOE, and that the Hydrogen Initiative would
focus on renewably-produced hydrogen. Dr. Ogden testified that
using natural gas to produce hydrogen would not significantly
reduce the availability of natural gas for other uses. In
response to questioning, Mr. Huberts said that hydrogen would
always be more expensive than more traditional fuels, and the
environmental benefits of using hydrogen would have to be taken
into account for widespread adoption to occur.

4.1(d)_The Aerospace Commission Report and NASA Workforce

March 12, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-7

Background
On March 12, 2003, the House Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing to review The Final Report of the Commission
on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and NASA
Workforce legislation. The hearing consisted of two panels. The
first panel reviewed the Aerospace Commission report issued
last November to the President and Congress. The second panel
reviewed the proposed legislation, H.R. 1085, the NASA
Flexibility Act of 2003. This bill provides additional
authorities for the agency to recruit and retain a highly-
skilled workforce which was one of the primary recommendations
from the Aerospace Commission.
The first panel one focused on the Aerospace Commission
report and featured the Honorable Bob Walker, Chairman,
Aerospace Commission, as well as President, Wexler Walker
Public Policy Associates; The Honorable John Douglass,
Commissioner, as well as President, Aerospace Industries
Association; and the Honorable John Hamre, Commissioner, as
well as President, Center for Strategic and International
Studies. The second panel focused on the NASA Workforce
legislation and featured Mr. Max Stier, President, Partnership
for Public Service; Mr. Bobby Harnage, President, American
Federation of Government Employees, and Mr. George Nesterczuk,
Nesterczuk and Associates.
Summary of Hearing
Members heard sobering news on the growing problems facing
the U.S. Aerospace industry, but received concrete
recommendations on how to face these challenges. ``The integral
role aerospace plays in our economy, our security, our
mobility, and our values make global leadership in aviation and
space a national imperative,'' said Robert S. Walker, while
presenting the Commission's Final Report to the Committee.
``Given the real and evolving challenges that confront our
nation, government must commit to increased and sustained
investment and must facilitate private investment in our
national aerospace sector.'' The Final Report consisted of
nine, unanimous recommendations, including a call to
``immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of
a scientifically technologically trained U.S. aerospace
workforce.'' Walker warned, ``The breakdown of America's
intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national
security and our capability to continue as world leader.''
Members also heard from Aerospace panel Commissioners John
Douglass, President of Aerospace Industries Association and
John Hamre, President of Center for Strategic and International
Studies who provided specific recommendations for how the U.S.
should proceed in righting the course for the American
Aerospace Industry. In particular, Mr. Hamre suggested that
current export controls in the aerospace sector should be re-
evaluated and updated to reflect the distinction between
cutting edge technology and old, prosaic technology.
Expert witnesses expressed support for Chairman Boehlert's
legislation to address the ``brain drain'' at NASA, calling it
a ``good step in the right direction.'' Boehlert's bill, H.R.
1085, the NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003 gives NASA
more flexibility to recruit and retain a highly skilled
workforce.
``Within five years, a quarter of the NASA workforce will
be eligible to retire. The most recent General Accounting
Office (GAO) report on NASA, issued just this past January,
noted, `The agency still need[s] to deal with critical losses
due to retirements in coming years,' '' said Boehlert. ``I've
introduced H.R. 1085 to help NASA deal with this enormous
challenge.'' Mr. Stier supported Chairman Boehlert's approach
and offered suggestions for some changes to the legislation.
Mr. Nesterczuk stated, ``Broadly speaking, I support the intent
of H.R. 1085 and believe its provisions will indeed provide
NASA much needed flexibility in dealing with some vexing human
resource issues.''
Prior to the hearing, Chairman Boehlert received a letter
in support for his bill, with some suggested changes, from Dr.
Lee Stone, Vice President, Legislative Affairs for the Ames
Federal Employees Union, the International Federation of
Professional & Technical Engineers (IFTPE) Local 30. Dr.
Stier's letter stated, ``We applaud your efforts to address
NASA's problem of attracting and retaining the next generation
of highly skilled, technical engineering and scientific
employees,'' said Dr. Stone. ``We are pleased that your
legislative proposal (H.R. 1085) focuses on reducing the pay
inequities facing NASA science and engineering staff with
respect to the private sector.''
Mr. Harnage testified at the hearing that the American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) ``opposes most of the
human resources proposals contained in [H.R. 1085]'' and
``strongly opposes the implied policy of seeking changes to
civil service laws on an agency-by-agency basis.'' Mr. Stier
argued against this approach of waiting for government-wide
civil service changes: ``As attractive as that proposition
sounds on the surface, the realities of the situation argue
against it for three reasons. First, NASA's needs are too acute
to await a broader legislative package. Second, we believe NASA
has demonstrated that it is presently ready to manage the
proposed flexibilities in a responsible and effective manner.
Third, while we support the broader goal of comprehensive
government-wide reforms, we see no reason to delay action on
the current proposals until that more ambitious agenda is
realized.''
``Given that people are our greatest resource, we must give
top priority in cultivating creative and talented young people
to fill the ranks of the aerospace workforce,'' said Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).
``Legislation introduced by Chairman Boehlert offers NASA added
support to effectively deal with this problem.''
Democrats on the Committee expressed some concern with
Chairman Boehlert's legislation. Ranking Democrat Ralph Hall
(D-TX) said, ``The NASA workforce is a family. As we seek to
strengthen it, we need to ensure that whatever we do benefits
all of the NASA employees, not just a favored few.'' Rep. Bart
Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee added, ``I believe we need a comprehensive and
independent assessment of how well NASA is making use of
existing human capital legislation before we contemplate adding
more laws.''

4.1(e)_H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003

March 19, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-6

Background
On March 19, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to examine federal nanotechnology research and
development (R&D) activities and to consider H.R. 766, the
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, which
would authorize these programs.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of
witnesses. Panel 1: (1) Honorable George Allen, Senator from
Virginia; and (2) Honorable Ron Wyden, Senator from Oregon.
Panel 2: (1) Mr. Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for
Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy; (2) Dr.
Thomas N. Theis, Director of Physical Sciences, IBM Research
Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center; (3) Dr. James
Roberto, Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; (4) Dr. Carl A. Batt, Co-
Director of the Nanobiotechnology Center, Cornell University;
and (5) Mr. Alan Marty, Executive-in-Residence, JP Morgan
Partners.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting the broad
consensus that exists throughout the Congress and nationwide
about the importance and promise of nanotechnology. He also
listed the three main thrusts of H.R. 766, which are to
encourage interdisciplinary research, improve interagency
coordination, and increase research into societal consequences.
Mr. Hall added that the scope of nanotechnology is so wide that
it will leave virtually no product untouched.
Senator Wyden testified first. He began his testimony by
hinting at the possibilities nanotechnology holds for the
health care field and cautioned that we must be thoughtful
before rushing to develop programs for nanotechnology. He also
stressed the need to coordinate nanotechnology programs across
the Federal Government. Other nations are aggressively pursing
nanotechnology so, to remain competitive, the U.S. should as
well.
Senator Allen testified that he believes that many nations
like Japan, Korea, China, and some members of the European
Union are pulling ahead of the U.S. in applying nanoscience
research and development results. It is important for health
care, for communications, for commerce, for manufacturing, for
aeronautics, and indeed for our national security that the
United States is a leader in this nanotechnology revolution.
Members of Congress must educate themselves about this key
area.
Mr. Russell's testimony dealt with the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), how it is organized within the
government, and how it relates to nanotechnology research and
development (R&D).

The NNI is an interagency program that
provides basic research funding to colleges,
universities, and the national labs. It has received
strong support from the Administration, and $849
million is proposed for the NNI in the President's FY04
budget request. That is an increase of 10 percent over
the FY03 request.

NNI funding will support research activities
directed at certain ``grand challenges,'' such as
innovations in manufacturing, energy production and
storage, medicine, and homeland security.

The Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science
and Technology Council coordinates the NNI. The
Subcommittee is composed of NNI agency representatives,
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OSTP is
trying to elevate the visibility of nanotechnology and
increase coordination and priority setting.

The President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) will review the NNI and
advise the President on how to improve the program.

Dr. Theis reported to the Committee on the status of IBM's
research efforts in nanotechnology. IBM has tremendous interest
in nanotechnology because it is the key to the future of
information technology. It will allow manufacturers to continue
a rapid pace of improvements in the speed, cost, and energy
efficiency of hardware. Also, being able to design materials
with atomic precision allows for unprecedented control over the
electronic, magnetic, optical, and thermal properties of
materials. In addition, Dr. Theis was a part of the National
Academy of Sciences review of the NNI and listed the
recommendations of the review. They are:

The Federal Government should increase
interagency coordination and ensure the long-term
stability of the federal nanotechnology effort.

The OSTP should establish an independent
advisory board to identify research opportunities.

Research into the societal implications of
nanotechnology should be an integral part of the NNI.

The NNI should support funding for basic
research on nanoscale science and technology.

Dr. Roberto testified that H.R. 766 is an important part of
the strategy to strengthen the physical sciences in the United
States, and stated that advances in the physical sciences have
a direct effect on economic growth, new medical technology,
energy independence, and enhanced national security. He feels
that we will see a paradigm shift in the physical sciences to
rival that seen in the biological sciences after the discovery
of the structure of DNA. Dr. Roberto emphasized that the
excitement about nanotechnology is real and that this new field
will cross the boundaries of almost every science and
engineering discipline.
During his testimony Dr. Batt described some recent
research activities and advances in nanobiotechnology. Most
biology occurs at the nanometer scale and nanotechnology will
provide the tools necessary to truly study and understand
phenomena at this scale. Some of the current efforts in this
vein are projects to more efficiently sequence DNA, understand
how proteins fold, develop biofabrication methods to replace
the current ways of producing computer chips, and develop hand-
held sensors that can detect food-born pathogens and biowarfare
agents. Dr. Batt believes that the key to success is in
interdisciplinary efforts. Dr. Batt also described his outreach
efforts and how he spends about one third of his time
explaining nanotechnology to ``little kids'' (elementary and
middle school students).
Mr. Marty's testimony focused on the transition of
nanotechnology from the lab to the marketplace. The National
Science Foundation predicts a $1 trillion global market for
nanotechnology in just over a decade. Mr. Marty believes that
H.R. 766 is the beginning of an essential dialogue with the
public that is necessary to support this burgeoning market.
Before a venture firm will fund a start-up business, it must
show sufficient progress towards commercialization so as to
ensure a positive return for the venture firm. To get from the
laboratory to that point will require some federal support, and
this is where, historically, federal funds have been lacking in
the U.S. Some foreign governments are enthusiastically
supporting this phase of technology transfer in their countries
and hence these foreign companies may gain a competitive edge
on U.S. industry. Mr. Marty also testified that the
Nanobusiness Alliance supports the Act but would like to see
local government officials, economic development experts, and
ethicists added to the advisory board.

4.1(f)_Dealing With Foreign Students and Scholars in an Age of
Terrorism: Visa Backlogs and Tracking Systems

March 26, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-9

Background
On March 26, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing on the enhanced security measures that foreign students
and scholars in science, mathematics and engineering face when
they apply for a visa and subsequently enroll in an academic or
exchange program in the U.S. This hearing is the second in a
series on the need for balance between heightened security and
scientific openness in the post-September 11 environment and it
will explore the development and implementation of enhanced
visa adjudication and monitoring systems and their impact on
individuals, universities and research collaborations.
The witnesses were: (1) Ms. Janice L. Jacobs, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Visa Services; (2) Dr. David Ward,
President, American Council on Education; and (3) Dr. Shirley
M. Tilghman, President, Princeton University.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Jacobs testified that issuing visas has always been
about striking the right balance between protecting U.S.
borders and facilitating legitimate travel. This balance was
forever altered on September 11, 2001 and several changes have
been made since then in response. Security, however, is the top
priority. Ms. Jacobs went on to outline some of the aspects of
the visa-granting program, including:

The U.S. vets all visa applications with law
enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, and
the Nonproliferation Bureau before granting any visas.

There are two reasons the visa-granting
process has slowed since 9/11. One, the number of visas
that need security advisory opinion clearances has
increased dramatically, and two, the practice of
granting a visa after a certain period of time has
elapsed, regardless of whether approval has been
granted, has stopped.

Given the post-9/11 environment, there will
not be a return to expeditious visa processing. Visa
Services will not advise consular offices to grant
visas, regardless of the sense of urgency, as long as
an agency has an objection to a particular case.
However, for cases where no objections are raised,
clearances can be granted in 30 days or less.

Dr. Ward stated that there is broad agreement both on the
value of international exchange of students and scholars and on
the necessity for a secure visa granting process; the
discussion is centered on striking the right balance to make it
work. He went on to describe some of the concerns the American
Council on Education (ACE) has with the current visa system.

The Student Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) is the most important step the Federal
Government has taken to improve its handling of foreign
students and scholars, but ACE is concerned that SEVIS
is being implemented before being fully tested. What's
more, campus administrators and even some Immigration
and Naturalization Service personnel have not been
adequately trained in its use. ACE believes that the
Department of State has not put appropriate emphasis on
fixing the problems associated with SEVIS.

Some technical flaws associated with SEVIS
include frequent data losses, forms being printed out
at other schools, sometimes hundreds of miles away,
batch processing that only works intermittently, and
incomplete access for all students.

ACE expects there to be delays in the new
visa process but is concerned that so many are
unpredictable delays. ACE would like a visa process
that is timely, though will certainly take more time
than before, but predictable. They would also like
current visa holders to be able to revalidate their
visas before leaving the U.S. for academic, health, or
other sensible, personal reasons.

Dr. Tilghman testified that the events of September 11,
2001 made the academic community aware of the need to consider
the national security implications of their work, and she
believes that they have been responsive to these concerns. She
agreed with the other witnesses that there is a need to balance
national security with scientific openness, then went on to
describe some of her concerns with the current visa process.

Dr. Tilghman is concerned that if security
measures become too restrictive the U.S. will become
unable to attract the best foreign students. The
success of the U.S. as a leader in international
science and technology is dependent on attracting the
best students from all over the world.

The guidelines that consular offices operate
under virtually guarantee that any student interested
in science or engineering will experience delays in the
visa process. Consular offices are instructed to look
for certain words or phrases that might raise a flag on
a visa application. Many students, especially students
in the biological sciences, are certain to use some of
these key words even if their work is non-threatening.

Dr. Tilghman agreed that there should be a
pre-certification program that would allow students to
leave the country temporarily knowing that they will be
able to return in a prompt and effective manner.

Dr. Tilghman believes that the new IPASS
system could solve many of the existing problems but
could also hinder the process just by adding another
layer of review. It is still difficult to evaluate the
utility of IPASS because little is currently known
about it.

4.1(g)_The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology

April 9, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-13

Background
On April 9, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to examine the societal implications of nanotechnology
and to consider H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003, in light of those implications.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Raymond Kurzweil, Chairman and
CEO, Kurzweil Technologies, Inc.; (2) Dr. Vicki L. Colvin,
Executive Director, Center for Biological and Environmental
Nanotechnology; Associate Professor of Chemistry, Rice
University; (3) Dr. Langdon Winner, Professor of Political
Science, Department of Science and Technology Studies,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and (4) Ms. Christine
Peterson, President, Foresight Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Kurzweil testified that society will eventually see
both great promise and some peril from nanotechnology, and was
confident that with the right strategies, the peril can be
managed. He believes that nanotechnology will affect nearly
every sector of society, including health, medicine,
manufacturing, electronics, computers, energy, travel, and
defense. In addition, he testified that:

Based upon his mathematical models of
technological evolution, much of technology will become
nanotechnology by the 2020's. He foresees this ``golden
age'' of nanotechnology as enabling us to find
solutions to pollution, poverty, disease, and aging.

There is both a moral and economic imperative
for continuing the pursuit of nanotechnology. The moral
imperative is that, although technology has vastly
improved our quality of life, there is still much
suffering in the world and many problems for which
nanotechnology might be a solution. The economic
imperative is that since nanotechnology is so pervasive
in all fields of technology, giving up pursuit of it
would mean relinquishing pursuit of all technology.
There is also the fear that giving up pursuit of
nanotechnology would only push it underground where the
dangers become even more extreme.

Those with fears about the dangers of
nanotechnology can be comforted by how the threats
posed by computer viruses, a non-biological, self-
replicating, recent technological innovation, have been
mitigated. No one would suggest giving up the Internet
because of these viruses, and this was done in an
industry without regulation or certification for
practitioners.

Dr. Colvin testified about her concern for the public
relations problems that will arise if nanotechnology continues
to be misrepresented to the public and studies are not done on
the environmental and health impacts of nanotechnology. She
warned that public fear of the new technology could bring the
industry to its knees. However, she feels that there is still
time to ensure the responsible development of nanotechnology,
and believes that H.R. 766 will play a large part in garnering
strong public support. She added:

Legislative help is needed because very
little money or interest is given to research into the
societal and environmental implications of
nanotechnology. This is because researchers and funding
agencies are more concerned about uncovering the
positive effects of their research, not their negative
effects. Legislation could demonstrate that Congress
feels that research on societal and environmental
consequences is important.

To adequately study the implications of
nanotechnology, we will need both nanotechnologists to
foresee the technology development and social and
environmental scientists to evaluate the consequences
of these developments. A collaborative effort such as
this is best accomplished in a center environment.

She mentioned the research on ethical, legal,
and social implications within the Human Genome Project
(HGP) as an example of how work on alleviating public
fears can be an important part of a potentially
controversial research program. As was proposed for the
HGP, she suggested that the Federal Government should
invest five percent of nanotechnology funding in
studies of the societal, ethical, and environmental
implications.

In his testimony, Dr. Winner warned the Committee not to
make the same mistakes with nanotechnology that were made with
biotechnology. Societal concerns about biotechnology,
especially genetically modified foods, were ignored while the
technology was being developed, leading to a technological
backlash in many sectors of society. Dr. Winner explained that
this was because those with the most to gain in the short run
from a new technology usually speak up first and most loudly,
while society at large begins to raise questions about the
benefits and drawbacks only much later. He added:

Broad-ranging, detailed, intellectually
rigorous inquiries into the social and ethical concerns
of nanotechnology need to be conducted by persons with
no financial or institutional stakes in the outcome of
the study. These studies can be accomplished in cross-
disciplinary programs at universities and research
centers; a cadre of ``nanoethicists'' does not need to
be formed to address societal and ethical concerns.

The public should be included in
deliberations on nanotechnology early in the process
through small, jury-like panels of disinterested
citizens. They would be given relevant documents,
expert testimony from a variety of viewpoints on the
applications and consequences of the new technology,
and be asked to offer policy advice. The National
Science Foundation is currently researching this type
of citizen panel.

Ms. Peterson described two different types of
nanotechnology. The first type is any technology that is
significantly smaller than microtechnology; for example,
nanoparticles, which are already possible. The second type
involves the ability to work at the molecular level to create
large structures with fundamentally new molecular organization.
The impact of this second type of nanotechnology will be much
greater in the long run. She added:

Nanotechnology could, among other advantages,
lead to major advances in medical and environmental
applications. Because nanomanufacturing could, in
principle, be very inexpensive, we may have the
opportunity to make sustainable improvements in living
standards.

There are several drawbacks, however. This is
a disruptive technology that could result in economic
impacts like job transitions. Education programs will
be needed to help people make the change. Also,
intellectual property rights could impede advancement
if the basic building blocks of the technology get
overly patented.

The most challenging problem is the
deliberate abuse of the new technology. One way around
this problem would be to have an open international R&D
effort instead of developing the technology in secret.

A provision for a basic feasibility review of
molecular manufacturing, where the proponents and
critics of the technology can make their technical case
to a group of unbiased scientists, could be added to
the legislation.

4.1(h)_Cyber Security Research and Development

May 14, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-17

Background
On May 14, 2003, the House Science Committee held a hearing
to examine federal cyber security research and development
(R&D) activities and implementation of last year's Cyber
Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305).
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS); (2) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National
Science Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce;
and (4) Dr. Anthony J. Tether, Director, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Summary of Hearing
Dr. McQueary testified that DHS requested $7 million for
cyber security research in fiscal year 2004, but acknowledged
he would be willing to revisit the funding allocation. He also
presented the Science and Technology Directorate's plan to
focus on cyber security threats and was confident that this
plan would place sufficient emphasis on cyber security. In
particular, he stated that:

The Directorate's mission is to develop and
deploy systems to detect and mitigate the consequences
of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or
cyber threat so that those who serve in the defense of
the homeland have the tools necessary to effectively
perform their duties.

The Under Secretary for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection in DHS would have
responsibility for carrying out the operational aspects
of the Department's cyber security plan.

As part of its efforts to counter the cyber
threat, the Directorate will establish a cyber security
R&D center and partner with NSF, NIST, and DARPA to
leverage existing technologies and research in the
military, academic, and industry sectors. One of the
center's specific goals will be to use an existing or
develop a new cyber test bed to safely and effectively
test new cyber security approaches.

The Directorate is working to coordinate
efforts across the federal sector. For example, DHS
representatives have participated in the INFOSEC
Research Council, and the Directorate has many
detailees from NIST, the Secret Service, NSF, and NSA.

Dr. Colwell agreed that not enough attention is being paid
to the cyber security threat, and emphasized that we have to
protect against attacks from outside, as well as inside, the
U.S.

The NSF has been funding cyber security
research since 1978. A major computing research program
was begun in 2001, and since then there has been a
dramatic increase in the research community's interest
in cyber security research.

The NSF spent about $30 million on cyber
security research in fiscal year 2003 and approximately
$11 million on the cyber security Scholarships for
Service Program. NSF is planning to convene a workshop
to study workforce needs in cyber security and a
meeting of cyber security principal investors to build
connections within the research community.

In order to encourage innovative approaches
to cyber security and ensure the public trust, NSF
feels it is important to have multidisciplinary
research programs and effective public/private
partnerships that guide the strategic development. The
NSF is also convening summer workshops and meetings of
principal investigators to facilitate interaction of
multidisciplinary researchers.

NSF is active in many interagency activities,
and the Assistant Director for Computer and Information
Science and Engineering chairs the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program
working group.

Dr. Bement stated that some current security procedures
(e.g., firewalls) do not cover all four R's of cyber security:
recognize an attack, resist the attack, respond to the attack,
and recover from the attack. Therefore, there is still much
work to be done in developing cyber defenses. He added:

The greatest current threat to the Nation's
cyber security is indifference: ill-educated users,
lack of cyber security experts, poorly designed systems
and software, specific vulnerabilities in commercial
information technology products, and a preponderance of
commercial security products that are not sufficiently
tested.

NIST has published security guidelines for e-
mail, firewalls, telecommuting and business systems
contingency planning. These guidelines provide
leadership to industry as well as government, and some
go on to become American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and even international standards.

Dr. Bement warned of the consequences due to
the ``ripple effect'' of a cyber attack. The effects of
an attack on a power grid, for example, could be felt
by many industrial sectors and over a whole geographic
area. NIST has been partnering with industry to provide
grants for research on critical infrastructure
protection.

NIST also supports an emphasis on inter-
agency cooperation. They are working on a Memorandum of
Understanding with the S&T Directorate at DHS and
continue to have successful relationships with NSF,
OSTP, DARPA, and NSA.

Dr. Tether testified that the military is moving towards
``network-centric warfare'' where the organizations, weapons
platforms, and people are networked together to quickly and
effectively carry out operations. As a result, the network has
now become a weapon itself and, therefore, must be protected
like any other weapon from outside attack. He added:

DARPA is currently idea-limited when it comes
to cyber security, rather than short on funds. Its
unclassified information security budget has decreased
since 2002, but he hinted that that is due to more and
more money being moved into the classified budget.

Dr. Tether outlined the evolution of cyber
security projects from firewalls to detecting and
mitigating attacks to the current focus on being able
to operate effectively even while an attack is taking
place.

DARPA is currently working to provide the
Department of Defense with a peer-to-peer network that
will reduce the need for infrastructure. This type of
network will be more resilient to attack and will be
able to assemble and reassemble on the fly. There is
great commercial interest in this type of network; for
example, technology in this area could be used for cell
phone networks in which each phone is a relay and fewer
towers are required.

Dr. Tether assured the Committee that while
DARPA is putting more emphasis on military problems,
the non-military world will see long-term benefits
because of the broad applications of the technologies
developed for military use.

4.1(i)_H.R. 1118, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Firefighters Act of 2003

June 4, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-15

Background
The purpose of the hearing was to review H.R. 1118,
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act
of 2003 and to provide recommendations to refine the bill. The
purpose of this legislation is to help communities across
America meet new minimum staffing standards for the fire
services so they have adequate manpower to protect against
fires, acts of terrorism, and other hazards. Witnesses from
Members of Congress, national fire associations, and local fire
department chiefs testified to the challenges faced by fire and
emergency response agents and the necessity for adequate
training and equipment. Witnesses discussed local and volunteer
fire department preparedness and response capabilities in
regards to fire services, threat of terrorism, and other
emergency response.
The Committee heard testimony from (1) the Honorable Curt
Weldon, Member, U.S. House of Representatives; (2) the
Honorable Bill Pascrell, Member, U.S. House of Representatives;
(3) the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd, Member, U.S. Senate; (4)
the Honorable James Shannon, President, National Fire
Protection Association; (5) Mr. Michael Quill, Chief, Auburn,
New York Fire Department; (6) Mr. Jeff Cash, Chief,
Cherryville, North Carolina Fire Department; and (7) Mr. Mike
McNeill, 9th District Vice President, International Association
of Firefighters (IAFF), Denver, Colorado.
Summary of Hearing
Representative Curt Weldon testified to the changing
responsibilities and the increased expectations placed on
firefighters. He also testified to the decreased resources
available to fire services, especially in the area of staffing.
Representative Weldon suggested five amendments to the bill
needed to provide career and volunteer fire departments with
what they need most: 1) fund local fire departments directly
instead of providing funds for states to distribute; 2)
implement a provision barring funding fire activity lower than
the average three years ago, thus providing consistency to
program funding; 3) include a nondiscrimination clause to
prevent discrimination within fire departments; 4) authorize
funding through 2010; and 5) institute a peer-review process
within the fire service community.
Representative Bill Pascrell emphasized the desperate need
for adequate staffing in the Nation's fire departments, citing
numerous statistics that show they are drastically
understaffed. He also cited examples of how this understaffing
has directly contributed to the deaths of firefighters. In
addition, he echoed Representative Weldon's comments that these
funds should supplement local funds, not replace them.
Senator Chris Dodd, the chief Senate sponsor of companion
legislation, noted the support some Members of Congress have
given to the fire services since even before September 11,
2001. Since that time, the responsibilities of the fire
services, and therefore, the demands placed on them, have
increased dramatically. This has only exacerbated their
staffing needs. Furthermore, he testified that since people
live in one community and commute to work in another, it is
more difficult than ever to recruit a volunteer force.
Mr. Shannon emphasized the need for more firefighters,
professional and volunteer. He stated simply, ``Closing these
gaps requires more firefighters. There are no short cuts.'' He
added:

Insufficient staffing grossly impacts the
safety and effectiveness of firefighters and decreases
their ability to quickly respond to incidents.

Sixty-five percent of the Nation's cities and
towns cannot meet the Insurance Services Office
guidelines for response times because of a lack of fire
stations. Sixty percent or fewer of the departments
serving small and medium sized populations could not
respond with four firefighters per engine, the minimum
number needed to safely initiate an interior attack.

Bringing fire departments to a level that
would meet federal guidelines would require an
estimated 75,000 to 85,000 additional firefighters
nationwide according to a needs assessment survey
conducted by the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA).

Mr. Quill described the staffing situation of his
department in Auburn, NY, including how many firefighters are
required to respond to a structural fire, and noted that hiring
any additional personnel would provide a huge benefit to fire
departments and would vastly improve both safety and
productivity. In addition, he testified that:

Staffing in his department had decreased from
20 firefighters per shift in 1973 to 14 firefighters
per shift currently. The decrease is due to budget cuts
that impacted personnel first.

Substantial gains in productivity can be
obtained by a relatively small increase in personnel.
Most jurisdictions can only staff a piece of fire
apparatus with three firefighters. Since federal law
requires firefighters to work in teams of two, adding
one firefighter would double the number of working
teams available on that apparatus.

Mr. Cash recommended that a recruitment and retention grant
program be included in the SAFER bill. Volunteer firefighters
currently have a high turnover rate and have seen their numbers
decrease by fifteen percent over the last twenty years. A
recruitment and retention grant program would significantly
improve the volunteer firefighter community at a fraction of
the cost of hiring grants. He added:

Some recruitment and retention program
examples include national and local recruitment
campaigns, the creation and augmentation of length of
service award programs, other pension programs for
volunteers, tuition assistance for higher education,
and affordable housing programs.

Prior to September 11, 2001, most local fire
departments could respond to the majority of their
calls, perhaps with assistance from neighboring
departments. Since then, in addition to their
traditional responsibilities, they have been called
upon to respond to incidents involving hazardous
materials, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism.
In order to be prepared for such incidences, they will
require federal financial assistance.

Mr. McNeill noted that with the new, post-9/11
responsibilities placed on the fire services--responding to
hazardous materials, weapons of mass destruction, and
terrorists incidents--fire departments must be prepared to
respond to an act of war each time an alarm rings. This
compounds the already drastic staffing shortages. He added:

The current economic downturn has exacerbated
the staffing situation. Fire departments in my district
have had to cut back on personnel and may have to
endure rolling blackouts where a fire station is closed
for a day on a rotating basis. Unfortunately, my
district is not unique in this respect.

The Federal Government has a responsibility
to help communities attain minimum staffing levels
necessary to operate safely and effectively.
Furthermore, if the fire services are going to be able
to respond to future attacks against the homeland, the
Federal Government must address the staffing shortages.

4.1(j)_Supercomputing: Is the U.S. on the Right Path?

July 16, 2003

Hearing Volume 108-21

Background
On July 16, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to examine whether the United States is losing ground
to foreign competitors in the production and use of
supercomputers and whether federal agencies' proposed paths for
advancing our supercomputing capabilities are adequate to
maintain or regain the U.S. lead.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director,
Office of Science, Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Peter A.
Freeman, Assistant Director, Computer and Information Science
and Engineering Directorate, National Science Foundation (NSF);
(3) Dr. Daniel A. Reed, Director, National Center for
Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; and (4) Mr. Vincent F. Scarafino, Manager,
Numerically Intensive Computing, Ford Motor Company.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Orbach described the Department of Energy's plans for
developing supercomputers and using supercomputing capacity to
tackle problems in cutting edge fields such as nanotechnology
and biotechnology. Specifically, he addressed four questions
posed to him by the Committee.

The Office of Science will collaborate with
the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) to design
the next generation of supercomputers; however, the
machines the NNSA has used in the past have been
massively parallel, which are not very efficient when
applied to many problems of scientific or industrial
interest.

The Office of Science is also working on a
memorandum of understanding with the Department of
Defense that establishes a framework for cooperation
with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on
designing new computer architectures.

The High-End Computing Revitalization Task
Force (HEC-RTF), which was formed by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and is co-chaired
by an Office of Science official, is an indication of
how much importance the Administration places on high-
end computing. The Office of Science expects to play a
major role in executing the recommendations of the task
force.

The high-performance computing needs of the
scientific and private sectors are not diverging. Any
advances the Office of Science makes in this field will
be applicable to industry.

Dr. Freeman testified that, in general, the U.S. is on the
right path when it comes to supercomputing, as long as the
efforts are embedded in a larger cyber infrastructure that also
includes massive storage, high-performance networks, databases,
lots of software, well-trained people, and that is available to
all scientists and engineers. Additionally, Dr. Freeman stated
that:

NSF's traditional role is to innovate new
supercomputing computational mechanisms and
applications and to ensure that there are appropriate
educational programs in place to train scientists and
engineers to use these new tools.

NSF is committed to the recommendations of
their cyber infrastructure advisory panel, the Atkins
Committee, and to making supercomputing facilities a
key element of the NSF grid computing effort.

NSF is actively participating in the HEC-RTF.

The high-performance computing needs of the
scientific and private sectors are not diverging. He
described the relationship as symbiotic, with each
group taking advantage of each other's technological
advances.

Dr. Reed testified that there is not enough time available
on existing high-end computing systems and the capabilities of
the existing systems are not adequate to address the research
challenges and opportunities. In addition, the planned new
systems will not fully address this shortfall. Dr. Reed went on
to highlight three points about the current status of advanced
scientific computing.

NSF has been pivotal to providing high-end
computing resources to the scientific and engineering
communities. Before NSF undertook this activity, access
to supercomputers was limited to restricted cases at
national laboratories. NSF must continue in this role.

Researchers feel they need sustained speeds
of 25-100 teraflops to make new scientific discoveries.
This will require long-term, sustained investment in
both hardware and software.

Collaboration between industry and
government, and sustained investment is critical to
future development of high-end computing systems.

Representing the industry perspective, Mr. Scarafino
testified that more advanced computing capabilities will be
essential if the U.S. is to remain competitive in the auto
industry. He warned that the Federal Government cannot rely on
economic forces to spur development in high-end computing; only
the video game industry has enough volume to drive that kind of
development. The Federal Government should, instead, work to
advance the design of new computing architectures and other
necessary components. He added:

The Federal Government previously aided in
the development of high-end computing but switched to
relying on off-the-shelf components to make parallel
architectures in the mid-1990's. This worked well in
many applications, but some of the hardest problems do
not fit well into parallel architectures.

Ford Motor Company uses high-performance
computing in the design of its products for performance
in both nominal and extreme conditions. Modeling and
simulation help accelerate the design cycle and help
engineers balance design requirements like performance,
durability, crash worthiness, and occupant and
pedestrian protection.

Significantly faster computing resources
would improve the ability to predict vehicle safety and
the durability and wind/noise characteristics.

4.1(k)_The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report

September 4, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-27

Background
On September 4, 2003, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on the findings and recommendations of the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The Committee
received testimony from retired Navy Admiral Harold Gehman,
Chairman of the 13-member board, along with Board Members Major
General Kenneth W. Hess, Dr. James N. Hallock, and Dr. Shelia
Widnall.
Summary of Hearing
Admiral Gehman briefly summarized the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board's Report, identifying it's scope, process,
conclusions, and recommendations before taking questions from
Members regarding the specifics of the Report. Members praised
the Board's work as being thorough and insightful.
Chairman Boehlert stated, ``Admiral Gehman and all the
members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board have
earned our respect for their selfless and tireless work, their
rigor and their independence. They have performed a great
service to the Nation and particularly to those of us who must
set policy for NASA. Quite properly, the CAIB report focuses on
managerial as well as technical lapses, and on the future, as
well as on the past. They have given us alot to think over.''
Admiral Gehman listed several recommendations in the report
that were necessary for return-to-flight, and several that were
necessary for continued flight. These varied depending on
safety priorities, and the length of time they required to be
implemented.
Some of the major points expressed by Admiral Gehman in his
testimony included the formation of an Independent Technical
and Engineering Authority that would be outside of the Shuttle
program structure, and responsible for the handling and
adjudicating waivers to program requirements. Additionally, he
stressed the need for Congress, the Administration, and the
public to develop a national vision for U.S. space policy that
NASA could follow, and the need for change in NASA's safety
organization.
The Committee uniformly agreed that, in response to the
CAIB Report, Congress and the Administration must now chart the
future for NASA and that it needs to do so without any
preconceived notions about what the space program should look
like. Member's noted that we need to put together a full
picture of the actual risks and costs of the Space Shuttle
before deciding whether and how the program should be run.

4.1(l)_NASA's Response to the Columbia Report

September 10, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-28

Background
On September 10, 2003, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) response to the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board Report. The Committee received testimony
from NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe and retired Navy Admiral
Harold Gehman, Chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board (CAIB).
The hearing examined NASA's plan, ``NASA's Implementation
Plan for Return-to-Flight and Beyond,'' which was NASA's
response to the CAIB report. Issues included whether the plan
fully complied with the CAIB recommendations; the cost and
schedule associated with implementing the plan; whether the
task group (led by the two former astronauts Thomas Stafford
and Richard Covey) that NASA appointed to oversee return to
flight provided the best mechanism to assess NASA's
implementation; and the criteria used to determine when the
Shuttle is ready to return to flight. The hearing also reviewed
the impact a significant delay in return-to-flight might have
on the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope,
and the proposed Orbital Space Plane.
Summary of Hearing
Member questioning focused on ``NASA's Implementation Plan
for Return-to-Flight and Beyond,'' and whether it was
consistent with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board's Report, and further, whether it's
specific responses fully addressed the concerns and
requirements set forth by the Board.
Areas of concern were the applicability of the newly formed
NASA Safety and Engineering Center (NESC) in Langley, Virginia
to the CAIB's requirement for an Independent Technical
Authority to have responsibility for handling and adjudicating
waivers rather than the individual program offices; and the
independence of the Stafford-Covey Return-to-Flight Task Force
that NASA has charged with reviewing it's implementation of the
CAIB report.
Administrator O'Keefe described the Return-to-Flight Plan
as a ``living document'' that would be periodically updated as
plans are refined and progress is made in making technical,
management, cultural, and safety changes. He also indicated
that NASA would work closely with Congress and the Stafford-
Covey Return-to-Flight Task Force to assure that the Shuttle
only returns to flight when it is safe to do so.
Members pointed out that NASA has a poor record of fully
implementing recommendations from previous reports,
particularly non-technical recommendations. Therefore, the
Members noted that a key issue is whether NASA will fully
satisfy the CAIB recommendations, particularly how NASA will
implement the central organizational recommendations of the
CAIB, such as creating an independent technical authority.

4.1(m)_The Future of Human Space Flight

October 16, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-29

Background
On October 16, 2003, the Committee on Science held a
hearing on the Future of Human Space Flight. The hearing
examined the rationale for human presence in space, the
feasibility and cost of various potential long-term goals, and
the near-term implications of establishing these goals.
The witnesses included Dr. Michael Griffin, President and
Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel and a former NASA official;
Dr. Wesley Huntress, Director of the Carnegie Institution's
Geophysical Laboratory and a former NASA official; Dr. Matthew
Koss, Assistant Professor of Physics, College of the Holy
Cross; Dr. Alex Roland, professor of history, Duke University;
and Dr. Bruce Murray, Professor Emeritus of Planetary Science
and Geology at the California Institute of Technology and a
former director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Summary of Hearing
Expert witnesses testified that NASA's current human space
flight program ``is not moving us toward any compelling
objective, and we should make a transition out of it as soon as
possible.'' All five witnesses at the hearing agreed with that
statement, when asked by Chairman Boehlert.
In response to further questioning from Boehlert, all five
witnesses also agreed that ``the primary reason for human
exploration is the impulse to explore, rather than any more
utilitarian goals--although there can be collateral benefits;
that we can take on ambitious goals without massive increases
in the NASA budget; and that we should avoid sacrificing other
NASA programs to achieve our human space flight goals.'' In
addition, Drs. Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that, ``the
long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars, and preferably starting colonies or outposts
in space.''
In opening the hearing, Chairman Boehlert said, ``Today's
hearing is just the beginning of our efforts to build a
national consensus'' on this issue. He added, ``We need to be
thoughtful and deliberate and coldly analytical in putting
together a vision for the future of human space flight. It has
to be a long-term vision; we're not about to embark on any
crash program--the technical challenges alone are enough to
prevent that.''
Ranking Democrat Ralph Hall (D-TX) added, ``The human
exploration of space is a fundamental expectation of the
American people--indeed of people all over the world. However,
we remain unwilling as a nation to commit to a clear set of
goals for the human space flight program and to the resources
required over the long haul to achieve them. We can and should
do better. Rep. Nick Lampson on our Committee has reintroduced
the Space Exploration Act of 2003 (H.R. 3057), which would
establish a phased set of goals for America's human space
flight program, whereby the achievement of each goal helps
provide the capabilities needed to attain successive goals. I
am proud to be a co-sponsor of Mr. Lampson's bill; its adoption
would go a long way towards providing a rational framework for
our human space exploration investment decisions.''
Witnesses called for a renewed sense of purpose and a more
focused vision for NASA's programs. Huntress testified that the
Space Station and Space Shuttle do not merit the risks that
they entail. He said, ``If space explorers are to risk their
lives it should be for extraordinarily challenging reasons--
such as exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids, and for
construction and servicing space telescopes--not for making 90
minute trips around the Earth. The whole point of leaving home
is to go somewhere, not to endlessly circle the block.''
Similarly, Dr. Murray said the current NASA programs have us
``bogged down'' in low-Earth orbit.
``It is hard to explain the human space flight mission to
the public unless we talk about destinations,'' Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) said.
``The reality is that technology programs that are not tied to
specific--and agreed-upon--mission goals become very vulnerable
to budget cuts or even cancellation over time.''
Dr. Koss, a scientist who has had several experiments on
Shuttle missions, stated that the science currently being
conducted in space is not worth the risk. ``The vast majority
of physical science experiments conducted in orbit simply do
not require on-board human intervention or assistance,'' said
Dr. Koss. Dr. Koss argued that unless a researcher could prove
that the experiment needed human interaction, it should not put
human lives at risk.
Dr. Griffin said a far more ambitious NASA program could be
run for $20 billion a year--about $5 billion more than NASA is
currently receiving. Dr. Huntress agreed with that figure, and
Drs. Roland and Murray said a worthwhile program could probably
be run with no additional funds at all. In response to a
question posed by Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA),
Dr. Griffin said he would be willing to fund NASA at that
level, even if such an increase forced cuts in university
research programs. Dr. Huntress said he would not be willing to
make such a tradeoff. All the witnesses emphasized that an
Apollo-style crash program was neither necessary nor wise.
Dr. Roland went the furthest of the witnesses in his
suggestions for the current NASA program. ``The United States
may have a long-term future in human space flight,'' he said,
but ``for the near term. . .human space flight should be
suspended, or at least drastically curtailed. If the Shuttle
flies at all, it should fly unmanned, or at worst with a
minimal crew. The Space Station should be mothballed or
converted to a space platform, a research facility to be
visited periodically for refueling, maintenance, and changing
experiments.'' Roland added, ``The problem, of course, is the
Shuttle.. . .While it is a technological marvel, it is also the
world's most expensive, least robust, and most deadly launch
vehicle.''
Dr. Murray agreed that such a hiatus might be necessary to
put human space flight on a path for future success. He said,
``[T]he political leadership of this country must also insist
on NASA developing and presenting a range of realistic
alternatives to its current Shuttle/Space Station plans that
can enable a credible national commitment to a paced Mars human
flight program. These alternatives necessarily should include
multi-year suspensions of U.S. human flight as NASA elected to
do in 1975-1981, when NASA suspended U.S. human flight entirely
after the Apollo-Soyuz mission until the first Shuttle test
flight in order to create the budget wedge enabling the Shuttle
to be developed. Only by considering such painful alternatives
can the relentless decline into mediocrity and irrelevance of
U.S. human space flight be reversed within realistic budget
considerations.''

4.1(n)_NASA's Organizational and Management Challenges in the
Wake of the Columbia Disaster

October 29, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-30

Background
On October 29, 2003, the House Committee on Science held a
hearing to address the organizational and management issues
confronting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident.
According to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB),
NASA's ``organizational culture and structure'' had as much to
do with the Columbia's demise as the physical causes of the
accident. During the course of its nearly seven months of
investigation into the causes of the accident, the CAIB
encountered an ineffective and disengaged safety organization
within NASA that ``failed to adequately assess anomalies and
frequently accepted critical risks without qualitative or
quantitative support.'' Based on its findings, the CAIB
recommended significant changes to the organizational structure
of the Space Shuttle Program.
To give a sense of some of the ways NASA could be
restructured to comply with its recommendations, the CAIB
report provided three examples of organizations with
independent safety programs that successfully operate high-risk
technologies. The examples were: the United States Navy's
Submarine Flooding Prevention and Recovery (SUBSAFE) and Naval
Nuclear Propulsion (Naval Reactors) programs and the Aerospace
Corporation's independent launch verification process and
mission assurance program for the U.S. Air Force.
The hearing provided an opportunity to examine each of
these examples in depth, as well as the safety programs of the
Dupont Corporation (an acknowledged industry leader in safety),
to help determine how NASA should be reorganized.
The witnesses for the hearing were Admiral Frank L.
``Skip'' Bowman, USN, Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
(Naval Reactors) Program; Rear Admiral Paul Sullivan, USN,
Deputy Commander for Ship Design Integration and Engineering,
Naval Sea Systems Command; Mr. Ray F. Johnson, Vice President
for Space Launch Operations for the Aerospace Corporation; Ms.
Deborah L. Grubbe, Corporate Director for Safety and Health at
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (Dupont) and Admiral Harold
Gehman, Chairman, Columbia Accident Investigation Board
testified as the sole witness on the second panel.
Summary of Hearing
The CAIB report recommended that NASA look at several
models as it revamps its safety organization. The hearing
examined these models to learn what steps NASA could take to
reorganize its operations into a more safety-focused program.
Members questioned expert witnesses about the key elements,
identified by the CAIB, that are necessary for an independent
and effective safety regime.
``I have no doubt that this committee will have ample
opportunity over the next year or so to put to use the
information we gather today.. . .NASA is just in the initial
stages of putting together an organization plan, and I have
complete confidence that Administrator O'Keefe has taken the
CAIB recommendations to heart,'' said Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY). ``But that said, I must note that I believe
the initial organization ideas being circulated by NASA fall
significantly short of the mark. We look forward to working
with NASA as it continues to rework its plans.''
Committee Ranking Member, Ralph Hall (D-TX) added, ``Based
on today's testimony, it's clear to me that the responsibility
for protecting safety from budgetary and schedule pressures has
to start at the top of an organization and flow through all
levels of management. The hearing also reinforces my belief
that independent oversight has an important role to play in
ensuring continued attention to safety.''
Admiral Bowman said that his Navy program probably had one
of the flattest organizational structures possible and that as
the chief safety officer and director of the program he learned
of all safety issues in real time, as they happened, with no
filter from various layers of management.
Deborah Grubbe agreed, noting that ``safety culture starts
at the top of the organization'' and that Dupont's leadership
manages safety through intensive training of employees and
recognition and reward of safety improvements and innovation.
DuPont also fosters an environment in which bringing safety
problems to light is encouraged and rewarded.
Ray Johnson testified on the importance of a balance
between independence and collaboration. Johnson noted that his
organization is completely separate from the Air Force programs
they are charged with overseeing. Moreover, the Aerospace
Corporation's sole focus is on the safety of the space
launches, but they share overarching goals with the Air Force
office they work closely with.
Fighting off complacency was one of the biggest challenges
cited by Rear Admiral Paul Sullivan. Sullivan said that his
program held an annual safety training session in which all
employees were reminded of the demise of the submarine USS
Thresher in 1963. This accident led the Navy to create the
SUBSAFE program, with the effect that the Navy has never again
lost a SUBSAFE certified submarine due to a safety or
maintenance problem. By keeping the consequence of complacency
at the forefront of everyone's mind, Sullivan said that it was
easy for everyone to strive for a perfect safety record.
Research Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) noted,
``There are both private and public sector organizations that
achieve high reliability, fault tolerance, and low fatalities,
such as the Navy's nuclear submarine program and nuclear
reactors. NASA could benefit by reforming its operations.
Instead, it looks like NASA is planning to not so much return
to flight but to business as usual. But business as usual does
not work. This hearing is part of an effort to make sure that
NASA does not ignore safety concerns again.''
The Chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
(CAIB) told the House Science Committee that ``A year from now
or 18 months from now, when cost and schedule pressures have
resumed, I don't think we want to rely upon the intervention of
management to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat,'' added
Gehman. ``I think we want to institutionalize a process by
which these issues can be raised or sorted out without having
top-level management to intervene.''

4.1(o)_Nanotechnology Research and Development: The Biggest
Little Thing in Texas

December 5, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-37

Background
On December 5, 2003, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to examine the emerging nanotechnology industry and the
value of research and development programs to job creation and
economic development within the U.S. nanotechnology sector.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Rick Reidy, Research Professor,
University of North Texas; (2) Dr. Da Hsuan Feng, Vice
President for Research and Graduate Education, University of
Texas, Dallas; (3) Dr. Ron Elsenbaumer, Vice President for
Research, University of Texas, Arlington; (4) Mr. Chris Gintz,
CEO, NanoHoldings LLC; and (5) Dr. John Randall, Chief
Technology Officer, Vice President of Research, Zyvex
Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Reidy hopes that the emergence of nanotechnology will
spur the imagination and vocations of budding scientists, much
like the space program did in the 1960's. Directing new talent
into science and engineering will provide the researchers
needed to meet the challenges of nanotechnology. Also, the
programs that cultivate youth interest should be as creative
and fresh as possible. Dr. Reidy went on to testify about the
needs of the research community and the impacts nanotechnology
will have.

All research needs initial start-up funding
to pay for student researchers, appropriate equipment,
and working materials. With nanotechnology, however,
the research topics are often so unexplored that they
are only funded through one-year exploratory grants.
Research institutions should be encouraged to provide
sufficient funding to overcome the initial ``proof of
concept'' phase.

Financial support of major equipment
purchases must be accessible to all institutions with a
proven need. Without it, nanotechnology will become the
province of only a few universities.

Many universities that do not have the
capabilities to transfer their basic research to
industry will have to participate in joint research
ventures, where basic and applied research is done at
the university but product development occurs through
an industry partner.

The industries most likely to see
improvements through nanotechnology are electronics and
biotechnology. There is currently a healthy environment
for nanotechnology start-up ventures. The newly formed
Center for Advanced Research and Technology can become
an incubator for these small technology companies.

Dr. Feng was responsible for bringing the nanotechnology
experts to the NanoTech Institute at UT-Dallas. The Institute
has focused on using nanotechnology to find and utilize new
energy sources without damaging the environment, which they
refer to as NanoEnergetics. The Institute also focuses on
assembly of nanofibers into high performance fibers.
Additionally, he testified:

Most products in the future, from cancer
treatment products, to smaller and faster computers, to
the skins of advanced aircraft, will depend in some way
on nanotechnology.

One barrier to the incorporation of
nanotechnology is the high cost of producing materials
on laboratory scales. Producers do not want to risk
money improving material production until customers are
clearly identified, and users do not want to invest
money on evaluating materials until they can be
guaranteed a low cost.

Cradle to the grave assurance of material and
product safety is also an important issue to consider.

The best practice for transferring basic
research to industry is for universities to partner
early on with the most appropriate companies.

Dr. Elsenbaumer characterized nanotechnology as the driving
force for developing smaller, lighter, more energy efficient,
less costly, and stronger materials, devices and processes. It
will be a major factor in U.S. economic growth and job creation
for decades to come, impacting the electronics industries,
medical industries, and the energy sector most dramatically.
Dr. Elsenbaumer also testified that:

The success of nanotechnology will require
long-term funding, which will have to be the
responsibility of the Federal Government because
private industry will not fund long-term, wide-ranging
research projects.

The best approaches for transferring basic
research to industry are to develop industry,
university, and government partnerships early in the
process, and create new small businesses that are
facilitated through technology incubators.

General public concerns over perceived
environmental, ethical, and societal dangers could slow
acceptance of nanotechnology.

Mr. Gintz testified representing an investment company that
builds early stage nanotechnology companies around exclusive
licenses from leading universities for their most promising
discoveries. They use a disciplined business approach to tackle
very large national problems but also try to ensure that each
company delivers its first commercial product within the first
three years. University centers such as the one at the
University of North Texas are ideally structured to acquire the
grant funding and foster the out-of-the-box thinking and global
collaboration needed for breakthroughs in this field. It is
their hope that the scientific developments will lead to many
well paying jobs in the local economy.
Dr. Randall testified on behalf of Mr. James R. Von Ehr,
II, Chairman and CEO of Zyvex Corporation. He believes that to
bring about the nanotechnology revolution, we need to improve
commercialization of university research, create more
opportunities and competition for small businesses, and issue
grand challenges that the American public can understand and
embrace. He added:

It benefits the country when universities
protect their intellectual property, but only if there
is a successful transfer of that property to an
industry that can develop it into applications and
services.

The Federal Government should implement a
measurement system to gauge how well a university has
transferred its research to industry when deciding how
to award federal R&D funds. This would encourage
universities to be more discerning about which
intellectual property they decide to protect and be
more flexible about licensing terms.

The National Institute of Standards and
Technology's Advanced Technology Program has been
instrumental to industries at overcoming funding gaps.

We need to encourage more students and
skilled workers to come to the U.S. while still finding
ways to balance security needs.

To mobilize public interest, we should
articulate grand challenges. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative lists nine grand challenges,
but this is too many to be useful. Instead, focus on
one or two grand challenges, such as reducing
dependence on foreign energy or regaining our position
as the world leader in manufacturing.

Supercomputing is also referred to as high-performance
computing, high-end computing, and sometimes advanced
scientific computing.

4.1(p)_Fueling the High Technology Workforce With Math and
Science Education

January 23, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-38

Background
On Friday, January 23, 2004, the House Science Committee
held a field hearing to examine various strategies underway to
improve student achievement and teacher performance in math and
science education. This hearing also discussed the value of a
well-educated science and technology workforce to job creation
and economic vitality.
The witnesses were: (1) Ms. Rachel Purcell, Valedictorian,
Class of 2004, Campbell High School; (2) Mr. Randy McClure,
Teacher and Department Chair for Science, Campbell High School;
(3) Mr. J. Martez Hill, Policy Director, Georgia Department of
Education; (4) Dr. Paul Ohme, Director, Center for Education in
Science, Mathematics, and Computing, Georgia Institute of
Technology; and (5) Mr. C. Michael Cassidy, President, Georgia
Research Alliance.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Purcell is the Valedictorian of the Senior Class at
Campbell High School and plans to pursue veterinary medicine in
the future. She testified from a student's perspective about
the state of math and science education and discussed her
personal experiences with math and science education. She gave
several examples of what she believes has made her successful.
Specifically she noted that:

Her interest in science and math exists
because she was exposed at a young age to a hands-on
method of learning. She gave the example of dissecting
a cow's eye as one activity in particular that piqued
her interest in science.

She said that many students learn best by
seeing how science and math can be applied to real
world situations.

She concluded that interest in advanced
science and math classes in high school and college can
be generated and augmented by exposing younger kids to
the more enjoyable aspects of both math and science.

Mr. McClure testified about what he sees as the problems in
math and science education from his 18 years of experience in
K-12 science and math education, during which has served as
both a teacher and an administrator. He is currently a teacher
and the head of the Science Department at Campbell High School.
In his testimony he noted the following:

There is a serious lack of training for
teachers in the use of modern technology to demonstrate
scientific principles. For example, many students still
use litmus paper instead of digital probes to measure
pH levels. Until classroom technology and teaching
methods catch up with the latest practices, students
will be severely hindered in their ability to learn
modern math and science.

Because of the great speed at which the field
of science progresses, curricula must be flexible to
keep students interested.

Classrooms should be more inquiry-based and
less test-oriented. More should be done to create an
atmosphere that will inspire and generate interest in
science fields.

Mr. Hill testified on behalf of the Georgia Department of
Education about the current status of math and science
education in his state. He highlighted three different
initiatives and programs in his testimony:

The State of Georgia is using their Georgia
Performance Standards as a base for achieving the goals
of No Child Left Behind. He noted that Georgia has been
trying to lessen the number of topics to be covered in
math and science so that teachers have time to go into
more depth on certain issues.

The Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) is
being used to recruit, train, and retain the best and
brightest math and science teachers for the Georgia
schools.

The Partnership for Reform in Science and
Mathematics (PRISM) was awarded $34.6 million from NSF
in September 2003 to raise achievement levels and close
performance gaps. This program will directly affect
170,000 students and 10,000 teachers by supporting
professional development for educators and providing
for revision of Georgia's Performance Standards in math
and science.

Dr. Ohme, Director of the Center for Education in Science,
Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC) at Georgia Tech, made four
major recommendations for improving science and math education
at the K-12 level:

The most important thing is to have an
expectation that all children can and will learn
mathematics and science at a high level.

The second most important thing is to have a
highly qualified, engaging, and motivated teacher that
is committed to the success of every student.

Third, current professionals in math,
science, and technology are key to developing a quality
educational program.

Finally, the lack of performance in science
and math is perhaps due to the fact that we are not
engaging our students at advanced levels in math and
science.

Mr. Cassidy is the President of the Georgia Research
Alliance, a strategic partnership of universities, businesses,
and government whose goal is to leverage the state's research
capabilities into economic results. Mr. Cassidy testified that:

The key to Georgia's economic growth is a
highly trained, highly skilled technical workforce. For
this reason, Georgia has been actively recruiting
researchers to their universities and providing the
necessary resources for them to conduct their work. An
example of the success of this program has been the
creation of some 120 new high-tech startups.

To further encourage this economic growth
there must be a strong foundation of math and science
education.

The challenge ahead will require close
collaboration between academia, industry, and
government.

Students need heroes and role models from the
world of math and science like they have in the fields
of sports and entertainment.

4.1(q)_Tools for Enhancing Small Business Competitiveness in
the Dallas Area: A Review of Federal Programs

January 23, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-39

Background
On Friday, January 23, 2004, the House Science Committee
held a hearing to increase awareness of the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and the Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) Program, and to learn more about the
opportunities that these programs offer to small businesses.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Joseph Montes, Administrator,
Region VI of the Small Business Administration (SBA) who was
accompanied by Mr. Lavan Alexander, District Director, Dallas-
Fort Worth area for SBA; (2) Dr. Jo Anne Goodnight, Director of
SBIR and STTR for the National Institutes of Health; (3) Dr. Da
Hsuan Feng, Vice President for Research and Graduate Education
and Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Dallas; (4)
Dr. Robert Slocum, Chairman and Chief Technical Officer,
Polatomic, Inc.; and (5) Dr. Oliver Murphy, President,
Lynntech, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Smith expressed concern that companies that have a
track record with the program and understand the bureaucracy
have an advantage in securing funding. He suggested that a
small portion of the profits from products developed using SBIR
funds could be placed in a fund to help new businesses apply
for grants. Ranking Member Johnson expressed concern that the
Dallas area is not receiving its fair share of SBIR and STTR
grants. The SBA Regional Administrator agreed to work with her
on an upcoming seminar that is being put on to educate
businesses in the region about the program.
Mr. Montes testified that SBIR is a highly competitive
program that encourages small business to explore their
technological potential and provides the incentive to profit
from its commercialization. Small businesses need only to
certify that they meet the following eligibility criteria to
participate in the SBIR and STTR programs: (a) The applicant
must be organized for profit; (b) The applicant must be 51
percent owned and controlled by one or more U.S. citizens or
permanent resident aliens and must have a significant place of
business in and operate primarily within the U.S.; (c)
Principal researcher must be employed more than 50 percent by
the small business; and (d) The applicant's business must be
500 employees or fewer. SBA's role in the SBIR and STTR
programs is to:

Develop, coordinate, issue and update the
policy directive.

Develop and administer information and
outreach programs for the SBIR and STTR programs.

Develop and maintain a source and information
file of interested small businesses.

Survey, monitor and report on each agency's
SBIR and STTR programs.

Report annually to Congress on each agency's
SBIR and STTR program.

Dr. Murphy testified that as venture capitalists have
become increasingly less willing to make seed investments in
start-up technology based ventures, small businesses face the
challenge of securing the needed capital to demonstrate the
technical and commercial feasibility of their concepts or
ideas. The unique aspect of the SBIR and STTR programs is that
they provide small businesses the difficult-to-obtain early
stage financial support necessary to develop high-risk, high-
payoff technologies. He added:

Lyntech's commercialization plan includes
licensing arrangements, spinoffs, joint ventures, and
outright sale of developed technologies where
appropriate.

Critical to the success of Lynntech in
developing and commercializing new technologies has
been its participation in and support by the SBIR
programs of almost all of the Federal Government
departments and agencies.

To date Lynntech has received 80 U.S. patents
and in some cases corresponding foreign patents that
were developed at least in part with SBIR funding.

Dr. Goodnight testified that the SBIR and STTR programs
have become fully integrated into the overall scientific
programs and goals of the NIH. The SBIR and STTR programs
contribute significantly to the NIH mission to improve human
health--particularly with regard to the goal of translating
scientific findings and advances ``from the test tube to the
medicine cabinet,'' as well as through the development of
innovative products or services that speed the process of
discovery, reduce the cost of medical care, and improve
research tools. Some of the topic areas identified in our grant
solicitation include, but are not limited to, biodefense,
biosensors, nanotechnologies, bioinformatics, imaging
technologies, bioengineering, behavioral research,
computational biology, telehealth technologies, and proteomics/
genomics. She added that seven effective steps for obtaining an
SBIR and STTR grant are:

Start with an innovative idea with commercial
potential.

Understand NIH's mission and areas of
research it supports. These are described in the grant
and contract solicitations and on the websites of the
NIH ICs.

Contact relevant program staff to discuss the
project and identify a potential ``fit'' in an IC's
programmatic area.

Submit an application for scientific and
technical merit review.

Discuss with program staff the outcome of the
review and obtain guidance for next steps.

Meet the eligibility criteria for a small
business concern as defined by the Small Business
Administration.

Demonstrate research integrity.

Dr. Feng testified that, from a research university
perspective, sustainable collaborations between industry and
university partners are critical to the ongoing success of
universities. Partnering between small businesses and
universities is much more feasible because of the SBIR and STTR
programs. While a small company is certainly capable of doing
some of its research, it is much more cost-efficient, and
intellectually exciting to partner with outstanding university
researchers, who have access to brilliant young minds. The SBIR
grants are an invaluable way for small businesses looking to
develop those partnerships because they provide the economic
ability to continue research with the assistance and resources
of a university. He also added:

During fiscal year 2002, fewer than 20
companies in North Texas applied for SBIR grants--540
grants with a total of $106,844,952,were awarded to
Texas companies.

In contrast, 2,394 grants, with a total of
$598,525,294, were awarded in California.

As small business becomes familiar with many
advantages of the SBIR program, universities will be
able to use their research talents to assist small
businesses and make them more economically viable while
strengthening the educational opportunities of both
faculty and students.

Dr. Slocum testified that the primary area of research at
Polatomic funded by SBIR is advanced laser magnetic field
measurement systems. Polatomic has become the world leader in
laser magnetometers. A second research area supported by SBIR
funding is research and development of metal nanostructures for
polarizing light and biohazard detection nano chips. SBIR
awards have enabled Polatomic to start with a single person in
1982 and assemble a highly qualified team of scientists and
engineers to attack and solve high priority ``large company''
problems in a ``small company'' environment without significant
outside venture capital investors. He added:

One problem with the SBIR program is the long
gap between the conclusion of Phase I and the award
announcements for Phase II.

It is often difficult to hold a team together
through this funding gap.

Preparation of a winning proposal for small
businesses new to the SBIR process is a fairly complex
and confusing exercise.

``Entry level'' SBIR small businesses could
use help getting started from funded local or state
SBIR organizations and business schools working in
conjunction with successful SBIR winners who serve as
consultants and mentors.

4.1(r)_Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation: An
Examination of Public and Private Efforts

February 9, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-40

Background
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., the House
Science Committee held a field hearing to examine the status of
windstorm hazard mitigation in the United States, and to
consider the role of federal research and development in
windstorm hazard reduction.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Ernest Kiesling, Professor of
Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University; (2) Dr. Charles
Meade, primary author of the RAND study, ``Assessing Federal
Research Development for Hazard Loss Reduction;'' (3) Dr.
Bogusz Bienkiewicz, Professor of Civil Engineering and Director
of the Wind Engineering and Fluids Laboratory, Colorado State
University; and (4) Mr. Bryan Shofner, President, Shofner &
Associates Insurance Agency.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Kiesling presented testimony on the current state of
research at Texas Tech University in the Wind Science and
Engineering Program. He stated that:

The main objective of the Wind Science and
Engineering research program at Texas Tech is to
improve the wind resistance of buildings. The benefits
of increasing the wind resistance of buildings are two-
fold--it protects life and reduces economic loss.

Unfortunately, data on wind hazards is still
limited. Because of this, the main area of progress has
been in damage documentation. However, some progress
has been made in reforming building codes and the
development of ``safe rooms'' to protect occupants in
the event of a wind hazard event.

In order for more progress to be made,
additional research funds are needed and property
owners need to better understand the benefits of using
improved construction techniques.

Dr. Meade presented testimony on both the contents of the
RAND report, ``Assessing Federal Research and Development for
Hazard Loss Reduction,'' and additional questions that had been
proposed by the Committee. He noted that:

The U.S. is growing more vulnerable to wind
hazards because of two trends: (1) increasing
development near the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and (2)
increasing prevalence of manufactured homes.

The current economic losses from wind hazards
are very difficult to estimate; however, RAND's current
estimate puts the figure at nearly $7 billion per year.

Current federal funding on wind hazards is
focused primary on weather forecasting ($755 million)
as opposed to research and development to address
infrastructure losses ($11 million). This is
problematic because while forecasting can save lives,
it does little to limit the property damage caused by
windstorms.

Dr. Bienkiewicz is the current President of the American
Association for Wind Engineering. He testified about the
current state of the art in the field of wind research. He
noted that:

The wind engineering research conducted at
Colorado State University has been ongoing for 40
years, and has included analysis of landmark buildings
such as the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as analysis
of post 9/11 concerns such as the potential intentional
release of chemical, biological, or radiological agents
in various settings.

While current efforts in wind hazard
mitigation have been very successful in developing
measures that have been put into practice to save
lives, they have not resulted in preventing the
material and business losses that these events cause.

A coordinated, comprehensive, and long term
effort is necessary to achieve significant reduction in
property damage due to wind in the next 10 to 20 years.
Furthermore, the proposed Wind Hazards Reduction
Program, modeled after the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, would provide the appropriate
framework for such an effort.

Mr. Shofner discussed insurance industry efforts to
understand wind hazards and also provided insight on what could
be done to encourage people to be more adoptive of new
technology to mitigate wind hazards. Specifically, he noted
that:

While the insurance industry is conducting
little wind hazard mitigation research, they have
gathered statistical information on the likelihood and
severity of losses to wind hazards. However, at this
time, access to this data is limited, as it is
proprietary to the companies that have gathered it.

The private sector ``Insurance Services
Office'' provides statistical and actuarial information
to companies that do not have their own data. They have
also recommended specific credits be given for
compliance to certain building codes.

Due to lack of real data demonstrating that
mitigation is truly effective, insurance companies have
been reluctant to provide insurance incentives for
mitigation. In light of this, retrofitting of homes is
a very rare and expensive course of action.

If data became available that mitigation was
effective, and strict building codes were developed and
implemented, it would be more likely that the insurance
industry could, and would, provide incentives for these
mitigation efforts.

4.1(s)_An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for Fiscal Year
2005

February 11, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-41

Background
On Wednesday, February 11, the House Science Committee held
a hearing to consider President Bush's fiscal year 2005 (FY05)
budget request for research and development (R&D). Five
Administration witnesses presented testimony on the proposed
budget in the context of the President's overall priorities in
science and technology.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger III,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2)
Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation (NSF);
(3) Dr. Charles McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (4) Mr.
Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology;
and (5) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science,
Department of Energy (DOE).
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marburger described the President's 2005 budget as an
attempt to control and reduce the deficit while ensuring
national security needs. He stated that the President strongly
believes in the importance of American innovation, and
understands the resources that are needed to advance it.
Programs in the Department of Defense account for about half of
the R&D funds, while the National Institutes of Health account
for close to half of that remainder. The proposed 2005 budget
commits 13.5 percent of discretionary outlays to R&D.
Additionally, he stated that 5.7 percent of that total will be
allocated to non-defense R&D, which is the third highest level
in 25 years. Dr. Marburger highlighted several areas in which
R&D budgets have been substantially increased, specifically:

The Department of Defense will receive a
sevem percent increase from the 2004 budget.

Health and Human Services' budget will
increase four percent, of which $28.6 billion will go
to the National Institutes of Health.

NASA's budget will increase 5.6 percent to
$16.2 billion and NSF's budget will increase three
percent to $5.75 billion.

All of these proposed increases substantially
exceed the average discretionary budget increase.

Dr. Colwell, who announced her resignation as Director of
NSF at the hearing, noted that the NSF requested a $5.745
billion dollar budget for 2005 and regarded the
Administration's willingness to meet the request as a vote of
confidence in the importance and effectiveness of the NSF. She
said that the NSF plans on investing both in R&D and in people
involved with scientific R&D. Plans include:

In 2005, the NSF will invest $76 million
dollars in organizational excellence in order to make
the investments productive and to ensure that NSF
remains one of the most well managed agencies in the
Federal Government. The investment will streamline
NSF's operations so that the mounting workload and
pressure may be ameliorated.

NSF plans to award more interdisciplinary
grants. The average annual award will be $142,000, an
increase of 58 percent over the past seven years.
Graduate stipends will also be increased under this
budget in order to attract the Nation's best talent.

Dr. McQueary testified on behalf of the Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate of the Department of Homeland
Security. The S&T Directorate receives $1.04 billion in the
budget request, a 13.9 percent increase. He highlighted several
of the Directorate's accomplishments during fiscal year 2004,
including the deployment of biological pathogen monitoring
systems, the establishment of testbeds to provide nuclear and
radiation warnings, the initiation of extensive research
concerning weapons detectors, and the disbursement of 100
fellowships and scholarships to advance U.S. leadership in
science and technology. He announced plans for 2005, including:

President Bush's new Biosurveillance
Initiative.

Scholarship and fellowship awards will
continue, as well as the University Centers of
Excellence, which will each examine a different aspect
of terrorism.

Counter-MANPADS (Man-Portable Air Defense
Systems) work will conclude, which will improve
technologies to protect commercial aircraft. Contracts
will be awarded to integrate prototype equipment on
selected aircraft.

Mr. Bond oversees the Commerce Department's Technology
Administration (TA), which includes the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), and also works closely with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
2005 budget request for NOAA and TA is $3.4 billion and $529.8
million, respectively. These funds will be used for high-
priority research in the areas of nanotechnology, environmental
sciences, climate change, information technology, and
manufacturing technology. In his testimony, Mr. Bond also
acknowledged the need for cross-agency collaboration for
scientific R&D and stated that he is committed to achieving
this goal. He announced plans for the requested budget funds,
including:

NOAA will use funds to maintain and enhance
programs targeted at the scientific understanding of
the oceans, atmosphere, as well as the Nation's
environmental health and economic vitality.

NIST monies are needed to maintain and
upgrade facilities.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
which helps small manufacturers become more
competitive, receives $39.2 million. NIST also requests
funds to equip U.S. manufacturers with tools to track
and respond to international technical standards that
can block their entry to the market.

NIST will continue to fund the Center for
Neutron Research.

Dr. Orbach outlined several of the Department of Energy's
plans for fiscal year 2005 and the funding needed for each. The
DOE's budget plan focuses on the Nation's critical needs in the
areas of energy, the environment, and national security. He
testified that:

The Office of Science requests $3.341 billion
in order to increase research activities in
computation, biological research, environmental
remediation, fusion energy, materials, and
nanotechnology R&D. The Office recently released
``Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year
Outlook,'' which established guidelines for ambitious
scientific discovery.

DOE is requesting $410 million to establish a
new laboratory for nuclear energy research,
development, demonstration, and education, specifically
to design a concept for the next-generation nuclear
power plant.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy requests $1.25 billion in order to meet National
Energy Policy goals. Additionally, the Office plans to
develop ideas for the President's FreedomCAR and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.

4.1(t)_U.S. Vision for Space Exploration

February 12, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-42

Background
On February 12, 2004, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on the President's proposed space exploration
initiative, which was proposed January 14, 2004. The hearing
examined the scientific, commercial and national security goals
of the project, as well as its expected cost. The Committee
received testimony from the Honorable Sean O'Keefe,
Administrator of NASA, and the Honorable John Marburger,
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Summary of Hearing
Members focused their questions on the program's cost, and
asked whether, in a time of deficit spending, the expense was
warranted. Members also expressed concerns that the budget and
timeline for the project were insufficiently precise and that
the project could draw funds away from NASA's existing space
science programs. Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon pressed Mr.
O'Keefe on the cost projections, criticizing the lack of
cumulative cost estimates for each item in the President's
plan.
Members also addressed the future of the Space Shuttle and
the International Space Station. In response to a question from
Chairman Boehlert, Mr. O'Keefe announced that a September 2004
return-to-flight was unlikely for the Shuttle. Members asked
how a delay in return-to-flight would affect the budget and
timetable for the new initiative and whether NASA would require
the repeal of or modifications to the Iran Nonproliferation Act
(INA) to complete construction of the International Space
Station (ISS) as planned. Members also questioned scheduled
dates for the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet and the
termination of the United States' involvement in the
International Space Station, both of which occur in the next
decade in the President's plan.
Dr. Marburger also spoke on the decision to cancel the
planned servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope (SM4).
``If serviced, I have no doubt that the Hubble would
continue to provide world class scientific data and be used to
further refine our understanding of our universe,'' said Dr.
Marburger, ``but the safety issues cannot be ignored and they
must be considered not only with respect to the Hubble
capability, but also the ever increasing capability of visible
ground based telescopes combined with the exciting next
generation space observatories now being built.''
Representative Mark Udall disagreed, saying, ``I share all
of your concerns about safety. But I think you can make the
argument. . .if it's safe enough to fly to the ISS, then it's
safe enough to fly to Hubble.''
Echoing other Members' concerns about the cost of the
initiative, Chairman Boehlert concluded, ``It should be evident
to all concerned. . .that costs are a major consideration and
there's a lot of uncertainty about the cost. And the [budget
projection] chart, while attractive, leaves some questions for
all of us.''

4.1(u)_The Conflict Between Science and Security in Visa
Policy: Status and Next Steps

February 25, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-43

Background
On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, the House Science
Committee held a hearing to review the impact of enhanced
security measures on the entry into the U.S. of foreign
students and scholars. Specifically, the Committee considered
whether the new security measures enhanced security or whether
they were unnecessarily detrimental to the U.S. scientific
enterprise. At the hearing, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
released a new study, conducted at the Committee's request, on
the extent of visa delays.
The hearing built upon a hearing the Committee held on visa
issues on March 26, 2003 and on other hearings the Committee
has held over the past two years on the impact of security
concerns on scientific research.
The witnesses were: (1) The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Department of
Homeland Security; (2) Mr. Jess Ford, Director, International
Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office, (3) Ms.
Janice Jacobs, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Consular
Affairs, Department of State, and (4) Mr. Robert Garrity, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Director, Record/Information Administration,
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert stated that our Nation would not be
secure in the long run without a healthy scientific enterprise,
and warned that an overly restrictive visa policy was not
conducive to either science or security. Such a visa policy
would deprive our scientific community of the best minds from
around the world and distract our security efforts from
individuals that present a real threat. He noted however, that
as a Member of the Intelligence Committee, he recognized the
difficulty of deterring terrorists while welcoming legitimate
students and scientists.
Under Secretary Hutchinson testified that the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) goal was to facilitate open access to
the Nation's academic institutions in a way that was consistent
with national security. He emphasized that it was clearly not
in the interest of the United States to unnecessarily impede
legitimate foreign students or scientists. He added:

The Homeland Security Act gave DHS
responsibility for establishing visa policy, which it
is doing in consultation with the Department of State.
Specifically, DHS is focusing on (1) improving the visa
revocation notification processes, (2) leading the
country reviews of nations participating in the Visa
Waiver Program, and (3) establishing the Visa Security
Program.

DHS has worked hard to improve the Student
and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) by
working to improve compliance, as well as ease of use
of the system. Also created a SEVIS Response Team to
check the validity of a student's academic standing.

The Visa Mantis procedure was used to
determine whether a foreign student would violate U.S.
laws with respect to critically sensitive technology
and information.

Mr. Ford presented the Committee with the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) report on the adjudication of
student visas and discussed some of its findings and
recommendations. These included the following:

The average time for a Visas Mantis check was
found to be 67 days.

Security checks were delayed by
interoperability between the Department of State and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

GAO recommends that the Department of State,
DHS, and FBI develop and implement a plan to improve
Visas Mantis, which would include milestones for
reducing the number of outstanding cases and
performance goals for Mantis cases. GAO also
recommended focusing on the development of
interoperable systems.

Ms. Jacobs testified that national security was the highest
priority consideration in visa matters, but indicated that the
Department of State was committed to facilitating the travel of
legitimate visitors to the United States. She added:

The referral to multiple agencies, each of
which has to approve the case, resulted in processing
delays in the past but the Department of State invested
in people, technology, and new processes to shorten the
delays.

To further improve processing times, the
Department of State has established procedures to
expedite certain cases with the FBI, extended the
validity of Visas Mantis clearances, and given students
and researchers top priority on the appointment queue.

The Department of State plans to send
quarterly reports to the field posts on their use of
the Visas Mantis process.

The Department of State is developing an
electronic submission process to improve efficiency of
interagency transfers.

Mr. Garrity testified that, because of the importance to
national security, the FBI's primary responsibility is to
conduct a thorough and accurate visa check. However, the FBI is
aware of the impact of visa delays to the United States and our
systems of education. He added:

Eighty-eight percent of Visas Mantis requests
were completed within 30 days and 98 percent of
requests are completed within 120 days.

Delays that caused a check to take longer
than 60 days were the result of the time required to
retrieve information from a field office. The FBI is
trying to improve the decentralized record keeping
system that caused these delays.

The FBI is working with the Department of
State to resolve all outstanding cases.

4.1(v)_Reviewing the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR Initiatives

March 3, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-44

Background
On March 3, 2004, the Committee on Science held a hearing
to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hydrogen Fuel and
FreedomCAR Initiatives. Specifically, the hearing focused on
two recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
and the American Physical Society (APS) on DOE's hydrogen
initiatives, and the Administration's response to the
recommendations from the reports. The hydrogen program is one
of the President's primary energy initiatives, and the two
reports recommend changes to the program.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. David Garman
from the Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Michael Ramage, Chair of
the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on
Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and
Use; and (3) Dr. Peter Eisenberger, Chair of the American
Physical Society's (APS) Panel on Public Affairs Energy
Subcommittee.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by emphasizing that
the long-term security of the Nation, availability of resources
for economic growth, and health of the environment are
dependent on the hydrogen initiative. He noted that the
President should be applauded for his foresight in proposing
the Hydrogen Initiative and stated that it would take at least
a decade to start on the path of a hydrogen economy. The focus
was on how to most adequately allocate funding for such an
initiative. He noted that the NAS and APS are providing
guidance through two reports that the DOE will be considering
for implementation. Chairman Boehlert highlighted two main
points that were made in both reports: first, that there is no
way to discuss the transition to a hydrogen economy without
addressing policy questions; and second, that he stands behind
both reports which emphasize that more work on energy
efficiency and renewable energy is necessary for a hydrogen
economy to be clean and affordable. The Chairman said that he
regrets the Administrations' proposition to pay for hydrogen
research by cutting the funding to the DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In closing the Chairman noted
that a hydrogen economy, despite the potential it has for
helping to reach our energy and environmental needs, is not a
panacea, and that work on hydrogen should not be an excuse to
avoid conducting research in other areas, like creating
stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, promoting
hybrid vehicles, and conducting research and design on interim
solutions for energy and pollution problems.
Mr. Garman noted that his Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy in the DOE supports 35 out of the 43
recommendations proposed in the National Academy's report.
He highlighted two issues, one of which was funding for DOE
hydrogen initiatives, which for Fiscal Year 2004 was $67
million short of the amount they had hoped to receive. Because
of this, Garman said they will have to delay work in hydrogen
production, storage, and technology validation. And secondly,
continuing work on carbon sequestration is crucial because it
is possible to derive hydrogen from coal. He stated that he
would like to put to rest the notion that a hydrogen energy
economy could only be environmentally beneficial if it was
derived from renewable energy. He argued that deriving hydrogen
from sources such as coal and nuclear could potentially be
environmentally neutral if it were possible to sequester the
byproducts properly.
Dr. Ramage's said the findings of the DOE-initiated
National Research Council report that examined the technical
and policy issues must be addressed to receive the benefits of
a hydrogen economy. He noted that they reached four major
conclusions in their February 2004 report:

1) hydrogen has the potential to replace all gasoline
and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) from
vehicular emissions;

2) the hydrogen initiative must be safe, appealing,
economical and research-driven in areas such as fuel
cell development, hydrogen storage, and distribution
and production systems;

3) small, on-site production systems are needed at
filling stations in order to help induce better
transitions to a hydrogen fuel system; and

4) hydrogen could transform the energy system in the
long term, and that it could reduce energy imports and
CO2 levels in the process.

He answered five questions about DOE's plan by noting that
the NAS report advocated shifting away from development
activities in some areas such as biomass gasification. They
also advocated that DOE be given the authority to engage in
policy discussions to move the technology into the market, and
ease the transition period in order to take the issue of
infrastructure out of the equation.
Dr. Eisenberger highlighted the findings of the APS report
on the Hydrogen Initiative, stating that major scientific
breakthroughs are required for the Hydrogen Initiative to
succeed. He stated that more cost-competitive options for the
consumer need to be made available and current performance gaps
need to be closed in order to facilitate the movement to a
successful hydrogen economy. He noted that current hydrogen
production methods are four times more expensive than gasoline
and that current technologies are not capable of closing all
technology gaps. He recommended increased emphasis on planning
and research, and improving technological competitiveness,
readiness, market acceptance, and rate of penetration. He
stressed that pilot projects demonstrating specific components,
like carbon sequestration, are more appropriate for the current
state of the Hydrogen Initiative. He also emphasized that
increasing the focus on basic science and technology
development is the most sensible way to advance the
technologies needed to succeed with the Hydrogen Initiative.

4.1(w)_Perspectives on the President's Vision for Space
Exploration

March 10, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-45

Background
On March 10, 2004, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on Perspectives on the President's Vision for
Space Exploration. Non-governmental witnesses were called on as
outside experts on the purpose, structure, costs and challenges
of the program, with a special focus on the physiological
obstacles to long-term human survival on the Moon and Mars. The
hearing supplemented the hearing held on February 12, 2004
(House Science Committee hearing on the U.S. Vision for Space
Exploration).
Witnesses for the hearing were Mr. Norman Augustine, former
Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin and Chair of the
Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program; Dr.
Donna Shirley, Director of the Science Fiction Museum and
former Manager of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Mars Program
and Assistant Dean of the University of Oklahoma Aerospace
Mechanical Engineering Department; Dr. Michael Griffin,
President of In-Q-Tel and former Chief Engineer and Associate
Administrator for NASA; Dr. Lennard Fisk, Chair of the Space
Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences and of the
University of Michigan Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and
Space Sciences and former Associate Administrator of NASA's
Space Science and Applications Department; and Dr. Larry Young,
the Apollo Program Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Founding Director of the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Members expressed support for the spirit of the President's
initiative, but in their opening statements, both Chairman
Boehlert and Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon were skeptical of the
particulars of the plan. Members focused their questions on the
budget, timeline, and structure of the proposal, and on our
ability to ameliorate the physiological effects of human space
flight on the human body.
Witnesses disagreed about the necessity of using the Moon
as a ``stepping stone'' to Mars. Dr. Fisk, who supports that
component of the President's plan, said, ``. . .[T]he Moon
appeals to me for the simple reason that we have an opportunity
to go there and try out some of our technical solutions on the
way and decide whether they are going to be adequate.'' Dr.
Shirley argued, however, that ``. . .there is almost no
commonality between Mars and the Moon. . .to justify the vast
expenditure that it would take to make the Moon a viable
stepping stone.''
Witnesses used the International Space Station--which they
described as an unfocused mission that has been, on the whole,
a disappointment to both scientists and the public--as a
cautionary example against building infrastructure for its own
sake. At the same time, some witnesses said that the Space
Station holds promise as a human space flight training center.
In his statement, Dr. Griffin disagreed, however, saying, ``It
is beyond reason to believe that ISS can fulfill any set of
objectives for space exploration that would be worth $60
billion remaining to be invested in the program.''
Regarding the physiological hurdles to long-term human
survival in space, Dr. Young said that exposure to radiation
``remains the most vexing and difficult issue,'' more difficult
to solve than the problems of deconditioning and bone loss,
which can be partially mitigated by exercise.
Witnesses also argued that the traditional ``manned vs.
robotic'' dichotomy of space exploration was outdated. ``It is
no longer a question, in the minds of most of us in the
community, of human versus non-human exploration,'' said Dr.
Young. ``The question is how do you use robots in conjunction
with human exploration.''
Witnesses also expressed concern that, even if NASA's space
and Earth sciences budget stays steady throughout the new
exploration initiative, research areas not directly applicable
to solar system exploration may suffer: ``. . .[T]here is a
sort of science versus science part of this where the science
which is directly related to the exploration initiative,
particularly the solar system exploration and parts of the
Origins Program and so on, are prospering, because they are an
integral part of this,'' said Dr. Fisk.

4.1(x)_H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act
of 2004

March 17, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-47

Background
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004 the House Science Committee
held a hearing to examine federal and industry green chemistry
research and development (R&D) activities, and to receive
testimony on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004. This bill would authorize an
interagency federal green chemistry R&D program.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Acting Director,
National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency; (3) Dr. Berkeley Cue, Vice President of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research and
Development; (4) Mr. Steven Bradfield, Vice President of
Environment Development, Shaw Industries, Inc.; and (5) Dr.
Edward Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science,
Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Both Administration witnesses said they supported the
intent of the legislation, and looked forward to working with
the committee on this issue, but could not support the bill
itself. They were concerned with the unintended consequences of
codifying an R&D program. Dr. Bement testified that NSF is
already meeting the R&D goals of the bill and, specifically,
that:

The National Science Foundation (NSF)
currently spends $13 million through the Division of
Chemical and Transport Systems and $11 million through
the Division of Chemistry on green chemistry
activities. These monies support individual
investigators, teams of investigators, and research
centers.

NSF currently partners with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE),
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to leverage its green chemistry investments.

NSF supports green chemistry research into
chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations research,
and environmental research.

Dr. Gilman testified that green chemistry and engineering
represent the kind of science on which EPA is focusing to move
to the next level of environmental and human health protection.
He added:

EPA is building interest in green chemistry
and engineering in future generations through programs
like the P3 Award competition, and is launching a new
web portal to organize their programs.

The joint NSF/EPA Technology for a
Sustainable Environment (TSE) program has resulted in
347 articles, 25 book chapters, six patents, and one
Nobel Prize for Chemistry from the first 64 TSE grants
alone.

EPA is also implementing a new research
framework that includes green chemistry and
engineering. They are releasing solicitations in the
area of Collaborative Science and Technology Network
for Sustainability, and will be partnering with states,
local governments, and industry to address high-
priority challenges.

Dr. Cue described green chemistry as a win-win for Pfizer's
goal of achieving economic, environmental, and social
sustainability. In addition, he stated that:

Pfizer has achieved tremendous gains in
efficiency through application of green chemistry in
the production of pharmaceuticals. Pfizer has seen a 5-
10-fold decrease in the amount of waste produced per
kilogram of pharmaceutical product (from 25-100 kg to
5-10 kg).

Few students who are graduating with
chemistry majors are trained in or even exposed to
green chemistry. Pfizer is investing a huge amount of
energy in educating its scientists about the green
chemistry principles and how they apply to daily R&D
efforts. Dr. Cue believes that H.R. 3970 will help in
this respect.

Mr. Bradfield testified that customer demand and
profitability are the ultimate drivers of green chemistry
adoption in industry, and that applying green chemistry
processes, like their recyclable carpet tile, in the carpet
industry will keep U.S. jobs from going overseas. He also made
recommendations for improving the federal green chemistry
effort, including:

Reward those that use green chemistry
products and processes with, for example, tax credits.

The proposed Interagency Working Group should
work closely with industry to establish R&D priorities.

Re-examine federal procurement procedures
that might inhibit adoption of green chemistry
techniques. For example, requirements that give
preference to products that contain recycled content
might prohibit adoption of green chemistry products
that may contain little recycled content in the first
generation products, but might be favorable in the long
run.

Dr. Woodhouse stated that economic and professional inertia
are the main barriers to adoption of green chemistry, i.e.,
small price increases prevent industry from selling green
chemistry products and universities are not updating their
chemistry curricula to reflect green chemistry. He
congratulated the Committee for its farsightedness in
addressing green chemistry, and made recommendations for
improving the federal effort, including tax credits, more
rigorous reporting requirements in the bill, and a realignment
of funding in the bill to tilt the authorizations more in EPA's
favor. Dr. Woodhouse also agreed with Dr. Cue that much more
needs to be done to train future generations of chemists and
chemical engineers in green chemistry.

4.1(y)_The 2003 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Math
and Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan for Success

March 18, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-48

Background
On Thursday, March 18, 2004, the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to examine how the Federal Government can help
improve K-12 math and science education. Four secondary school
math and science teachers testified before the Committee, each
a recipient of the 2003 Presidential Award for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST), the Nation's highest
commendation for K-12 math and science educators.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Jonathan Roland, Teacher, Perry
Hall High School, Baltimore, Maryland; (2) Ms. Gail Bromiley-
McGee, Teacher, Carnegie Vanguard High School, Houston, Texas;
(3) Mr. Jason Cushner, Teacher, Eagle Rock School and
Professional Development Center, Estes Park, Colorado; and (4)
Ms. Wendy Ehnert, Teacher, Austin E. Lathrop High School,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting that he
cares more deeply about pre-college math and science education
than any other issue within the Science Committee's
jurisdiction. None of the other goals of the Science Committee
can be accomplished without trained scientists and engineers,
and math and science teachers are critical to prepare our
future scientists and engineers. Ranking Member Gordon agreed,
adding these teachers will prepare future generations to enter
an increasingly complex world.
Mr. Roland, a physics teacher from Baltimore, MD, testified
that he cannot ``feed'' science to his students. He said that
his students needed a nose for the truth and he helped them
develop the skills they needed to discover it. He went on to
suggest the following ways the Federal Government can improve
teaching:

Supply teachers with opportunities to pursue
inquiry learning through research experiences and
focused training.

Evaluate new teaching methods to determine
which are valuable and should be implemented in the
classroom.

Ms. Bromiley-McGee, a biology teacher from Houston, TX,
reiterated the importance of the inquiry-based method for
teaching science, and she indicated that the hallmark of a good
science teacher was someone that inspires intellectual
curiosity and growth in his or her students. She made the
following comments:

Even for those students that do not pursue
science careers, math and science education is
essential. Students may go on to become voters,
consumers, or parents, and they will need a good
foundation in math and science.

Teacher training, recruitment, and retention
are some of the biggest issues facing education today.
Teachers need to be well-educated and this includes
mastery of content and classroom management.

The Federal Government should serve as a
repository for best teaching practices--a place where
all teachers can find successful methods to use instead
of ``reinventing the wheel.''

There needs to be a system of accountability
for teachers, similar to what is in place for students.
Also, students should have a voice in their teacher's
evaluation.

Mr. Cushner, a math teacher from Estes Park, CO, testified
that teaching was most effective when it was used to understand
the real world. He made the following observations:

The Federal Government greatly improved math
education with curriculum development research projects
in 1989.

There exists today an illiteracy stigma that
is not present for those who cannot achieve proficiency
in math. It is an obstacle for students and for
teachers.

It is important to hold teachers accountable
for their performance, but some of the restrictions in
No Child Left Behind are of concern. Some teachers are
so burdened by content requirements that they did not
have time to effectively teach any of the subjects.

To encourage teachers, we need more small
groups where teachers can share ideas and take control
over their professional development.

Ms. Ehnert, a science teacher from Fairbanks, AK, testified
that one of the main qualities of a good teacher was a sense of
excitement about his or her subject matter. To do this,
teachers needed to continue learning themselves, through
research opportunities professional development and
advancement, and recognition for good performance. She added:

The National Junior Science and Humanities
Symposium and the Intel International Science Fair were
great opportunities for students to become involved in
research.

The NSF funded professional development
programs (for example, the Project On Leading Alaska's
Restructuring in Science (POLARIS) in Fairbanks, AK)
that were successful for many teachers.

Public recognition such as the Presidential
Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, National Board Certification, and Fulbright
Teacher Exchange Program were excellent motivators for
teachers.

4.1(z)_Bioterrorism Preparedness: People, Tools, and Systems
for Detecting and Responding to a Bioterrorist Attack

May 3, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-56

Background
On Monday, May 3, 2004, the House Science Committee held a
field hearing to receive testimony on state and local
preparedness for a bioterrorist attack, on the role of the
Federal Government in supporting local efforts to prepare for,
detect, and respond to a bioterrorist attack, and on the
development and deployment of tools and systems for detecting
and responding to a bioterrorist attack.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Charles A. Schable, Director,
Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response Program, Centers for
Disease Control & Prevention; (2) Mr. Samuel H. Turner, Sr.,
Chief Executive Officer, Shawnee Mission Medical Center; (3)
Mr. Richard J. Morrissey, Acting Director of Health, Kansas
Department of Health & Environment; (4) Ms. W. Kay Kent,
Administrator/Health Officer, Lawrence Douglas County Health
Department; (5) Mr. Brad Mason, Division Chief of Special
Operations, Johnson County Med-Act; and (6) Dr. Ronald J.
Kendall, Director, The Institute of Environmental and Human
Health.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Neugebauer believes that national security is the most
important issue facing the Nation, and that public health
professionals are a key part of our national defense. They are
responsible for detecting, investigating, and combating
bioterrorism events. However, they need adequate tools,
systems, and support from all levels of government to fulfill
their responsibilities. Mr. Moore, in whose district the field
hearing took place, noted the importance to homeland security
of regional coordination and lauded the improvements he has
witnessed in his district in this respect. He also observed
that being prepared to respond to a biological attack improves
public health in general because it also increases the ability
to respond to naturally-occurring outbreaks of infectious
diseases.
Mr. Schable testified that a strong working relationship
between federal, state, and local public health officials and
law enforcement officials is an integral part of a robust
public health system. He said he witnessed this kind of
relationship in the Kansas City area in 2001 as part of the
anthrax investigations. He also feels that the best strategy
against disease is to have a developed, organized disease
detection system with the personnel and tools to support it. He
went on to testify that:

In 1999, CDC began a program of providing
technical assistance and funds to state, local, and
territorial public health departments to improve their
ability to respond to a bioterrorist attack. Congress
appropriated a substantial increase in funds for this
program in FY 2002. The program now helps 62 grantees
develop critical public health preparedness capacities.

Clinicians are the first line of defense
against disease outbreaks in the public health system.
Their ability to quickly recognize and identify
symptoms of an unusual illness has been instrumental to
CDC's ability to combat infectious disease outbreaks.

The CDC's Public Health Information Network
will help integrate the information systems of State
and local public health agencies. The sharing of data
will optimize the effective use of existing public
health data.

The recently announced biosurveillance
initiative is an interagency effort to monitor aspects
of the food supply, environment, and human health to
more rapidly detect public health emergencies.

Mr. Turner testified that the threat of bioterrorism is one
of the most difficult challenges a hospital can face, and one
of the most frightening for hospital administrators.
Bioterrorism attacks can happen at any time and affect any
number of people. These uncertainties present many difficulties
for hospitals trying to prepare for such attacks. He added:

Shawnee Mission Medical Center needs several
design modifications and additional facilities to be
prepared for a mass casualty event. Such modifications
include a long hospital access road to be able to
detect incoming threats, improved air handling systems
to isolate air flows, and a stockpile of the vaccines,
antibiotics, and other supplies needed to be self-
sufficient for 48-72 hours.

HealthSentry, a specialized software package
for tracking data, distributes public health data to
health officials two to three days faster than they
would normally receive it. Combined with the vigilance
of front line health care providers, this can lead to
the rapid identification of a health emergency and a
reduction in the potential loss of life.

Federal guidelines and best practices are
needed to help local communities with disaster
planning.

Mr. Morrissey testified that the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment has worked closely with local health
departments and the Kansas Hospital Association to develop and
implement Kansas's bioterrorism program. Over $6 million of the
program's total $17 million budget is being given directly to
local health departments to implements this plan. He added:

Kansas's bioterrorism program has focused
heavily on technology. For example, they developed a
secure web-based automated disease reporting system
called HAWK, which is used in 36 counties covering 90
percent of Kansas's population. They also developed the
Public Health Information Exchange (PHIX). This is a
two-way web- and pager-based communication system that
sends alert messages to public health and law
enforcement officials. Finally, the Kansas Public
Health Library was upgraded to biosafety level 3, which
means it can now return test results on biological
agents more safely, securely, and rapidly.

The Governor of Kansas has placed an emphasis
on coordinating homeland security efforts to reduce
duplication of efforts and to work towards the highest
possible level of preparedness at the state and local
levels.

Ms. Kent testified that Douglas County, Kansas has worked
to integrate bioterrorism detection with existing public health
systems because the capacities needed to respond to a
bioterrorist attack are the same as those needed to respond to
all public health hazards. To illustrate this point, she
described a natural outbreak of Cryptosporidium that occurred
in Kansas in 2003 and the roles local, State, and federal
agencies played in response. She added:

Federal funds are used primarily for
staffing, training, and infrastructure needs. They also
go towards providing surge capacity in the area of
personnel. However, the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment still does not currently have the staff
necessary to combat two disease outbreaks
simultaneously.

Federal funds have been essential to the
progress made in preparedness for, and response to,
public health emergencies, and they are needed to
maintain readiness at the local level.

Mr. Mason serves as Chairman of the Mid America Regional
Council Emergency Response Committee (MARCER), which among
other things, provides voice communications infrastructure that
links EMS providers in the field with hospital physicians. He
testified that:

Internet-based communications are becoming
common in the metro Kansas City area. EMSystem, a web-
based rapid messaging system, is used by EMS providers,
hospitals, and public health officials to increase
communications. Its success led to its adoption
statewide by Missouri and it is being considered for
statewide use by Kansas as well.

Early detection of an outbreak is essential.
First Watch is a computer program that searches for
spikes in EMS call activity and notifies public health
officials of unusual fluctuations. More detailed
surveillance could occur if more information about
patients, such as patient records, were able to be
searched as well.

Federal funding from programs like the
Department of Homeland Security's State Homeland
Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security
Initiative has been critically important to public
health programs in the metro Kansas City area.

Dr. Kendall is Director of the Institute of Environment and
Human Health which participates in the Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt,
Jr. National Program for Countermeasures to Biological and
Chemical Threats. The program's purpose is to coordinate
research and to provide training programs in cooperation with
the Department of Defense to enhance abilities to prevent and
respond to biological and chemical threats. He testified that:

The Institute's research focus areas include
modeling and simulating the dispersion of biological
and chemical agents in urban and rural environments,
studying emerging animal disease threats, and
developing next generation sensors to detect biological
and chemical agents. This work has involved more than
60 Texas Tech University scientists from a wide range
of disciplines.

The Texas Emergency Analysis and Response
Program integrates scientific and technical expertise
with computing and communications systems to create an
operational capability that will rapidly provide
emergency personnel with the accurate information they
need to effectively respond to a chemical or biological
attack or other emergency.

4.1(aa)_U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report

May 5, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-57

Background
On May 5, 2004, Committee on Science held a hearing on the
key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Report of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In response to pressures
on ocean and coastal ecosystems from increased coastal
development, over-fishing, pollution and a confusing patchwork
of federal and State legal authorities for ocean and coastal
activities, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. The Act
required the President to establish a nonpartisan, diverse
commission of experts in ocean policy and charged that
commission to establish findings and develop recommendations
for a new comprehensive ocean policy, including in research and
development. The Report is the first comprehensive review of
national ocean policy in more than 30 years.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Admiral James D.
Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy;
(2) Dr. Andrew Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Solow was a member of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel
Governance Working Group; (3) Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting
Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Dr.
Pomponi was a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Science Advisory Panel Research, Education and Marine
Operations Working Group; (4) Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa,
Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and
Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University. Dr.
Pietrafesa is chair of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory Board; and (5) Dr.
Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Dr. Freilich is
a member of the National Research Council's Space Studies Board
and Chair of that Board's Committee on Earth Studies.
Summary of Hearing
Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), began the hearing by
providing an overview of the key findings and recommendations
in the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy.

A National Ocean Council, including the
leaders of all ocean-related agencies and chaired by an
assistant to the President, should be established in
the Executive Office of the President to coordinate
federal ocean activities and set national ocean policy.

A Presidential Council of Advisers on Ocean
Policy should be created to provide input and advice
from non-federal experts. The federal agency structure
should be strengthened to increase effectiveness and
minimize redundancies.

The National Integrated Ocean Observing
System, (IOOS) led by NOAA and combining a network of
regional coastal observations with an array of open
ocean observations, should be implemented to achieve
adequate observational and forecasting capabilities for
the oceans and coasts.

To cover costs and supplement existing
appropriations and support new and recommended
responsibilities, an Ocean Policy Trust Fund should be
established.

Dr. Andrew Solow discussed the Report's recommendations to
establish a National Ocean Council to coordinate federal
efforts with respect to oceans.

The main deficiency in federal ocean and
coastal policy is fragmentation, which tends to impede
policy coordination. However fragmentation is not, by
itself, responsible for the problems on the ground and
in the water.

Although the problems in the Nation's oceans
and coasts cannot be solved by better coordination
alone, a National Ocean Council could contribute to the
formulation and execution of better policies and would
elevate the visibility of ocean issues in the Federal
Government.

All federal activities relating to the ocean
should undergo common policy and budgetary review
within the Office of Management and Budget.

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi provided testimony about the
implications of the Report's recommendation for increased
funding for ocean research.

A NOAA organic act should be enacted to
clearly lay out an integrated agency structure and
mission.

The overall levels of U.S. investment in
ocean research should be doubled to fund such areas as
bio-diversity and ecosystem research, development of
ocean information systems, climate and ocean modeling,
and discovery and development of new marine products.
Increases for individual agencies and programs should
be based on a careful and comprehensive assessment of
national ocean policy and the role of each federal
ocean agency in carrying out those priorities.

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa provided testimony on the
Report's recommendations to strengthen NOAA.

At a minimum, there should be an immediate
doubling of the federal ocean research budget.

A NOAA organic act should be enacted so that
NOAA can have clear and specific responsibilities
assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of
these responsibilities.

An end-to-end, integrated Earth-observing
measurement system suite for receipt of data in real
time should be implemented.

Dr. Michael H. Freilich provided the Committee with
comments on the Report's recommendation to transfer some
programs from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) to NOAA.

NOAA should be the Nation's lead agency for
ocean-related research, education, management,
measurements, and predictions that recognizes the equal
importance of its research and education, management,
and prediction and assessment tasks.

An interagency coordination group, to address
ocean and coastal data and information issues, as well
as a Presidential interagency task force to oversee the
modernization of the Nation's environmental data and
information system, should be established.

There should be stronger interagency
coordination, including moving the Executive's review
of NOAA's budget to OMB's Natural Resources Program, to
ease the NASA-NOAA transition from research to
operations.

4.1(bb)_H.R. 4107, Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Reauthorization Act of 2004

May 12, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-58

Background
On Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, the House Science Committee
held a hearing to examine the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program and to receive testimony on H.R. 4107, the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004.
The witnesses were: (1) Honorable Bill Pascrell, Member,
U.S. House of Representatives; (2) Mr. R. David Paulison,
Administrator, United States Fire Administration (USFA); (3)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Deputy Director, Office of Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (4)
Mr. James M. Shannon, President and CEO, National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA); (5) Chief Philip C. Stittleburg,
Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC); (6) Chief
Ernest Mitchell, President, International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC); (7) Mr. Kevin O'Connor, Assistant to the General
President, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF);
and (8) Honorable Steny Hoyer, Member, U.S. House of
Representatives.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Smith opened the hearing by stating that the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act for 2004
improves upon a program that has been working very well over
the past three years. He expressed hope that the legislation
would pass allowing this program to successfully continue.
Ranking Member Gordon added that he hopes this program will
increase funding, services, and equipment for firefighters.
Representative Pascrell explained what the FIRE Act, which
he introduced in 1999, has done for our fire departments and
how the new legislation would improve upon it. The FIRE Act has
distributed over $1.1 billion in funding to fire departments
across the country to purchase necessary equipment like fire
engines, personal protective equipment, and breathing
apparatus. H.R. 4107 reauthorizes the grant program and
improves on it by doing the following:

Scales the size of grants awarded allowing
larger departments to receive more funding than smaller
departments.

Reduces the matching requirement of
communities from 30 percent to 20 percent to reduce the
burden on communities with smaller budgets.

Transfers the jurisdiction of the program
from ODP to USFA.

Mr. Paulison testified that the U.S. has one of the highest
death rates due to fire of any industrialized nation and the
mission of USFA is to reduce this rate and the rate of property
losses as well. USFA accomplishes this through advocacy,
coordination of the fire prevention groups, and other training,
education, and research programs. He added:

The fire grant program over the past three
years has provided a tremendous amount of equipment and
training and has supported educational programs across
the country. Each year they receive more than 20,000
applications from fire departments for the grants.

The peer review process for ranking fire
grant proposals has been a tremendous success--it
should be not be modified, but rather continued as is.

In response to the 2003 DHS Inspector General
(IG) report, USFA has already implemented some changes
and will continue to work with ODP on implementing the
recommendations made by the IG.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell expressed DHS's strong support for the
reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program. ODP has worked extensively with USFA to make the
transition of the grant program from USFA into ODP go smoothly,
and Mr. Mitchell promised to continue that collaborative effort
in the future to ensure the success of the program. He
testified further that:

DHS supports the location of the program in
ODP under the reorganization as proposed by Secretary
Ridge.

ODP has worked hard to improve the grant
application process. The application materials are now
available online and CD-ROMs are also available for
fire departments that contain pertinent information on
the application process. In addition, ODP and USFA hold
local workshops for fire departments across the country
on the application process.

The 2004 program will provide funding in
three areas: (1) firefighting operations, safety, and
personal protective equipment, (2) fire prevention, and
(3) firefighting vehicles. The vast majority of
requested funds are under the first category.

They have received grant applications from
all types of fire departments including all volunteer,
all paid, and combination departments.

Mr. Shannon stated that the reauthorization of the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is essential to the
effectiveness of fire service in the U.S. as it addresses every
element of fire service. Mr. Shannon asserted his strong
support for H.R. 4107 and stated:

Since 2001, the program has provided almost
$2 billion in financial support, although the
departments themselves have requested over $9 billion.
The needs of the departments are not being fully met,
but the new program will continue to strive towards
that goal.

In the next few months, the NFPA will release
a needs assessment report on every state to demonstrate
how much support fire departments in each state
require.

The Federal Government must continue to
provide adequate resources through the program and to
support our firefighters.

Chief Stittleburg also voiced his support for H.R. 4107
noting that it continued all of the important aspects of the
original legislation, including the peer review process, and
added some improvements, for example language that prevents
discrimination against volunteer firefighters. He went on to
say that:

Firefighters, both paid and volunteer,
respond to various calls, from structural and wildland
fires to search and rescue missions, and this bill
helps them to be properly trained and equipped.

Much of our infrastructure is protected in
rural areas by volunteer departments and, therefore,
the volunteer departments should not be discriminated
against. Volunteer firefighters save the country
approximately $40 billion a year because of their
services.

Because this bill changes the limits that
departments could apply for, the NVFC anticipates a
shift of applications from the volunteer sector to the
paid sector. Nevertheless, the NVFC still supports this
bill because it has proven to be effective as it
delivers the money straight to the fire departments.

Chief Ernest Mitchell also offered his support for H.R.
4107 on behalf of the IAFC. He described the grant program as
one of the most important relationships between the fire
service and the Federal Government. He testified that:

There are five good reasons for the program's
success: (1) funds go directly to local fire
departments, (2) grants are awarded on a competitive
basis and not on a predetermined formula, (3) grant
applications are peer reviewed by knowledgeable fire
service people, (4) grants do not supplant local funds,
and (5) grants require a co-payment by the community.

IAFC has three concerns with the program: (1)
local control is being eroded away due to ODP's focus
on terrorism response instead of all-hazards response,
(2) providing financial assistance to volunteer EMS
agencies should not be done through this program since
it is meant to assist fire departments, and (3) the
anti-discrimination clause should also not be part of
this program.

The IAFC does support the provision to move
the program back within the jurisdiction of the USFA.

Mr O'Connor testified that IAFF encourages a
reauthorization of the FIRE grant program but cannot support
H.R. 4107 due to the anti-discrimination language that it
contains. He testified that:

IAFF applauds increasing the maximum grant
award to $3 million and reducing the matching
requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent because these
changes will help larger jurisdictions.

IAFF has been lobbying to secure collective
bargaining rights for firefighters. The anti-
discrimination language contained in this legislation
proposes limiting these rights, which IAFF strongly
opposes.

Representative Hoyer commended Chairman Boehlert on his
leadership and focused his remarks on two specific issues: (1)
the grant program and expanding eligibility to include
separate, nonprofit EMS squads and (2) transferring of
jurisdiction back to USFA. He testified that:

Currently, EMS departments that are a part of
local career or volunteer fire departments are eligible
for funding, whereas EMS departments that are a
separate entity are not. These separate departments,
which make up a small percentage of all departments,
should be eligible and the reauthorization allows this.

There is concern that under the jurisdiction
of ODP the program might focus on homeland security
needs instead of preparing fire departments for all
hazards. Shifting the jurisdiction back to the USFA
would alleviate these concerns.

Mr. Paulison should be commended for the
outstanding job he has done and transferring the
program back to his jurisdiction would practically
guarantee the needs of firefighters would be met.

4.1(cc)_H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization
Act of 2004

May 13, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-55

Background
On Thursday, May 13, 2004, the House Science Committee held
a hearing to examine high-performance computing and networking
research and development activities and to receive testimony on
H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of
2004. This bill would amend the High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991 by directing the President to implement a High-
Performance Computing Research and Development Program.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, III,
Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(2) Dr. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, Vice President for Technology
and Strategy, IBM Corporation; (3) Dr. Rick Stevens, Director,
Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National
Laboratory; and (4) Mr. Daniel A. Reed, William R. Kenan, Jr.
Eminent Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marburger conveyed the Administration's support for
H.R. 4218 in its current form. He added that the Administration
is committed to networking and information technology R&D,
which supports many of the President's priorities: winning the
war on terrorism, strengthening the economy, and securing the
homeland. He went on to testify that:

OSTP created the High-End Computing
Revitalization Task Force under the National Science
and Technology Council to develop a forward-looking
plan for federal high-end computing. Dr. Marburger
presented the report, ``Federal Plan for High-End
Computing,'' to the Committee at the hearing.

The report includes roadmaps for investments
in R&D areas including hardware, software, and systems.
It also recommends that leadership class high-end
computing systems be managed as national resources for
all relevant agencies and operated as open user
facilities.

Implementing the recommendations of the
report will require a dedicated effort by all the
participating agencies, and OSTP is committed to
facilitating this effort.

Dr. Wladawsky-Berger made several points concerning global
competitiveness and the role of governments in supercomputing.
For example, he believes that supercomputers are more important
to the IT industry now than they have ever been. He added:

Supercomputers are essential to overall U.S.
leadership in a global marketplace due to the
increasing importance of Grand Challenge applications
such as building more energy-efficient cars and
airplanes and designing better drugs.

Current efforts of federal civilian agencies
in high-performance computing are useful, but must be
expanded to meet present demands and increase the
efficiency of key applications in a cost-effective
manner.

IBM's high-performance computing research is
directed towards developing advanced microprocessors
for use in scalable applications and developing
technologies to overcome obstacles to high degrees of
parallelism.

Dr. Stevens stated that high performance computing is a
critical component to scientific progress, especially within
the realm of medical science. Current efforts of civilian
science agencies are in the right direction but are inadequate.
Demand for high-performance computing is now three times the
established capacity. He added:

Emerging economies will eventually exceed the
United States in the number of registered scientists.
Therefore, to remain globally competitive, we must
improve productivity and efficiency by extending our
leadership in high-performance computing and applying
it to other areas of research.

The Department of Energy (DOE) and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) should work together
to develop and deploy leadership class high-performance
computing systems that span a range of architectures.
Vendors should focus on developing products that
balance price and performance against applications
specificity.

Research should be targeted at four major
goals: (1) developing multiple generations of new
systems, (2) creating systems software to make next-
generation systems usable, (3) developing next-
generation environments for scientific problem solving,
and (4) investing in fundamental research.

Dr. Reed agreed with the rest of the panel that more
research, funding, and development regarding high-performance
computing are essential to U.S. global competitiveness in this
arena. Specifically, he recommended that:

H.R. 4218 should also include mechanisms to
aid the transfer of promising technologies to
commercial practice.

The NSF should continue its research and
development of advanced systems, new architectures,
software, tools, and algorithms. Concurrently, it
should support computing and data management systems,
especially to support its Major Research Equipment
projects.

The DOE should lead advanced prototyping and
deployment of high-performance computing systems in
conjunction with its scientific facilities and
laboratory missions. This advanced development effort
would foster the transition of basic research results
from the DOE and NSF portfolios into deployed high-
performance computing systems.

4.1(dd)_Transportation Research and Development: Applications
and Opportunities in the Denver Region

June 4, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-62

Background
On June 4, 2004, the Committee on Science held a field
hearing on Transportation Issues in Broomfield, Colorado, with
a focus on Research Applications and Opportunities in the
region of Denver.
The Committee heard testimony from: 1) Mr. Guillermo V.
Vidal, Manager of Public Works in Denver; 2) Mr. Jayson Luber,
Helicopter News/Traffic Reporter for the Denver radio station
KOA; 3) Mr. Carlos Hernandez, transportation planner, Charlier
Associates; and 4) Dr. JoAnn Silverstein, Chair of the
Department of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering
at the University of Colorado.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Guillermo V. Vidal provided testimony identifying
concerns and providing suggestions regarding the Denver
transportation system.

One roadblock to improving Denver traffic
congestion is the presence of several different
agendas. The State Department of Transportation focus
is on quickly moving people from point A to point B,
but perhaps at the expense of land use decisions.
Transit agencies fight with competing highway
interests. Cities and counties value mobility and
congestion relief but will not support transportation
decisions that sacrifice the quality of life of their
neighborhoods or destroy their businesses.

We need to establish congestion performance
measures that can help articulate goals to be achieved
in congestion relief, and that reflect the movement of
people and goods as opposed to only the movement of
cars and trucks.

Methods to better integrate transit and
highway planning should be implemented.

We could provide incentives for businesses to
encourage their employees to change their traveling
patterns during peak periods and we need more
evaluation to determine the success of toll roads and
hot lanes that have been established.

Mr. Jayson Luber provided testimony concerning possible
solutions to the Denver traffic congestion problem.

Although there have been significant
improvements in the Metro Denver area, such as the T-
REX Project along I-25, the expansion of E-470, and
improvements of I-25 along the North, South, and up
into the mountains, congestion from Denver to Vail is
still a serious problem.

A monorail is the wrong solution to the Vail
traffic problem, because the majority of passengers
would be tourists to ski areas, not residents or
travelers clogging up I-70 on Saturdays and Sundays.
Instead, the best solution is to expand I-70 to at
least three lanes at each direction and possibly expand
Highway 285 between Bailey and Fairplay, and Highway 9
between Fairplay and Crisco.

We should examine the possibility of getting
traffic through the Moffat tunnel, linking Boulder
County to Grand County without traffic having to go
over I-70 in Berthoud Pass to get up to Winter Park and
Fraser Valley.

Mr. Carlos Hernandez provided testimony about
transportation research regarding the relationship between
pedestrians and traffic.

Because pedestrian traffic has not been
studied at the level that roadway capacity and
vehicular traffic has been documented in the past 50
years, we need to understand what mobility options are
available for other roadway users and develop a
clearinghouse to enable engineers and planners to
integrate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit in the
communities.

Preliminary studies show a correlation
between the obesity rate unavailability of sidewalks or
bike paths. Improvements to sidewalk, path, and trail
infrastructure may affect people's ability to be more
active.

The design of suburbs have limited peoples
access to transit options and caused further
congestion.

There should be further research of ``The
Walkable Communities,'' a concept that will have a big
impact on the exurbs, the suburbs, and in downtowns all
over the country. Current efforts to implement these
communities seem to lack credible research.

Dr. Joann Silverstein provided testimony about
transportation research at the University of Colorado and
addressed emerging issues on transportation systems in Colorado
and throughout the western United States.

Infrastructure project costs are generally
underestimated, and the impact of cost estimation
errors can be high, with projects cut, scaled back, or
even cancelled. Causes of inaccurate cost estimation
are numerous, including the complexity of human
organizational, technical, and natural resources
involved, unforeseen requirements for environmental
litigation, and societal and political challenges such
as right of way determination.

Air pollutants and greenhouse gases emitted
during vehicle manufacture, manufacture of steel,
concrete, asphalt roadway construction, and vehicle use
is considered to be the most significant impact of
transportation systems and is the subject of
significant research at the University of Colorado.

There is a need to advance research beyond
traditional technology to foster interdisciplinary
approaches combining engineering, economics, and social
science.

4.1(ee)_The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: A View
From Upstate New York

June 21, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-63

Background
On Monday, June 21st, 2004, the House Science Committee
held a field hearing to examine the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program (AFGP) and its impact on the fire departments of
upstate New York. The hearing also considered legislation (H.R.
4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act
of 2004) introduced by Chairman Boehlert to authorize continued
funding for the AFGP through fiscal year (FY) 2007.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. R. David Paulison, U.S. Fire
Administrator and Director of the Preparedness Division,
Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate/FEMA, Department
of Homeland Security; (2) Mr. Michael Quill, Chief, Auburn, New
York Fire Department; (3) Mr. Brian McQueen, Chief, Whitesboro
Volunteer Fire Department; (4) Mr. David Perkins, Training
Officer, Aurelius Volunteer Fire Department; and (5) Mr. Pat
DiNonno, Director, Office of Emergency Management and Fire
Coordinator, Cayuga County, New York.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing in his home district
by saying that there are few issues he places a higher priority
on than providing firefighters and other first responders with
the equipment they need. He believes the AFGP has been
instrumental in making that possible. Mr. Miller added that
AFGP has been very important to fire departments in his own
district as well, and he wanted to know from the witnesses how
the grant program is working, what impact it has had, and what
recommendations they may have as the program moves forward.
Mr. Paulison was unable to be present at the hearing due to
airline delays but delivered his testimony via telephone. As
USFA Administrator, Mr. Paulison believes that he can help the
fire services best by (1) providing leadership for the fire
services, (2) reaching out to Congress and the White House on
issues important to firefighters, and (3) coordinating
firefighter issues. He added:

AFGP has been tremendously successful. To
date it has awarded over 16,000 grants nationwide and
given out almost $2 billion to the fire services.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ridge
has proposed moving all first responder grants into the
Office of Domestic Preparedness in DHS in order to
centralize the grants in a one-stop shop.

Training is one of the primary missions of
USFA. In the 1990s the Fire Academy only had about 4000
students per year on campus. Last year there were over
17,000, not including the 30-40 percent of applicants
that had to be turned away for lack of space, and this
year they have reached over 185,000 students through
distance learning programs.

One example of the distance learning programs
is the integrated emergency management course. This
course brings together fire chiefs, police chiefs,
public works directors, and city managers to teach them
how to operate as a team to handle emergencies.

To focus on reducing the losses of life and
property, USFA administers the Babies and Toddlers
campaign, which focuses on children under five and
adults over 65 who are most vulnerable, and the
National Residential Sprinkler Initiative, since
sprinklers have been so successful at preventing losses
of life.

Chief Quill, whose Auburn Fire Department hosted the
hearing, testified that AFGP is one of the most important
programs for the fire services as it gives firefighters the
tools they need to do their jobs. He also applauded the
competitive nature of the grants and that they go straight to
fire departments and not through another layer of bureaucracy.
He went on to say:

Last year the Auburn Fire Department used one
of the grants to purchase self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) and radios, which are necessary for
firefighter safety. However, they still need to replace
vehicles that may soon become more expensive to repair
than to replace.

Personnel at the Auburn Fire Department have
had very positive experiences with DHS training courses
with 33 personnel logging over 1700 hours of training.

Cayuga County has formed a consortium of
first responders to provide high quality, engaging
training and education for first responders to prepare
them for all types of emergencies. Cayuga County
Community College is a leader in this consortium.

Chief McQueen is Chief of an all volunteer fire department
that serves Whitesboro, a community of approximately 14,000
residents that covers about 5000 square miles. His department
provides support to the community for all types of hazards. It
has 55 personnel, but he sees few young people interested in
joining the firefighting ranks. He also testified that:

His department has had only limited success
in applying for grants, receiving only one award in
four tries. However, he feels that the FEMA grant staff
was very effective at helping him carrying out that
grant, which was used to purchase self-contained
breathing apparatus.

The volunteer non-discrimination language in
H.R. 4107 is necessary because professional
firefighters that volunteer with other fire departments
improve the fire protection and education of the
volunteer departments.

Making EMS squads not affiliated with a fire
department eligible for grants, as included in H.R.
4107, is also an improvement on the grant program. This
will benefit the communities they serve and the fire
departments, who often are called upon to respond to
medical calls themselves.

Mr. Perkins believes AFGP is one of the most beneficial
steps the Federal Government has taken in recent years to
assist emergency responders. He emphasized that State and local
governments also have a responsibility to help their first
responders. He added:

The Aurelius Fire Department was successful
in obtaining a grant in 2003 that they used to upgrade
their breathing apparatus to current standards (which
also allows for improved inter-operability with other
departments) and upgrade their communications
equipment.

More and more demands are being place on fire
departments, including volunteer departments, while at
the same time fewer people are able to dedicate their
time to volunteer services. Without AFGP to bolster the
department, the Aurelius Fire Department would not have
been able to make these upgrades for many years, if at
all.

Whether or not a department receives a grant,
the process required to prepare the grant improves the
department's operations and preparedness because they
must examine their day-to-day operations and how the
requested equipment would benefit theirs and other
departments.

Mr. DiNonno testified that the purchasing and maintaining
of training equipment and supplies is a very expensive part of
training programs. He also noted that there is a need to
upgrade outdated communications equipment, which does not
perform well in the topography of upstate New York. AFGP can
provide assistance on both of these accounts. Mr. DiNonno also
supports the addition in H.R. 4107 of language that extends
fire grants to EMS services that are not affiliated with fire
departments.

4.1(ff)_Cyber Security Education: Meeting the Needs of
Technology Workers and Employers

July 21, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-68

Background
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to review efforts by academia, industry and
government to develop a cyber security workforce.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Chet Hosmer, President & CEO,
WetStone Technologies, Inc.; (2) Mr. John Baker, Director of
Technology Programs, Division of Undergraduate Education,
School of Professional Studies in Business and Education, Johns
Hopkins University; (3) Mr. Erich Spengler, Principal
Investigator, Advanced Technology Education Regional Center for
the Advancement of Systems Security and Information Assurance,
Moraine Valley Community College; (4) Second Lieutenant David
Aparicio, Electrical Engineer, Air Force Research Laboratory
Information Directorate; and (5) Ms. Sydney Rogers, Principal
Investigator, Advanced Technology Education Regional Center for
Information Technology, Nashville State Community College.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened this hearing by noting that cyber
security has been a focus of the Committee over the past two
years. He stressed that information and communication systems
are part of practically every aspect of our lives, yet are
vulnerable to attacks and invasions. Business and industry are
recognizing the need to invest in technology and the training
of professionals in computer security and information
assurance; however, education and training programs are still
in the development stage. He stated that we must continue to
increase the quality and quantity of cyber security education
and training to enhance the protection of our information and
communication systems to create a more secure future.
Ranking Member Gordon added that he was particularly
interested in learning if the cyber security education programs
are focused on industry's requirements, meeting the demand for
cyber security professionals, and receiving adequate funding.
Mr. Hosmer described the interactions WetStone
Technologies, Inc. has had with various cyber security
education programs. Some lessons he has learned as a result of
these interactions include:

Cooperation between the private sector and
colleges and universities will help to build and
structure these programs.

Cyber security is an ever-changing field and
the program needs to have the flexibility to change on
a daily basis.

Internship programs are also key because
practical experience is absolutely essential. Cyber
security requires knowledge in both the computer and
social sciences, and internships bring the two
together.

Program training is also an essential piece
that is very expensive. Many times, individuals are
required to pay for their own training despite taking
time off their regular jobs. He expressed a need to
support these people.

Mr. Baker discussed the undergraduate programs in
information systems that he runs at the School of Professional
Studies in Business and Education at Johns Hopkins University.
He testified that:

Education and training are separate entities.
Training is generally focused on product or a specific
set of skills in an area whereas education's goals are
to teach specific technology skills, develop critical
thinking and problem-solving skills, improve the field
knowledge, improve the ability to communicate, and
cultivate research interests.

Money, time, and a good selection process for
faculty are all key to program development. A new
issue, student background checks, has emerged as it
might become necessary to determine the suitability of
a student for a certain program.

The Federal Government can help by (1)
including more funding for NSF initiatives, (2)
encouraging the development of educational standards,
(3) providing scholarship opportunities for potential
employees of private industry and State governments,
and (4) absorbing graduates of the Scholarship for
Service Program.

Mr. Spengler discussed how community colleges are
addressing challenges in cyber security education and focusing
on the skills necessary to adjust to rapid changes in workplace
technology. He stated that:

Community colleges have a flexible
curriculum, allowing them to respond quickly to changes
in technology and the needs of the private sector.

Shortages of qualified applicants for IT
security positions indicate significant opportunities
for associate's degree holders.

The greatest challenge for community colleges
is faculty development and recruitment. The NSF
Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program,
established to address this need, has centers and
resources available for faculty to be properly trained
in security and information assurance.

The Federal Government must continue to
invest in NSF ATE centers in order to continue
education of our cyber security workforce.

Lieutenant Aparicio testified about his personal experience
in the Advanced Course in Engineering on Cyber Security at the
Air Force Laboratory in Rome, New York. According to his
testimony, this program:

Combines project participation with personal
mentors and high-intensity classroom instruction to
instill technical confidence and mental flexibility to
solve any type of problem.

Addresses the challenge of the National
Strategy to Secure Cyberspace by developing students in
pre-commissioning officer training programs into future
cyber security leaders. Establishing and maintaining
leadership is key to the security of our nation.

Needs the help of the Federal Government in
recruiting younger generations and making the public
more aware of the issues of cyber security.

Ms. Rogers discussed the needs of employers in the region
surrounding the NSF ATE regional center and the importance of
contextual learning in cyber security. She testified as
follows:

We need to develop teaching and learning
methods that promote learning, thinking, and problem-
solving in the context of the real world.

Model programs have been developed that bring
workplace experiences directly to students in the
classroom, which creates more adaptable workers and
allows for the re-education of current workers. These
programs need continued work in faculty development,
materials development, and partnerships with the
private sector in order for them to have maximum
effectiveness.

Through the NSF ATE program, over 200 faculty
and industrial, university, and secondary partners are
teaming up at Synergy 2004 to begin plans for
educational reform of IT and IT-based programs. Synergy
2004 will hopefully motivate and prepare everyone to
implement change in cyber security education.

The Federal Government needs to continue to
support the ATE program and make technological
education a national priority.
4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

4.2(a)_The Future of University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Programs

June 10, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-12

Background
On Tuesday, June 10, 2002, the Energy Subcommittee of the
House Science Committee held a hearing to examine the future of
university nuclear science and engineering programs and how
those programs might affect the future of the nuclear power
industry in the United States. The hearing built upon H.R. 238,
the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
Application Act of 2003, which the Science Committee
unanimously approved on April 2, 2003. The bill would authorize
increased funding to the Department of Energy (DOE) for several
university-based programs targeted at nuclear science and
engineering.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Gail H. Marcus,
Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Daniel M.
Kammen, Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy
Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley; (3) Ms.
Angelina Howard, Executive Vice President of Policy, Planning
and External Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute; (4) Dr. James
F. Stubbins, Head of the Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological
Engineering Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois (UIUC); and (5) Dr. David M. ``Mike''
Slaughter, Chair of the Nuclear Engineering Program and
Director of the Center for Excellence in Nuclear Technology,
Engineering, and Research (CENTER), University of Utah.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marcus began by introducing a group of students in
attendance who were participants of the Washington Internship
for Student Engineering (WISE) program. Dr. Marcus emphasized
the need to continue funding and expansion of programs at DOE
to ensure a knowledgeable workforce into the future. She
explained several programs at the Department of Energy (DOE)
including Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education
(INIE), the newest DOE university nuclear program designed to
encourage partnerships between the public and private sector to
expand research opportunities for universities. She also
discussed the status DOE grant programs in nuclear engineering.
She revealed a new strategy for R&D funding that devotes 5-10
percent of total funds to universities in an attempt to
increase creativity and expertise in research programs.
Dr. Daniel M. Kammen testified to the state of nuclear
energy market in the context of renewable fuels and the lack of
innovative programs in nuclear engineering programs. He
highlighted the importance of diversifying academic programs
and stated that overall there is insufficient cross-
disciplinary training in nuclear engineering programs. With the
exception of Texas A&M, students often aren't offered variety
in their curriculum and are often only offered electives like
advanced calculus. Dr. Kammen suggested changes in programs
that ranged from advising students to pursue advanced degrees
in fields other than engineering to altering the accreditation
process for undergraduates interested in pursuing a degree in
nuclear engineering.
Ms. Howard testified that there is a staffing crisis in the
nuclear energy industry. She claimed that our increasing
reliance on nuclear energy requires us to increase generation
of nuclear power demanding an enhanced workforce. Ms. Howard
cited a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) study that claimed a
need for 90,000 new industry workers by 2011. This study cited
the first wave of retirements in the next 3-5 years and far
more in 7-10 years. The DOE and General Accounting Office (GAO)
have also concluded that there is a growing staff crisis.
Dr. Stubbins, former chair of the Nuclear Engineering
Department Heads Organizations (NEDHO), focused on the positive
developments in nuclear technology and the positive influence
that has on those individuals looking to join the field. He
attributed the trend to a refocused national outlook on the
importance of nuclear energy.

4.2(b)_Competition for Department of Energy Laboratory
Contracts: What Is the Impact on Science?

July 10, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-24

Background
On July 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) management and
operations (M&O) contracts for its laboratories. Specifically,
the hearing focused on DOE's use of M&O contract competition to
create accountability for scientific and managerial
performance, and on whether the application of competition as a
tool to promote accountability has particular implications for
the conduct of science at the laboratories.
The relationship between DOE and its laboratory M&O
contractors has evolved considerably since the first contracts
were set up decades ago. While few observers would deny the
success of the science at DOE laboratories, it is also
difficult to deny that the pursuit of the laboratories'
missions has sometimes come at the expense of normal
housekeeping chores that taxpayers, rightfully, expect with the
expenditure of their funds. Consequently, the Congress and its
oversight committees, Office of Management and Budget, General
Accounting Office, and the Inspector General/DOE, increased
their scrutiny of DOE. The DOE, in turn, increased its
oversight of laboratory functions.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Card,
Undersecretary for Energy, Science and Environment, U.S.
Department of Energy; (2) Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director of
Natural Resources and Environment at the General Accounting
Office; (3) Dr. Paul Fleury, Dean of Engineering and Frederick
William Beinecke Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics
at Yale University; and (4) Dr. John McTague, Professor of
Materials at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Summary of Hearing
With the exception of Ms. Nazzaro, whose testimony focused
on the management and financial operations of the laboratories,
the panelists all praised the success of the laboratories in
delivering scientific advances. All the panelists also
recognized that in recent years there have been difficulties in
the management and operations of the laboratories, and that at
some level these are threatening the success of the scientific
mission. While Ms. Nazzaro focused on the lack of
accountability at the labs and DOE's problems with contract
management, Dr. Fleury and Dr. McTague both stressed the
partnership and trust dimensions of the Government Owned
Contractor Operated (GOCO) relationship and admonished Congress
and the Department to ``First, do no harm'' in implementing new
competition policies.
A main line of questions focused on by Rep. Biggert and
Rep. Davis was competition itself: Is it necessary and
beneficial when the contractor is performing well? Are there
enough capable entities to allow a successful competition? Mr.
Ehlers and Ms. Woolsey focused on the effect of competition on
the scientific staff, urging caution, with which Dr. Fleury and
Dr. McTague strongly agreed.

4.2(c)_Keeping the Lights On: Removing Barriers to Technology
to Prevent Blackouts

September 25, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-23

Background
On September 25, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing to examine the role of technology in preventing future
blackouts and the current economic, regulatory, and technical
barriers to improve reliability. The hearing also examined the
role of the Department of Energy's (DOE) newly established
Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD) in
enhancing the power grid's performance and reliability.
On August 14, 2003, the power went out for 50 million
Americans. While the precise sequence of events was not yet
known, overloading a portion of the Nation's transmission
system clearly played an important role that was possibly
compounded by human error and unclear lines of responsibility.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. James W.
Glotfelty, Director of the Office of Electric Transmission and
Distribution, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Mr. T.J.
Glauthier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Electricity Innovation Institute, Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI); (3) Mr. Thomas R. Casten, Chairman and CEO of
Private Power LLC; and (4) Dr. Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Laureate,
Professor of Economics and Law and the Director of the
Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science at George Mason
University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Biggert requested Mr. Casten give specific
examples of the difficulties his business has encountered in
trying to recycle waste heat from large industrial sources
(such as steel mills) because of restrictions in access to
local lines. Mr. Casten outlined a new pricing paradigm that
would reflect the costs of transmission as well as generation
to encourage distributed generation (DG). Mr. Glotfelty agreed
that distributed generation was important, but warned that even
if we optimistically assume we could meet 30 percent of our
electricity production needs through DG, we would still need
the grid to transmit 70 percent of our electricity. Mr.
Glauthier concurred, advocating ``smart grid'' technologies.
Rep. Lampson asked each of the panelists to identify the
three most important, currently available technologies that
would do the most for improving the reliability of the grid.
There was considerable consensus in the responses, which
emphasized the need for high capacity transmission lines, wide-
area measurement systems, microprocessor controls, and training
of operators in the use of these technologies. When the panel
was asked what was deterring efforts to upgrade the grid, they
explained that the difficulty lies mainly in cost, and
uncertainty relating to allocation of costs and benefits. The
wide-area measurement systems are difficult to deploy because
they entail sharing information across control areas, and this
causes some in the industry discomfort because of proprietary
concerns. Each of these technologies is already used to a
limited extent on the grid, but the panelists stressed the need
for wider deployment.

4.2(d)_What Are the Administration Priorities for Climate
Change Technology?

November 6, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-35

Background
On November 6, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing to examine the Administration's progress on its climate
change technology programs. On June 11, 2001, President Bush
announced the creation of two initiatives to address climate
change: the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to
address areas of scientific uncertainty, and the National
Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) to support applied
research and demonstration projects. At the working level, the
CCRI was to be headed by the Department of Commerce, and the
NCCTI was to be headed by the Department of Energy. The CCRI
has since been renamed the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), and NCCTI has since been renamed the Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP).
The Administration is significantly behind its own schedule
for developing a climate technology research and development
(R&D) report to the Congress. Meanwhile, the Administration has
been emphasizing three particular long-term R&D efforts as
climate-change related: International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), the Hydrogen program and a project
related to carbon sequestration. The focus on long-term
efforts, rather than more immediately realizable gains
available at no cost to the economy, is of concern to the
subcommittee. In addition, the project on carbon sequestration
raised fundamental policy and budget questions.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. David Conover,
Director of the interagency Climate Change Technology Program
(CCTP), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Mr. George Rudins,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and Power Systems, U.S.
DOE; (3) Dr. Sally Benson, Deputy Director for Operations,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); and (4) Dr.
Marilyn Brown, Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
Summary of Hearing
The morning of the hearing, DOE delivered a letter from
Under Secretary Card along with the first installment of their
climate change technologies report. Chairman Biggert asked Mr.
Conover to identify the Administration's near-term technology
priorities. Mr. Conover responded that the Administration had
robust funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs.
Dr. Brown testified about the potential of ``no regrets''
efforts at energy efficiency--investments that make sense even
if carbon emissions are not an issue--to contribute to carbon
emissions reductions. Mr. Rudins addressed the technical and
budget aspects of the Energy Department's plans for a carbon
sequestration experiment. Dr. Benson testified about the
technical challenges of storing large quantities of CO2
in geological formations.
Rep. Ehlers pressed Mr. Rudins about the energy penalty and
added costs associated with the capture, compression, and
storage of CO2 in the sequestration project. He
questioned Mr. Rudins statement that the added costs would be
only 10 percent, and suggested it would be closer to 30
percent. Mr. Ehlers noted that nuclear energy might produce
carbon-neutral electricity more economically once the costs of
capture, compression, and sequestration were included.
Rep. Gingrey asked Mr. Conover how the Administration
planned to reduce carbon intensity by 18 percent by 2012. Mr.
Conover pointed to voluntary programs, such as EPA's Climate
Leaders. Rep. Woolsey asked if voluntary commitments were
really sufficient. Dr. Benson replied that, based on
discussions with members of the oil and gas industry, voluntary
programs were not sufficient. Mr. Conover replied that, since
we don't know the long-term effects of climate change, we
should couple voluntary programs today with R&D to develop
options for the future.

4.2(e)_Review of Non-Oil and Gas Research Activities in the
Houston-Galveston-Gulf Coast Area

December 4, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-36

Background
On December 4, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
field hearing to review the extensive non-oil and gas energy
research that is being conducted in the Houston-Galveston-Gulf
Coast area. This part of Texas hosts the highest concentration
of the domestic oil and gas industry in the country. However,
the area research community is very diversified and has
extensive capabilities outside of the oil and gas sector. The
hearing outlined the scope of these activities and how current
research being conducted in the areas is contributing to
advances in energy conservation, efficiency and production.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Todd Mitchell,
President; Houston Advanced Research Center; (2) Dr. Richard
Smalley, University Professor, Director of the Carbon
Nanotechnology Lab, Rice University; (3) Dr. Mark Holtzapple,
Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M
University; (4) Robert (Bob) Hennekes, Vice President,
Technology Marketing, Shell Global Solutions; and (5) Dr.
Franklin Chang-Diaz, Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary of Hearing
The topics the panel discussed included nanotechnology and
``bucky tubes,'' coal gasification, biomass, and fusion power.
Chairman Biggert asked Dr. Smalley to describe his ideas for
sustainable energy into the future. Dr. Smalley explained local
storage as a crucial component of future electricity supply.
Dr. Chiang-Diaz from NASA spoke about the importance of science
education, and spoke briefly about the application of ITER
research to NASA projects and terrestrial technologies. He also
asked that Congress work to improve the coordination between
agencies. Others testified about public/private partnerships
and non-profit aid crossing the ``valley of death'' between
research and development and commercialization, about new
biomass techniques, and advanced combustion engines.

4.2(f)_Priorities in the Department of Energy Budget for Fiscal
Year 2005

March 24, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-50

Background
On March 24, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2005 budget
request. Five Department of Energy (DOE) witnesses reviewed the
proposed research and development (R&D) budgets and clarified
the President's energy-related science and technology
priorities.
The witness panel included: (1) Dr. James Decker, Principal
Deputy Director of the Office of Science, DOE; (2) Mr. David
Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), DOE; (3) Mr. Mark R. Maddox, acting Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, DOE; (4) Mr. William D. Magwood,
IV, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, DOE; and (5) Mr. James W. Glotfelty, Director of
Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution, DOE.
Summary of Hearing
In addition to budget priorities, the Members in attendance
at the hearing expressed interest in two issues that cut across
the five DOE offices represented: economic development, and
education in the physical sciences. Discussion is summarized by
office below the discussion of topics.
Economic Development
Mr. Larson asked the panelists about the accessibility of
their programs to industry. Mr. Decker said that the Office of
Science accepts unsolicited proposals from industry and
universities, and that companies often enter into contracts
with the national labs. Mr. Garman described efforts to be
accessible to industry through the Internet and highlighted the
FreedomCAR Initiative. He noted this partnership involves both
large businesses (the auto makers) and small businesses
(automotive supply companies).
Mrs. Biggert asked Mr. Decker to describe how access to a
leadership class computing system could give American
businesses a competitive edge. Mr. Decker responded that such
machines enable companies to greatly reduce their pre-
production costs through advanced simulations known as
``virtual prototyping.''
Education and Workforce
Larson presented the idea of founding an ``energy corps,''
to encourage students to enter fields important to the energy
needs of the country. In response to a question from Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Decker commented that the shortage of U.S.
citizens entering the physical sciences is significant but he
was encouraged that enrollment in physics is up this year. Mr.
Garman talked about the Future Truck program and the
opportunity provided to students in vehicle engineering.
Budget Priorities
Mrs. Biggert asked each of the panelists how they would
trim their budget if the $750 million for Yucca Mountain is not
approved as a stand-alone budget item and has to come off of
the top of the E&W appropriations. Garman and Magwood said they
would suggest that appropriators first look to earmarks for
cutting budgets.
EERE
Dr. Ehlers commented to Mr. Garman on how the EERE budget
is going down 4.7 percent, and down 9.9 percent if the Hydrogen
FreedomCAR is excluded. Garman conceded that energy efficiency
programs had been reduced, and that the Administration made a
deliberate decision to fund weatherization programs in lieu of
energy efficiency R&D.
Science
Dr. Ehlers also asked about the status of the Rare Isotope
Accelerator (RIA) project. Mrs. Biggert asked Mr. Decker what
he would do with an increase over his budget request. He said
they would push to use their existing facilities at 100 percent
capacity, which are at 95 percent overall now.
Mrs. Biggert asked about the 20-year plan and what DOE
would do if not fully funded. Decker said the FY05 budget
allowed them to start five projects, and the question is one of
balance. She asked which of the facilities would be hurt most
by delays in funding. Decker said RIA is the largest project,
at about $1 billion, and that DOE would delay construction of
RIA.
Nuclear
Magwood said he would protect university programs and
support to students in nuclear technology fields. Mrs. Biggert
turned to infrastructure costs, and asked why nuclear R&D was
cut to support infrastructure costs formerly borne by
Environmental Management. Magwood said that the nuclear R&D
programs were cut for independent reasons and were not offsets
for the transition costs of the new lab. Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative was decreased, for example, because they had made a
decision not to pursue a commercial scale demonstration of the
developed technologies.
Mr. Larson noted that the country has been wary of nuclear
power. Magwood said that there are 103 nuclear power plants
operating in the U.S. today, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has indicated all of these plants will probably be
re-licensed.
Fossil
Dr. Ehlers asked Mr. Maddox why so much money is set aside
for FutureGen, when other projects are cut. Maddox said it was
important for industry to see that the government's part of the
money for FutureGen is on the table, a necessity for getting
industry to buy-in.
Electrical Transmission and Distribution
In response to questions from Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Glotfelty
described GridWise and GridWorks as programs that work with
industry to develop technologies to increase resilience of the
grid. Mr. Ehlers observed that the blackout last summer was not
just a technology failure, but also a system management
failure. Mr. Ehlers suggested that regional planning alone was
not sufficient.
Fuel Cells
Mrs. Biggert asked why distributed generation funding was
cut, given the importance of fuel cells to the hydrogen
economy. Maddox said the reason was that the technologies that
had been under development in that program, like solid oxide
fuel cells, had matured. He also noted that the program was
discontinued so those technologies could transition over to
private sector products. Garman responded that the issue of
when to transition a technology out of the lab and into the
marketplace is difficult. He noted that stationary fuel cells
are in the market today and are used by electricity users who
demand extreme reliability.

4.2(g)_The Impact of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy R&D Programs

May 19, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-59

Background
On May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
to examine the potential contribution of energy efficiency and
renewable energy to the Nation's energy needs. The hearing
focused on the contributions of the renewable energy and
efficiency research and development (R&D) programs at the
Department of Energy.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Steven Nadel,
Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE); (2) Mr. Paul Konove, President of
Carolina Country Builders of Chatham County Inc.; (3) Ms.
Vivian Loftness, Head of the School of Architecture at
Carnegie-Mellon University; (4) Mr. John B. Carberry, Director
of Environmental Technology for the DuPont Company in
Wilmington, Delaware; (5) Mr. Peter Smith, President of the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA);
and (6) Mr. Daniel L. Sosland, Executive Director of
Environment Northeast.
Summary of Hearing
Although some testimony covered energy efficiency and
renewable energy topics more broadly, the majority of the
discussion was centered around energy efficiency in the
building sector. Paul Konove, a North Carolina home builder
specializing in custom solar design and construction, spoke
about the need for better coordination among federal agencies
(including the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection
Agency, and Housing and Urban Development) that sponsored
outreach programs to builders. There were several back and
forth discussions about the possibility of an energy extension
service, similar to the agricultural extension service, which
would interface with consumers, suppliers, and homebuilders.
Vivian Loftness, who chairs the School of Architecture at
Carnegie-Mellon University, explained that some aspects of
``green'' building design (such as day-lighting and natural
ventilation) could yield benefits in both energy efficiency and
occupant productivity and health. She cited studies showing
that increased use of daylight in buildings improved worker
productivity and student learning. She also cited studies
correlating increased natural ventilation with lower
absenteeism due to sickness. She noted that neither the
National Institutes of Health nor the National Science
Foundation have lines in their mandates to support research in
building design, which makes getting funding for healthy-
building design research difficult.
Peter Smith of NYSERDA advocated federal standards for
building efficiency that would ``level the playing field''
across states, but would also allow states flexibility in how
they would implement the standards. He said that the State
governments need to lead by example, and New York State has
done so by establishing a fund to bring building energy
specialists into State buildings for energy audits and
retrofits. Having a dedicated fund has meant that State
agencies don't need to divert money from their regular budgets
to improve the energy efficiencies of their buildings.
Mrs. Biggert asked the panel what could be done to get
people more interested in ``green'' building construction. Mr.
Sosland described the need to educate the entire ``supply
chain'' of individuals involved in building construction--
architects, material suppliers, builders, contractors, and home
owners. Mr. Smith said that New York has been successful in
this area because it has coupled a media campaign on energy
efficient buildings with a certification program for
contractors.
In the second round of questions, Mrs. Biggert asked the
panel to identify the biggest opportunity--the biggest ``bang
for the buck''--in the energy efficiency and renewable energy
area. Five of the six witnesses cited the need for federal
building and appliance efficiency standards. Mr. Carberry of
DuPont sited the need for policies to lessen natural gas price
volatility.
Mr. Boehlert asked the panel to try to quantify the cost of
a 10 percent cut in energy efficiency R&D, and after they
answered asked them to take the time to craft a response for
the record. Mr. Smith responded that they leverage eight to ten
dollars of private sector investment for every dollar invested
through their program, and suggested using this multiplier to
estimate the lost investment. Mr. Carberry noted that the
biggest cost was likely to be lost momentum, and that
rebuilding the momentum would likely take a decade.

4.2(h)_An Examination of H.R. 3890, A Bill to Reauthorize the
Metals Program at the Department of Energy

May 20, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-61

Background
On May 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
to examine H.R. 3890, a bill to reauthorize energy efficiency
research and development (R&D) at the Department of Energy
(DOE) to support the domestic metals industry.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Douglas L.
Faulkner, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy; (2) Mr.
Richard A. Shulkosky, Vice President for Sales, Marketing, and
Product Development, INTEG Process Group; (3) Ms. Lisa A.
Roudabush, General Manager of Research, United States Steel
Corporation; and (4) Dr. Ronald Sutherland, Consulting
Economist and Adjunct Professor of Law, George Mason University
School of Law.
Summary of Hearing
The DOE metals efficiency R&D program was originally
authorized by the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and
Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 and reauthorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. H.R. 3890 reauthorizes the Metals
Initiative through Fiscal Year 2009, and makes minor
modifications to current law including provisions to: consider
the potential of emission-reducing technologies during research
planning; repeal an inactive program at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology; and reinstate a provision
requiring an annual report to the President and Congress.
Chairman Biggert correlated energy efficiency to remaining
competitive and keeping production costs low. She also noted
that reducing energy use leads to lower emissions, greenhouse
gases, and an overall increased energy security. Ranking
Minority Member John Larson commended the Metals R&D Program at
DOE for ensuring that U.S. manufacturers remain leaders in the
world.
Douglas Faulkner characterized the program as a
collaborative, cost-sharing venture that brings together
public-private research by using the metals industry, the DOE
national labs, universities, and states. According to Faulkner,
the U.S. steel industry consumes about two quadrillion BTUs of
energy per year, which accounts for approximately two percent
of all U.S. energy consumption, an energy cost amounting to
about 15 percent of the total manufacturing costs for steel.
Lisa Roudabush further endorsed reauthorization legislation
sponsored by Representative Melissa Hart, saying that the
Metals Initiative is the only federal program that cites
competitive advantage as a goal. Roudabush explained that
developments such as Advanced High Strength Steels can be
attributed to the program.
Energy efficiency in the U.S. metals industry was
highlighted by Members of the Committee as a policy priority,
and was linked to competitiveness. The Administration did not
take a position on the bill, but it did not oppose continued
funding.

4.2(i)_Nuclear R&D and the Idaho National Laboratory

June 24, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-64

Background
On June 24, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) plan to establish
the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in 2005 as the lead federal
laboratory for nuclear energy research and development (R&D).
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. William D.
Magwood, IV, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology (NE), DOE; (2) Dr. Alan Waltar, Director of
Nuclear Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL);
(3) Dr. Robert Long, President of Nuclear Stewardship, LLC; and
(4) Dr. Andrew Klein, Chair of Nuclear Engineering Department,
Oregon State University.
Summary of Hearing
The purpose of the hearing was to examine DOE's plans to
establish the INL in 2005 as the lead federal laboratory for
nuclear energy R&D. In general, all witnesses supported the
establishment of INL as a lead lab for nuclear research, but
felt that it was also necessary to maintain current nuclear
energy R&D capabilities (personnel and facilities) at other
national labs. Witnesses (except Mr. Magwood) also testified
that increased and sustained funding for NE was necessary to
maintain a viable NE R&D program and to make INL a world-class
lab within 10 years (a stated DOE goal). Most witnesses
concurred that INL should be a multi-purpose lab with a focus
on nuclear R&D, but with capabilities in complementary areas
(e.g., cleanup, materials science, software development).
Witnesses also agreed that public education was key to
increasing the viability of nuclear technologies. Member
questions focused on funding, Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste
issues, and the current and future role of nuclear technologies
in the economy, including a potential hydrogen-based economy.
Mr. Magwood testified that DOE had not made a final
decision to construct a Next Generation Nuclear Plan (NGNP),
nor decided that it would be located at INL. He suggested that
the NGNP, at a total cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion,
would be an operating, proof-of-concept pilot plant. He also
stated that the project would be 50 percent cost-shared
(including both private sector and international partner
contributions). Mr. Magwood acknowledged a $90 million
maintenance backlog at the Idaho laboratory complex (which
includes the Idaho National Engineering and Environment
Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory West--combined,
the new INL) as described in a recent report of the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC). He indicated that
the Department would address the backlog over a period of
years.
Dr. Waltar stressed that national security and
environmental concerns due to fossil fuel use should lead
policy-makers to increased support for nuclear energy.
Responding to questions on the waste issue from Ms. Woolsey and
Mr. Bartlett, Dr. Waltar noted that there are ways to reduce
the volume and half-life of nuclear waste products, and even to
use them in value-added ways (e.g., to irradiate food or
produce medical isotopes).
Dr. Long mentioned the importance of an active and
independent review process of DOE's efforts in planning for INL
and for all the labs conducting nuclear energy R&D. He
testified that such a review process should be independent and
more active than NERAC. He believed that in light of the
current strains to our nation's resources, DOE and Office of
Management and Budget would need to make ``major changes'' in
the way in which DOE resources would be allocated to fund the
INL.
Dr. Klein testified that he believed NE's budget was
``totally inadequate'' and that DOE's plan to make more funding
available to NE as cleanups conducted by DOE's Environmental
Management program wind down is ``overly optimistic.'' He also
noted that the Jet Propulsion Lab is a good model of a world-
class lab that INL could emulate. He stated that the next few
years were particularly critical for the development of the
INL, and stressed that the program would require significant
funding increases to gain world-class status.

4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

4.3(a)_Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Strengthening the
Science

March 13, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-8

Background
On March 13, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards held a hearing on harmful algal blooms
and hypoxia. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur in aquatic
environments when conditions trigger an increase in the
abundance of plankton that produces toxins detrimental to
aquatic life and to humans. HABs have been estimated to cost
the U.S. economy as much as $50 million per year due to closure
of fisheries and beaches and treatment of human illness from
exposure to toxins. Hypoxia, caused by the decomposition of
algal blooms (although not necessarily by a harmful algal
bloom), is a condition where oxygen levels in an aquatic
environment have been depleted to levels unable to support
marine life. As such it disrupts the food webs that support
fish and shellfish growth and causes economic and ecological
damage of its own. The Subcommittee reviewed the research
provisions of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA) as it looked to reauthorize
HABHRCA, which expired in 2001.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Donald Scavia,
Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (2) Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director,
United States Geological Survey (3) Dr. Wayne Carmichael,
Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology, Department of
Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (4)
Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts; and (5) Mr.
Dan Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Scavia began the hearing by providing an overview of
the accomplishments of HABHRCA and two programs funded under
NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program:

The Act facilitated the development of an
action plan to address hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
and assessment of the problem of harmful algal blooms
nationwide.

Research sponsored by the Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) project
has yielded valuable data about the formation of
blooms, which has been applied to developing models for
forecasting and tracking blooms.

Research from the Monitoring and Event
Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program has
led to the development of new tools to provide early
warnings about harmful algae and their toxins to state
and tribal monitoring programs.

Dr. Groat testified about the challenges researchers face
in developing useful modeling and monitoring techniques for the
Mississippi River Basin:

Water quality data on the region is gathered
by U.S.G.S. and state agencies. There are
inconsistencies in how the data is collected and
reported that make it less useful than it could be for
developing models.

Additional watershed level monitoring
research would provide better data for modeling and
help inform control strategies.

Ongoing research efforts in the Basin and
Gulf of Mexico have been pared down as resources became
tighter, so some data for modeling is becoming limited.

Dr. Carmichael provided testimony on the impacts of
freshwater HABs, including their possible effects on humans and
in the food web:

There is an emerging link between invasive
species and the emergence of new blooms in the Great
Lakes, because the invasive organisms tend to select
the toxic algae to grow.

Increased hypoxia is also occurring in the
Great Lakes, likely due to the invasive species
altering nutrient dynamics in the lake.

A coordinated federal, academic and private
effort to address freshwater HABs is needed.

Dr. Anderson showed that algal blooms have increased in
range and occurrence in the past thirty years and gave an
overview on the research agenda for marine HABs, including what
has been learned so far:

Several algal species, which cause paralytic
shellfish poisoning episodes, have been identified and
mapped near the Gulf of Maine, and the toxic cycles
that they initiate have been identified.

Probes that electronically or chemically
detect HAB cells of interest are being developed to be
deployed on buoys and eventually help make HAB
forecasts.

Support for HABHRCA and ECOHAB will continue
to allow researchers to develop these and other tools,
and to perform research on alleviating the impacts of
algal blooms. Funding for research should be new and
separate for marine and freshwater research.

Increased funding for partnership programs at
the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences and NSF would be beneficial.

Mr. Ayres testified about his experiences as a fishery
manager responsible for monitoring domoic acid in razor clam
and Dungeness crab fisheries exposed to algal blooms, and his
interactions with various government and economic stakeholders
in the State of Washington:

Funding from the MERHAB program has allowed
the Department of Fish and Wildlife to set up a
plankton monitoring program in conjunction with their
current shellfish tissue testing program, which helps
to provide advanced notice of problems to State and
tribal fishery managers.

Another MERHAB grant assists members of the
Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom (ORHAB) project, to
develop detection technologies and test kits and
perform plankton identification training programs.

Additional technologies that could predict
algal blooms would be most valuable to him as a state
fishery manager; so that he could shift harvesting
seasons and lessen the impact of harvesting closures on
the local economies.

4.3(b)_Transportation Research and Development: Investing in
the Future

April 10, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-10

Background
On April 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing on Research and
Development (R&D) priorities for the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
funded a wide range of transportation R&D programs conducted by
the Federal Government, states, universities and the private
sector. The hearing examined the state of the current R&D
programs, how well they are meeting the goals laid out in TEA-
21, and whether there are significant gaps in our R&D programs.
In addition, the hearing investigated how the Department of
Transportation (DOT) can improve the quality of the R&D it
funds, and measure the success of individual R&D projects, R&D
programs, as well as the transportation system as a whole.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Emil Frankel,
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department
of Transportation; (2) Mr. Eric Harm, Deputy Director, Division
of Highways, Illinois Department of Transportation; (3) Dr.
Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair, University
of Texas at Austin Department of Civil Engineering; (4) Ms.
Kate Siggerud, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team,
General Accounting Office; (5) Ms. Anne Canby, President,
Surface Transportation Policy Project; and (6) Dr. Michael
Meyer, Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Summary of the Hearing
Mr. Frankel opened the hearing with a summary of the
achievements of the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) R&D
programs under Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),
pavement improvements and safety-related behavioral research.
Mr. Frankel added that these achievements and innovations are
built upon in the Administration's surface transportation
reauthorization in order to extend the concept of ``smart
transportation'' to the entire surface transportation sector.
Mr. Harm discussed the State of Illinois' perspective on
the federal research program, and described how the State
applies federally funded research. He stressed the importance
of long-term research and the results research will provide in
a 10-to-20 year timeframe. He also suggested the need for
research to look at alternative ways of moving people and goods
and addressed how to increase intermodal efficiency, as
outlined in the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendations.
Dr. Walton testified about the organization and
accomplishments of the Future Strategic Highway Research
Program (F-SHRP) and the ITS Program. He outlined the goals of
these research programs, and suggested that improvements can be
made in distributing ITS deployment funding. He believes that
changing how the program is funded, and overcoming several non-
technical barriers, will allow for many new technologies to be
transferred to the marketplace. Dr. Walton also suggested that
Congress should mandate the creation of a national strategic
plan for highway transportation research and development to
more effectively utilize federal resources.
Ms. Siggerud discussed a General Accounting Office (GAO)
report that evaluated the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA's) implementation of research management practices issued
last year. The report recommended an increase in stakeholder
participation by consulting with external parties when
developing research agendas, and called for using a systematic
approach to evaluate ongoing and completed research. FHWA is in
the process of implementing these suggestions. Ms. Siggerud
stated that FHWA's draft proposals have taken the
recommendations into account, but could still more effectively
manage federal highway research dollars.
Ms. Canby focused on a broad array of issues to be
considered within a comprehensive research agenda and called
for the creation of a metropolitan planning and research
program that would parallel existing state research programs.
She also discussed the need to fill data gaps within intermodal
research and to address other key trends, such as the needs of
an aging population and the increase in household
transportation costs.
Dr. Meyer outlined several demographic and social trends
that will impact the transportation system. These trends
include the concentration of people within metropolitan areas,
and an aging population traveling on non-peak hours and
utilizing more public transportation. He stated that research
is necessary in order to plan for these emerging trends, and
outlined a potential research program that would be run through
the Transportation Research Board. He also identified criteria
for evaluating research programs.
Chairman Ehlers asked a series of specific questions to the
panel: Do we invest enough in surface transportation R&D?
Should we increase research funding relative to total
transportation funding? Is the current funding balanced between
different areas of research?
All of the witnesses, with the exception of Mr. Frankel,
stated that research is under-funded and that research funding
should increase proportionately in the total transportation
funding pool. Ms. Canby and Dr. Meyer stressed that the
efficiencies and products of the program pay for themselves.
Dr. Frankel asserted that there can always be more funding, but
he believed funding levels were adequate. He also noted that it
is difficult to calculate the return on investment for
transportation research and development.
As to the question of balance, the witnesses agreed that
improvements could be made. Dr. Meyer, Ms. Canby and Dr. Harm
all stressed the need for more funding for policy research,
intermodal research and human factors research. Mr. Harm noted
that while transportation R&D has been very good at developing
new materials, he would like to see more multidisciplinary
research yield more innovative transportation policy. Dr.
Walton and Mr. Frankel stated that the DOT needed a strategic
vision for research and that out of this vision; a better
balance in research funding would emerge. Mr. Frankel
acknowledged that it is difficult to secure funding for policy
research within the Office of the Secretary when there are so
many programs seeking resources.

4.3(c)_Manufacturing R&D: How Can the Federal Government Help?

June 5, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-11

Background
On June 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to review the most
serious problems facing U.S. manufacturing with a particular
focus on federal research, development, and technical
assistance programs.
Manufacturers are raising concerns that the United States
is losing its competitive advantage in manufacturing
technology, and that this will contribute to permanent job
losses to oversees competition. The manufacturing community,
industry analysts, and economists believe that significant,
extensive changes are afoot in the manufacturing sector beyond
the effects of the recent recession. Although U.S. firms,
particularly the small and medium-sized manufacturers, cannot
compete with the wage differential in many foreign countries,
they can compete through factors influenced by the application
of technology, knowledge, and skills. There are federal
programs designed to help firms develop these capacities.
Although effective, the funding levels of these programs have
been controversial.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Thomas Eagar,
Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering
Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA;
(2) Larry Rhoades, President, Extrude Hone Corporation, Irwin,
PA; (3) Herman Reininga, Senior Vice President, Special
Projects, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA; (4) Jay Dunwell,
President, Wolverine Coil Spring, Grand Rapids, MI; and (5)
Jason Farmer, Director of Research and Development, Light
Photonics Corp., Vancouver, WA.
Summary of Hearing
Each of the witnesses offered their own testimonials to the
changing business cycles in U.S. manufacturing. Mr. Eagar began
by arguing that the U.S. industrial sector is not necessarily
in a `crisis;' it is in a transition period similar to the
transformation from farming to manufacturing at the end of the
19th Century. He argued that for the U.S. to retain a vibrant
manufacturing sector it must rely on technology to develop new
methods of high-value manufacturing, rather than relying on
mature commodity-producing industries that must compete on
price in world markets. Mr. Eagar strongly believed that
educating the workforce was the foundation upon which such a
technology-driven strategy would depend.
Mr. Rhoades began his testimony by discussing the U.S.
advantages in production: capital and innovation. He believed
the U.S. lacks a coordinated national program for promoting
manufacturing and that existing federal programs, such as MEP
and ATP, should be expanded and strengthened. Furthermore, Mr.
Rhoades advocated substantially expanded support for the
defense manufacturing industry.
Mr. Reininga began with an overview on the current status
of the avionics industry and how it has been adjusting to
economic circumstances. With a reduced number of aircraft being
produced, Rockwell Collins has noted that suppliers are having
difficulty making the financial and operational adjustments to
a smaller market. Mr. Reninga advocated the industrial
transformation supported in part through a consortium of
companies called the Defense Manufacturing Technology Program,
which reported on ways to increase manufacturing productivity
and competitiveness. Mr. Reininga also presented a report
produced by the National Association for Manufacturers that
detailed the need for a high-level official within the federal
administration to address manufacturing issues to coordinate
resources and serve as a advocate for the industry.
Mr. Dunwell testified on the challenges to small
manufacturers and the efforts of the Manufacturing Council,
supported by the MEP program, to assist these manufacturers to
maintain their competitiveness. He discussed how his company
has continually improved its manufacturing processes to become
a more efficient and competitive supplier to the auto industry,
yet is still losing business to Asian manufacturers. Mr.
Dunwell believed that federal programs, like the MEP, are
critical for providing infrastructure support to smaller
manufacturers and, by doing so, encourage innovation.
Mr. Farmer presented testimony about funding that bridges
the ``valley of death''--the funding gap that exists between
applied research and the development of new products. He said
that the sophisticated manufacturing technologies in which the
U.S. has a natural advantage required a longer development
period and significant investment before yielding returns. The
Small Business Innovation Research program assists with the
commercialization of these types of technology and provides the
infrastructure for long-term development. Mr. Farmer's company
was able to translate technology derived from U.S. basic
research into business application and used the SBIR program to
negotiate the intermediate development phase and eventually
raise venture capital to commercialize it fully.
Several witnesses drew attention to the fact that the U.S.
lacks a coordinated federal program for promoting investment in
manufacturing projects, and that overall industrial R&D is
being shifted from long-term research to more short-term,
directed projects.

4.3(d)_NOAA Satellites: Will Weather Forecasting Be Put at
Risk?

July 15, 2003

Hearing Volume 108-19

Background
On July 15, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards held a hearing to examine satellite
programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). NOAA procures and operates the Nation's environmental
monitoring satellites, which provide raw data and processed
data products to the National Weather Service (NWS), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the public for weather
forecasting and prediction. NOAA performs these duties through
its line office, the National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service (NESDIS). NOAA is in the final
preparation stages (and has awarded the prime contract) for the
new National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS), which has a lifetime (23 years) cost of $6.5
billion. While NOAA is the lead agency, NPOESS is a tri-agency
effort among NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and DOD to combine and integrate the
polar satellite needs and capabilities of all three agencies.
The procurement cost is shared equally between NOAA and DOD.
Given the tremendous cost and important mission of NOAA's
environmental satellites, the Subcommittee will be providing
continuous oversight of this project.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Gregory Withee,
Assistant Administrator for National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; (2) Mr. Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air
Force and Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space; (3)
Mr. David Powner, Acting Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, General Accounting Office; (4) Mr. Wes Bush,
President, Northrop Grumman Space Technology, the prime
contractor for NPOESS; and (5) Dr. Ronald McPherson, Executive
Director, American Meteorological Society, former Director of
the National Weather Service's National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP).
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Withee provided testimony on NOAA's mission to provide
weather and climate information to the Nation, and how NOAA
will ensure the NPOESS satellite data and data products are
properly maintained, archived, and distributed.

The Nation is accruing substantial benefits
from NOAA's satellite systems in terms of saving life,
property, and environmental monitoring; NOAA
anticipates NPOESS will add to these benefits.

The current Polar-orbiting Operational
Satellite (POES) is performing well and NOAA
anticipates the first NPOESS satellite will be ready
for launch in late 2009.

If the last POES satellite fails there would
be a 21-month gap in polar satellite coverage until the
first NPOESS satellite is ready for launch. In the
interim, NOAA would be forced to rely on the only
available polar satellite at the time, the European
METOP satellite.

Mr. Teets provided testimony on DOD's mission of providing
weather and climate information to the military, and how DOD
will ensure the NPOESS satellite data and data products can be
properly maintained, archived, and distributed.

The Department of Defense fully recognizes
the importance of continuous global weather forecasting
ability and believes that NPOESS will support improved
weather forecasting worldwide.

The first NPOESS satellite is scheduled for
launch in 2010, in the meantime the DOD has five of its
own satellites that will be launched every two years.
The DOD is confident in its current and future
capability to predict worldwide weather to serve the
military's needs.

The DOD believes that it is important to keep
on the current NPOESS budget schedule.

Mr. Powner outlined the preliminary findings of the General
Accounting Office concerning the merging of NOAA and DOD's
satellite programs and the potential gaps in coverage due to
delays in launching the first NPOESS satellite.

The joint NOAA and DOD satellite program is
faced with significant risks that must be effectively
addressed to keep the program on track.

Key sensor development efforts have
experienced cost increases, schedule delays, and
performance shortfalls.

At the same time, the Administration has
decreased near-term funding levels for NPOESS.
Originally, the NPOESS program was scheduled to be
ready to launch its first satellite as a backup should
the final launch of POES or the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (DMSP) fail.

As a result of funding decreases, the first
NPOESS satellite will not be ready for launch until 21
months after it is needed to back up the final POES
satellite, so there could be a gap in coverage if the
last POES satellite fails.

Mr. Bush offered testimony about how the near-term funding
decrease for NPOESS will affect Northrop Grumman's ability to
follow the plan outlined in its contract.

Northrop Grumman is responsible for the
overall system design, integration, and performance of
NPOESS, as well as development of three sensors.

After Northrop Grumman learned of the cut in
the Administration's budget, it was decided to
reschedule the NPOESS launch to preserve the launch
schedule for the NPOESS Preparatory Project and to
avoid reducing NPOESS capabilities.

The budget reduction will force Northrop
Grumman to reorganize the entire team working on the
program and reallocate the 32,000 tasks laid out in the
original plan. This will also create staffing problems
in other programs. This reprogramming reduces the cost
effectiveness of the program.

The budget reduction will delay the
availability of NPOESS by 21 months.

Dr. McPherson provided testimony on how NPOESS data is used
in weather forecasting, as well as what effect a 21-month loss
in polar satellite coverage would have on users of polar
satellite data.

Polar-orbital data has made a significant
contribution to the climate record and has increased
the National Weather Services' forecasting capabilities
from three to seven days.

A gap in the availability of polar-orbital
data will create gaps in the climate record.

A gap could make three to seven day and
severe weather forecasts very difficult.

The country is very dependent on weather
forecasts made possible by polar-orbited data. If that
data is interrupted the impact could be very serious,
especially for severe weather predictions such as
hurricanes.

4.3(e)_What Is Space Weather and Who Should Forecast It?

October 30, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-31

Background
On October 30, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards held a hearing to examine the space
weather activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Space Environment Center. The Space
Environment Center (SEC) provides real-time monitoring and
forecasting of solar and geophysical events. These events can:
cause damage to communication satellites, electric transmission
lines and electric transformers; interfere in ground-based
communications with airline pilots; be fatal to astronauts on
space flights and in the International Space Station; and
potentially harm airplane passengers flying polar routes. SEC
forecasts are used by the U.S. military, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NOAA itself, and
by the industries mentioned above. For example, on October 22,
2003, the SEC released two-day advanced warnings about an
unusually large solar storm, which allowed electrical
utilities, airlines, and spacecraft managers to take preventive
action to minimize disruption of services due to the storm.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Ernest Hildner,
Director, Space Environment Center, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado; (2) Col. Charles
L. Benson Jr., Commander, Air Force Weather Agency, Offutt Air
Force Base, Nebraska; (3) Dr. John M. Grunsfeld, Chief
Scientist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (4)
Mr. John Kappenman, Manager, Applied Power Systems, Metatech
Corporation, Duluth, Minnesota; (5) Mr. Hank Krakowski, Vice
President of Corporate Safety, Quality Assurance, and Security,
United Airlines, Chicago, Illinois; and (6) Dr. Robert
Hedinger, Executive Vice President, Loral Skynet, Bedminster,
New Jersey
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Hildner provided the Committee an overview of NOAA's
Center, and discussed the science of space weather:

The SEC monitors, predicts, and forecasts
conditions in the space environment and provides
critical space weather data to a variety of government
and commercial customers. It is the Nation's unique
provider of this real-time information, which is vital
to the Nation's economic, national, and homeland
security.

Space weather is defined as Conditions on the
sun and in the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere,
and thermosphere that can influence the performance of
space-borne and ground-based technological systems and
can endanger human health. The direct global economic
impact of space weather has been estimated, very
conservatively, at $200 million annually.

If the budget for the SEC is below the
President's request of $8 million there will be
dramatic consequences for the SEC and the services that
it provides.

The recent radiation and geomagnetic storms
clearly illustrate the Nation's need for accurate,
reliable, and timely space weather forecasting. The
International Space Station, airlines, nuclear power
plants, and satellites were all affected by the recent
space weather events.

Col. Benson gave the Committee an overview of the Air Force
space weather services provided through the Air Force Weather
Agency (AFWA), and its relationship with NOAA's SEC:

AFWA and the SEC operate complementary space
weather forecasting centers. AFWA is responsible for
military and national intelligence support while the
SEC supports civilian and commercial users. AFWA and
the SEC have a close working relationship that allows
them to leverage responsibility and share costs.

AFWA relies on the SEC for real-time data
relay and processing, partial backup, and expertise.
AFWA uses SEC data and forecasts to provide military
war fighters and Department of Defense (DOD) decision
makers with mission-tailored space weather impact
products.

If the funding were cut to the SEC, the AFWA
would face significant challenges if it were forced to
assume the SEC's responsibilities. There would also be
concerns as to whether it would be feasible for a
military network to provide services to commercial
interests.

Dr. Grunsfeld explained to the Committee how NASA uses data
and products from the SEC and how space weather affects NASA
operations:

NASA uses SEC forecasts to make decisions
regarding data collection, spacecraft operation and
design, and for scheduling launches.

Space weather can have adverse impacts on
spacecraft and satellite operations by disrupting their
orientation, reducing their lifetime and degrading
communications and Global Positioning System signals.
It affects the health of astronauts in orbit by
increasing the intensity of the near-Earth radiation
environment.

If the funding were cut to SEC, NASA would
face significant challenges if it were forced to assume
the SEC's responsibilities. There would also be
concerns as to whether it would be feasible for NASA to
provide services to commercial interests.

Mr. Kappenman provided testimony on how space weather could
affect electric power grid systems, and how the power industry
uses data and products from NOAA's SEC:

A space weather event can cause a widespread
electric power system collapse, leaving 100 million
people without electricity. Solar storms in the past
have caused the shutdown of numerous grids across the
northern United States and Canada.

Power grid operators depend greatly on SEC
forecasts, without them operators would have no warning
and would not be able to intervene or take precautions
before experiencing the harmful effects of a storm.

Mr. Krakaowski provided an overview of how space weather
can affect airline operations, and how the airline industry
uses data and products from NOAA's SEC:

When flying northern polar routes, space
weather activity can disrupt communications and
navigation, and be dangerous to crew and passenger
health. Information provided by the SEC allows airlines
to take timely action to mitigate these risks.

NOAA's SEC is a transparent and customer-
oriented partner with the airlines.

The SEC function is critical to the airlines
and could not be preformed by the airlines themselves,
due to the unique and complicated nature of the space
environment. A reduction in funding to the SEC could
cripple polar flight service by the airline industry.

Dr. Hedinger explained to the Committee how space weather
could affect satellite operations, and how the satellite
industry uses data and products form NOAA's SEC:

Space weather events put critical
telecommunications services and significant commercial
investments at risk.

Electrostatic discharges can cause temporary
or permanent damage to on board satellite equipment.

SEC forecasting allows the satellite industry
to prepare themselves for solar events that could be
detrimental to the spacecraft.

The satellite industry could not survive
without the data provided by the SEC.

4.3(f)_Mercury Emissions: State of the Science and Technology

November 5, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-34

Background
On November 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing on the state of the
science and technology regarding mercury emissions from coal-
fired power plants. The Subcommittee heard testimony on the
health effects of mercury, the transport and fate of mercury in
the environment, and the technologies that are being developed
to control mercury emissions from power plants.
The hearing addressed several overarching questions. What
do we know about the relationship between mercury exposure from
fish consumption and adverse human health effects? To what
extent is mercury deposition in the environment local,
regional, or global? What do we know about how different kinds
of mercury become available in the environment in a manner that
can adversely affect human health? Is there a difference
between new and old mercury and between anthropogenic and
naturally produced mercury? What technologies are available or
being developed to control mercury pollution from power plants?
What do we know about the effectiveness and cost of these
technologies?
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Thomas Burke,
Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Health Policy and
Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health; (2) Dr. David Krabbenhoft, Research Scientist, United
States Geological Survey; (3) Dr. George Offen, Senior
Technical Leader, Air Emission and Byproduct Management,
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); and (4) Mr. Ken
Colburn, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM).
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Burke began the hearing by providing an overview of the
National Research Council panel's findings on the relationship
between low-dose mercury exposure and adverse human health
effects:

The panel evaluated the scientific evidence
from animal and human studies and focused on three
major epidemiological studies. Two of these studies
(Faroe Islands and New Zealand) found adverse health
effects from mercury exposure and one of them
(Seychelles) found no effect. In evaluating the overall
weight of the evidence, the panel based their
recommendations on the findings from the studies
showing adverse health effects. The Committee focused
its analysis on the most vulnerable sub-population,
unborn children. They found that there might be as many
as 60,000 unborn children each year at elevated risk of
adverse effects from mercury due to their mothers'
exposure.

The recent update of the Seychelles study,
which still shows no effect, would not have changed the
Committee's conclusion that there is a strong public
health basis for the current Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) reference dose. New studies have also
raised concerns about potential cardiovascular effects
due to mercury exposure.

Dr. Krabbenhoft gave a general overview of the science
behind mercury fate and transport in the environment:

Human activities have increased the amount of
mercury cycling in the environment by a factor of about
three to five times above pre-industrial times.

The source of mercury at any particular
location can vary widely. If the location is remote
global sources dominate, however in settings near an
emission source the local contributors are likely more
important.

Mercury that has been in the environment for
longer periods of time is less likely to become
methylated and be incorporated in the food web than
``new'' mercury that has not been in the environment
for a long time.

Studies have shown that when mercury
emissions are reduced in areas near contaminated sites,
the mercury levels in fish is also lower. However, the
recovery time can range from years to decades.

Research is needed to further the
understanding of how the chemical forms of mercury
react in the environment once emitted from the utility,
as well as what factors control the reaction of
ecosystems to mercury contamination.

Dr. Offen provided testimony about the control technologies
used at utilities to reduce mercury pollution:

On average power plants see about a 40
percent reduction in mercury emissions from their
current emissions control devices (used to control NOX
and SO2). This number can vary widely over
time and between sites. It is primarily dependent on
the type of coal burned (and especially its chlorine
content), and the air pollution control devices used at
the plant.

As far as the development of new
technologies, there is an effort underway by the power
industry as well as Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA
to better understand the impact on mercury emissions
from selective catalytic reduction for NOX control and
scrubbers for and SO2 control. They are also
attempting to develop a number of new technologies to
reduce mercury emissions, including sorbent injection
(such as activated carbon injection) and catalysts to
transform elemental mercury into oxidized mercury.

DOE is contracting with groups to test the
effectiveness of these new technologies. Preliminary
results show a 60-70 percent reduction in mercury in
plants using sub-bituminous coal and up to a 90 percent
reduction in plants using bituminous coal from sorbent
injection.

Mr. Colburn provided testimony about the technological
feasibility of controlling mercury emissions, and the
relationship between regulation and technology development:

A number of coal-fired power plants already
achieve impressive mercury reductions through co-
benefits (because of control devices used to reduce NOX
and SO2), however there are technologies
recently developed that can reduce mercury much
further.

Activated carbon injection and enhanced wet
scrubbing are mercury specific technologies that have
been very successful at reducing emissions.

The only real barrier to controlling mercury
emissions from power plants is the absence of a
regulatory driver to create a market for mercury
control technologies.

Past history with controlling NOX and
SO2 demonstrates that regulations with well
defined targets and compliance deadlines drive
innovation and control technology, resulting in
dramatically lower implementation costs than initially
anticipated.

4.3(g)_Fiscal Year 2005 EPA Budget

March 11, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-46

Background
On March 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to examine the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05)
budget request for the Office of Research and Development
(ORD). Specifically, the hearing examined the steep cuts
proposed to the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants
program, and the potential consequences of the proposed
reduction. Managed by ORD, the STAR grants program supports
research at colleges and universities on a wide range of
environmental science issues. EPA's FY05 budget request
proposed a $35 million (or 35 percent) reduction in the grant
program, including reductions in research on ecological
systems, pollution prevention, endocrine disrupters and
mercury.\1\ The hearing also examined the extent to which the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) effort to assess the
performance of government programs under its Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) led the Administration to propose the
reductions to the grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The proposed reductions to the STAR program described here and
in detail below are compared to the President's FY04 budget request.
EPA's final FY04 spending will not be available until the agency's
operating plan is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Clay Johnson
III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and
Budget; (2) Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency; (3)
Mr. Paul Posner, Managing Director of Strategic Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO), and Manager of GAO's recent
report, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's
Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget,
GAO-04-174; (4) Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor, Johns
Hopkins University; Chair, EPA Science Advisory Board's Review
of EPA's FY 2005 Budget Request; former Chair, EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB); and (5) Dr. Costel Denson, Professor,
University of Delaware, and member of the National Academy of
Sciences panel that authored The Measure of STAR: Review of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) Research Grants Program (2003).
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Clay Johnson III began the hearing by praising EPA as a
leader within the Federal Government when it comes to focusing
on results. He stated that the PART assessment helps agencies
look at programs with consistency. In the case of the EPA
research programs, he stated that the PART assessment for
ecological systems and pollution prevention research concluded
them to be less results oriented than they could be or than
other programs of a similar nature. He said some of the funds
would be transferred to the Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances which was found to be more results-
oriented. He argued that instead of focusing on the dollar
amount of research funding, we should focus on the results we
are getting from our research dollars. He closed by stating
that he did not believe that the budget cuts would
significantly impair the research programs, and that PART
informs budget proposals, but there is nothing automatic that
flows out of the PART assessments.
Dr. Paul Gilman offered a brief description of ORD, which
conducts both basic and applied research in human and
ecological health. He said that the EPA's emphasis is on
research quality, and that the EPA has developed multi-year
plans in each research area, and is a leader in the use of peer
review. In addition, he said that ORD places great emphasis on
collaborative research and development (R&D) to operate more
efficiently, and its extramural grants program is well
respected. He stated that ORD's research programs in
particulate matter, ecological systems, and pollution
prevention all have goals outlined in multi-year plans but that
EPA is challenged to provide measures that truly demonstrate
performance of what is often inherently long-term research. EPA
is working with OMB to develop these measures, which will be
valuable to demonstrate ORD's achievements clearly.
Mr. Paul Posner provided testimony about the Government
Accounting Office's (GAO) findings and recommendations
concerning the PART. Mr. Posner explained that GAO found that
the PART has successfully developed linkages between
performance and budgeting. It has more clearly informed budget
decisions than its predecessors, and has been a more open
process to the public. However he said that developing tools to
measure federal programs are not easy since each program has
multiple goals. In addition, many measures are inherently
subjective and require judgment (which is difficult within the
PART's yes/no format). Mr. Posner closed by recommending that
OMB continually improve its PART and its guidance for using
PART, provide a more targeted selection process for programs to
be assessed, early consultation with Congress, and a
congressionally created process to better identify
congressional oversight priorities.
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski provided testimony on the views of
EPA's Science Advisory Board regarding EPA's FY05 Science and
Research Budget Request. She stated that in the past the Board
has noted its deep concern over the constant erosion of EPA's
research budget, and the FY05 budget request not only continues
this erosion, but actually cuts funding which will severely
constrain EPA from providing the necessary science to inform
decision-making. Dr. Matanoski discussed the STAR program,
slated for the largest cuts, and said that it provides many
benefits to EPA, including the flexibility to obtain critical
scientific expertise in a wide range of disciplines that are
essential to addressing emerging issues that are outside EPA's
current areas of expertise. Another function of STAR is to help
EPA balance its internal and extramural research portfolios to
integrate many different institutions into a research program
that complements the work of EPA's own scientists. She stated
that the Board believes these cuts will have a negative impact
on the balanced research portfolio that EPA has developed over
the last decade.
Dr. Costel Denson provided testimony regarding the
unanimous findings and recommendations of the National Research
Council (NRC), the operating arm of the National Academies. He
explained that the STAR program is judged to be the best
mechanism available for providing the best science through
extramural sources and environmental regulatory decisions must
be informed by the best science. Dr. Denson also pointed out
that research in STAR is focused on EPA's and the country's
greatest environmental needs and that the STAR program has an
exceptional process for the peer-review of proposals. He stated
that the NRC panel developed its own metrics for STAR including
findings and recommendations.

4.3(h)_H.R. 3980, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of
2004

March 24, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-51

Background
On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., the
Subcommittee on Research and the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the Committee on Science of the
U.S. House of Representatives held a joint hearing to receive
testimony on H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Act of 2004, and to consider the role of federal research and
development in windstorm hazard reduction. The hearing intended
to build upon discussions from a February 9, 2004, Science
Committee field hearing on windstorm hazards that was held in
Lubbock, Texas.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John A. Brighton, Assistant
Director for Engineering, National Science Foundation (NSF);
(2) Mr. Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance
Mitigation Administration, emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; (3) Dr. Steven L.
McCabe, Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental, and
Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas; and (4) Mr.
Jeffrey C. Sciaudone, Director, Engineering and Technical
Services, Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS).
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Smith opened the hearing by noting that every
state in the Nation is vulnerable to windstorms and that
vulnerability is increasing because of rapid population growth
in high-risk areas. Ms. Johnson speculated that the savings
from reduced loss of life and property would have more than
paid for the investment in research had a program for wind
research been established at the same time as the successful
program for earthquake preparedness research. Mr. Neugebauer
and Mr. Moore, the sponsors of the legislation, both made
opening comments on H.R. 3980. Mr. Neugebauer said that a
National Academy of Sciences' review found a lack of
leadership, focus, and coordination of wind hazard mitigation
activities in the Federal Government and insufficient R&D
funding. Mr. Moore emphasized that this is not a partisan issue
but a human one.
Dr. Brighton testified that the bulk of NSF's work in
windstorm hazards research occurs in three directorates:
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; Geosciences; and
Engineering. He also gave specific examples of ongoing NSF
programs and added:

NSF support of research centers has been very
important to windstorm hazards research. NSF supports
the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms at the
University of Oklahoma in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NSF also
supports the Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing
of the Atmosphere at the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.

NSF coordinates its activities with other
federal agencies including the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. They also coordinate their
investment with the U.S. Weather Research Program.

NSF has several concerns about the proposed
legislation, including:

1. The interagency working group proposed in
H.R. 3980 is redundant with the existing
mechanisms in the National Science and
Technology Council that is working well.

2. The National Advisory Committee on
Windstorm Impact Reduction is redundant with
the advice agencies already receive through
professional societies, meetings, and
workshops.

3. NSF supports basic research, not research
to address specific goals or priorities. NSF is
concerned about the unintended consequences of
codifying a research program into law.

Mr. Lowe testified that FEMA currently has several programs
geared towards hazard mitigation, such as the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety
Program, and the National Hurricane Program. Each of these
programs is leveraged to provide all-hazards mitigation. He
added:

Other than FEMA's National Hurricane Program,
there is little coordinated effort among federal
agencies towards addressing the effects of wind
hazards.

FEMA conducts post-disaster studies to
determine how structures performed and to issue
guidance on how to build more disaster-resistant
structures.

FEMA has developed several technical guidance
documents and helped establish national standards for
in-home and community shelters. Also, many states use
FEMA's post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to
fund wind hazard shelters.

Dr. McCabe testified on behalf of the Wind Hazards
Reduction Coalition and the American Society of Civil
Engineers. He believes that the current $5-10 million federal
investment in wind engineering research is not adequate given
the $6 billion of damage suffered annually as a result of wind
hazards. He went on to say:

Two National Research Council reports
recommend the establishment of a national program to
reduce wind vulnerability and the funding of a
coordinated national wind hazard reduction program made
up of partnerships of Federal, State, and local
governments, private industry, and the research
community.

There is a need to develop a greater
understanding of severe winds and their impacts on the
built environment, assess the performance of the built
environment under severe winds, and transfer research
results to the design and construction industries.

The Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition has two
concerns with H.R. 3980: (1) there is no new federal
money authorized in the legislation and (2) the
Coalition strongly supports the creation of a National
Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction.

Mr. Sciaudone testified that IBHS' windstorm impact
reduction activities generally involve applying the results of
R&D for consumers and insurers. They produce a number of
consumer and insurer focus publications and interactive
internet tools to explain windstorm mitigation. They are also
involved in model building code development and building code
adoption that encourages inclusion of mitigation research in
building regulations. He added:

The number one obstacle to convincing
building owners to mitigate against windstorms is cost.
Owners would prefer to spend that money on amenities
people will enjoy every day. Cost is also the most used
argument against implementing mitigation measures as
part of building codes, but further data will justify
the need to include them.

Data on windstorm hazards is not easily
obtained because extreme windstorms do not occur every
day and always are unique when they do occur. Also,
insurance adjusters do not always collect data useful
for wind researchers.

4.3(i)_Fiscal Year 2005 National Institute of Standards and
Technology Budget: Views From Industry

April 28, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-54

Background
On April 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to examine the role of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
laboratories in serving industry and whether the funding for
the NIST laboratories was adequate to support the measurement
and standards needs of the U.S. economy. The hearing also
reviewed how the NIST Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget request for
its laboratory research programs helped support industry,
homeland security, and its mission in measurement technology
and standards development.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Daryl
Hatano, Vice President for Public Policy for the Semiconductor
Industry Association; (2) Dr. Thomas Cellucci, President and
Chief Operating Officer at the Zyvex Corporation, a
nanotechnology company located in Richardson, Texas. Dr.
Cellucci has worked for several technology companies; (3) Ms.
Deborah Grubbe, Corporate Director for Safety and Health at
DuPont, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Ms. Grubbe is
also a member of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology (VCAT), an advisory committee established by
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act; (4) Mr.
James Jasinski, Vice President of Federal and State Systems for
Cogent Systems, a biometrics company headquartered in Pasadena,
California. Cogent Systems has worked with NIST on the
development of biometrics for the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (U.S.-VISIT) program; and
(5) Mr. John Biechman, Vice President for Government Affairs
for National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA works
with NIST on standards for equipment for firefighters and first
responders.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Daryl Hatano began the hearing by providing an overview
of semiconductor research, and the role NIST has played in chip
metrology research.

NIST's spending on semiconductor research has
not been sufficient.

NIST's lithography equipment is not up to
industry standards.

The SIA supports increased spending at NIST
laboratories: $25 million to support the AML and $16
million for advances in manufacturing.

The SIA encourages budget increases that
compliment NSF and Defense spending for university
research.

He recommended that the Committee add
language similar to that of last year's House
Appropriations Report for NSF encouraging NSF to
increase research aimed at the challenges outlined in
the semiconductor roadmap.

Dr. Thomas Cellucci provided testimony on how NIST
contributes to the development of nanotechnology and his
corporation of Zyvex.

NIST is responsible for developing the
measurements, standards, and data critical to emerging
fields such as nanotechnology.

The Nanotechnology industry is in need of
standards for nanoscale materials and tools.

The Nanotechnology industry relies on NIST to
provide traceable standards and information on emerging
trends for tighter tolerances and higher resolution
requirements for industry.

NIST and Zyvex jointly share the cost and
responsibility of bringing this new technology to the
marketplace.

It is necessary to increase NIST's budget in
order to develop the critical technology needed to
fight a war on terrorism and increase our technological
leadership in the world.

Ms. Deborah Grubbe provided testimony on how NIST helps to
ensure the U.S. business competitiveness by presenting examples
from her firm, the DuPont Company.

NIST has led a successful collaboration with
DuPont and other industry leaders to develop new
measurement standards and procedures for the color and
appearance of automotive paints and finishes.

NIST has worked closely with DuPont and the
fuel cell industry because of their unique capability
to internally image operating fuel cells using neutron
radiography.

NIST has the expertise to support DHS but not
the funding.

She believes that it is essential to
recognize NIST as a key leader in our nation's
innovation engine.

Mr. James Jasinski provided testimony on the contributions
NIST has made to the U.S. in homeland security and the war on
terrorism.

NIST developed standards for automatic
fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) enabling
systems across the globe to communicate with one
another.

NIST stepped in to validate the U.S.-VISIT
program, creating a higher degree of reliability and
selectivity so that a person will not be falsely
accused.

NIST is working with Homeland Security to
establish standards to optimize the U.S.-VISIT program.

People all over the world rely on NIST to
establish standards.

Mr. John Biechman provided the Committee with testimony on
the NFPA's relationship with NIST and their support for the
Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST.

NIST has aided NFPA in the advancement of
fire and building safety measures.

NIST provides resources for fire
investigation to help the fire service better
understand fire dynamics, protect occupants and
firefighters and assist in building safer buildings.

NIST research will lead to the development of
better firefighter protective clothing.

Following the events of 9/11, NIST has been
working to develop revisions to elevator standards for
use in occupant evacuation and fire service access
during emergencies in high-rise buildings. Congress has
not yet appropriated funds to enable NIST to do this
work.

There is no other laboratory in the U.S. that
is capable of conducting research for the public good
as NIST. The proposed funding for 2005 does not
approach the kind of funding necessary to carry out the
added workload of the lab.

Budget restrictions have caused many ongoing
projects to be delayed.

4.3(j)_Homeland Security Research and Development at the EPA:
Taking Stock and Looking Ahead

May 19, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-60

Background
On May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to examine the
homeland security research and development (R&D) activities of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The hearing focused
specifically on two EPA R&D programs: one focused on improving
the security of the Nation's critical water infrastructure and
the other one focused on methods to decontaminate buildings
that have been exposed to chemical or biological agents (such
as anthrax and ricin). Both programs are housed in EPA's
Homeland Security Research Center (HSRC), which EPA established
in 2002 and plans to discontinue at the end of Fiscal Year 2005
(FY05). The hearing focused on how the programs are working,
how they are coordinated with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and the rationale for the proposed budget cut
to the building decontamination program. The National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) recently reviewed these programs and was
critical of, among other things, EPA's focus on short-term
research needs to the exclusion of necessary long-term
research.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Paul Gilman,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA; (2) Dr. Penrose (Parney) C. Albright,
Assistant Secretary, Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (3) Dr. Charles E. Kolb,
Jr., President and CEO of Aerodyne Research, Inc. and a member
of the National Academy of Sciences panel that authored Review
of EPA Homeland Security Efforts: Safe Buildings Program
Research Implementation Plan, EPA's Safe Buildings Research
Program (2003); and (4) Dr. Gregory B. Baecher, Professor and
Chairman of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Maryland, and a member of the
National Academy of Sciences panel that authored Review of EPA
Homeland Security Efforts: Safe Buildings Program Research
Implementation Plan (2003).
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Paul Gilman began the hearing by providing an overview
of the EPA's areas of responsibility in homeland security
research.

EPA is responsible for the protection of
water infrastructure, decontamination and cleanup
following either a chemical or biological attack,
constructing a water systems surveillance
infrastructure, and conducting research in support of
decontamination and water systems.

EPA research is focused on short-term
results, filling gaps in knowledge and technology, high
intensity activity and applied solutions. The goal is
to turn out high quality products to address user's
needs quickly.

Research priorities were established through
assessing stakeholders' needs such as the water
companies and those involved in building design and
operation.

Examples of products include a web-based
catalog of technical resources, an assessment of
residential safe havens, early warning systems, and new
models to assess the exposure from the collapse of a
building or contamination of water.

EPA is analyzing the products they have to
date in collaboration with DHS, the Homeland Security
Council at the White House, the Department of Defense
(DOD) and a number of other intelligence organizations
to try to understand evolving threats and needs.

There is a continuing need for research and
the EPA will be taking that input into account as the
Administration prepares the EPA's budget for FY06.

Dr. Penrose Albright provided testimony on how EPA and DHS
are coordinating on homeland security R&D in the areas of water
systems and building security.

Homeland Security Presidential Directives
(HSPD)-7 and -9 assigned EPA as the lead agency to
enhance the protection of the Nation's water supply.

HSPD-10 designated EPA as the lead agency to
coordinate the development of strategies, guidelines,
and plans for decontamination following a biological
attack.

DHS and DOD will assist by providing needed
detection and decontamination technologies to EPA,
along with integrated systems approaches to these
issues.

DHS is collaborating with EPA to develop pre-
approved plans and decontamination agents for
restoration of airports, and in establishing
appropriate cleanup levels for the biological
decontamination of public facilities.

These programs do not address longer-term
needs inherent in an affordable and timely integrated
biodefense.

The underlying experimental database for
setting cleanup standards and performing risk
assessments is extremely sparse.

Dr. Charles E. Kolb provided the Committee with a review
and recommendations for the EPA's Safe Buildings R&D effort.

EPA must structure its research program
around the four logical components of an effective safe
building R&D program (detection of the chemical or
biological agent, containment of that agent,
decontamination of the affected areas of the building,
and disposal of cleanup materials and residue).

Given the short time period and relatively
low funding, the National Research Council recommends
that the agency focus its R&D program on specific areas
that would be amenable to progress in that kind of time
scale, specifically decontamination and disposal
activities. Detection and containment activities are
longer-term activities.

The National Research Council recommended
that EPA spend more effort and resources on their
coordination with other agencies.

Dr. Gregory B. Baecher provided the Committee with key
findings and recommendations for the April 2003 Draft Plan from
the EPA. He also addressed whether there is sufficient
collaboration between EPA and other interests to ensure that
the research agenda is focused.

The National Research Council commends the
agency for the speed and diligence of its efforts, but
believes that certain technological advances can only
be accomplished through long-term research.

These research projects themselves will not
result in improved protection of our nation's water
systems. EPA needs to prepare plans to integrate
research results into guidance, and providing funding
for implementation of plans.

EPA has not revealed financial resources
required to complete research and implement
countermeasures.

EPA recognizes the importance of coordination
among other relevant agencies, but makes presumptions
about the activities and capacities of other agencies
that need to be verified.

The roles and responsibilities of various
relevant parties need to be worked out ahead of time
and parties must develop an effective communication
strategy while addressing security concerns.

4.3(k)_Testing and Certification for Voting Equipment: How Can
the Process Be Improved?

June 24, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-65

Background
On June 24, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to examine how voting
equipment is tested against voting system standards and how the
independent laboratories that test voting equipment are
selected.
Each election season, a small number of newly deployed
voting machines fail to perform properly in the field, causing
confusion in the polling places and concerns over the potential
loss of votes. Because these machines have already been tested
and certified against standards, these incidents have raised
questions about the reliability of the testing process, the
credibility of standards against which the machines are tested,
and the laboratories that carry out the tests. While most of
the national attention on voting systems has been focused on
the subjects of computer hacking and voter-verifiable paper
ballots, press reports have also highlighted the problems of
voting machine testing.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Rep. Rush Holt (D-
NJ); (2) Mr. Tom Wilkey, Chair, National Association of State
Elections Directors (NASED) Independent Testing Authority (ITA)
Committee. Mr. Wilkey is the former Executive Director of the
New York State Board of Elections; (3) Ms. Carolyn Coggins,
Director, Independent Testing Authority Services for SysTest
Laboratories, a Denver laboratory that tests software used in
voting machines; and (4) Dr. Michael Shamos, Professor of
Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Shamos has
served as an Examiner of Electronic Voting Systems for
Pennsylvania.
Summary of Hearing
Rep. Rush Holt, began the hearing by highlighting some of
the concerns surrounding computerized voting.

Standardizing today's computer voting devices
has been difficult because there is a gap between the
casting of the vote and the recording of the vote,
which makes the process quite a bit different from the
voting machines of the past.

While the Help America Vote Act went a long
way in improving accessibility, it fell short of
dealing with auditability--that is, verifiability that
is build into the system and that is part of the audit
process--which has important implications for the
certification process.

Mr. Tom Wilkey discussed the selection of Independent Test
Authorities by NASED and its program to encourage States to
adopt the federal voting system standards, and to utilize test
reports which have been issued by these ITAs.

NASED does not certify voting equipment or
systems; instead, NASED's role is solely limited to
review and qualify perspective ITAs and provide for the
review of reports by its technical subcommittee before
they are sent to the vendors and to state ITAs and
others designated by States to receive and review them.

While several laboratories have been
encouraged to join the ITA project, most have declined
the opportunity after the consideration of the sheer
volume of business and negative publicity, although
laboratories will continue to be encouraged to
participate as the program transitions to the Election
Assistance Commission and to NIST in the coming months.

Ms. Carolyn Coggins provided testimony about NASED
qualification testing.

NASED qualification testing is the second
level of four levels of testing identified by the
Voting System Standards and means that the hardware,
software, and all documentation of the voting system
have been defined, reviewed, and tested for conformance
with the requirements of the Voting System Standards,
and that voting is secret, accurate, and reliable.

Accreditation of primary labs responsible for
all hardware and software testing and ability of
primary labs to have qualified subcontractors to
perform environmental testing.

Before the 2006 Election, implement the 2002
VSS plan, which has a process for issuing clarification
bulletins.

Dr. Michael Shamos described the voting machine testing and
certification process and current flaws in the system.

The current qualification testing process by
Independent Testing Authorities is not effective
because of security concerns, and because the
procedures are closed to the public.

Any testing laboratories should be certified
and rigorously monitored by the EAC, or such other
national body as Congress may create, and the cost of
testing should be shouldered by the States on a pro
rata basis, possibly out of HAVA funds.

Although NIST will play a role in improving
the way voting equipment is tested, the EAC, which has
the great election expertise, needs to be the primary
force behind such processes.

From the testimony, it seems that the end-to-end process of
accrediting laboratories, testing voting equipment, and
certifying voting systems could use some improvement in
addition to the overhauling of the standards against which
voting equipment is tested. A new suite of standards for voting
equipment is fundamental to good testing. However, even if all
the necessary changes are made to the testing process at the
national level, there will continue to be a need to thoroughly
test each machine when delivered to the States or localities
that have bought them, before deployment for use in actual
elections. The panel was clear on the point that the States
still would be responsible for this aspect of voting machine
performance even after HAVA had been fully implemented.
The EAC and NIST are working to re-accredit the testing
labs under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program criteria, which will contribute to improved
rigorousness in the testing environment and procedures at the
ITAs. As technologically driven as elections have come to be,
the hearing highlighted just how much the EAC will be dependent
on NIST's technological expertise as the EAC oversees the
reform of the Nation's federal elections. It is also clear that
the most fundamental reforms required in HAVA will not be
implemented in time to have any effect on the 2004 election.

4.3(l)_The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organic Acts

July 15, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-67

Background
On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing on H.R. 4546, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, and H.R.
4607, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Organic Act of 2004.
NOAA was established in the Department of Commerce by
Executive Order in 1970 under President Nixon. The 1970
Executive Order primarily consolidated the ocean and
atmospheric activities of various federal agencies under NOAA.
The order did not lay out an overarching mission for the agency
and since that time Congress has not passed a comprehensive act
outlining the mission and specific functions of the agency. In
addition, in its Preliminary Report released in April 2004, the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy strongly recommended that
Congress pass an organic act for NOAA. H.R. 4546 responds to
this Ocean Commission recommendation by providing an organic
act for NOAA.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) The Honorable
Theodore Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Commerce; (2) Dr. James Baker, President and Chief Executive
Officer, the Academy of Natural Sciences. Dr. Baker was
Administrator of NOAA from 1993-2001; (3) Rear Admiral Richard
West (Ret.), President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research
and Education. Admiral West was a member of the subcommittee of
NOAA's Science Advisory Board that recently reviewed NOAA's
research enterprise; (4) Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday Jr.,
WeatherNews Chair of Applied Meteorology and Director, the
Sasaki Applied Meteorology Research Institute, University of
Oklahoma. Dr. Friday was the Assistant Administrator of the
National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research at NOAA. Additionally, he is a Past
President of the American Meteorological Society; and (5) Mr.
Richard Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service
Employees Organization.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Theodore Kassinger began the hearing by acknowledging
the importance of the organic act for the restructuring of
NOAA, and highlighting areas where the Administration's bill,
H.R. 4607, and the Committee's bill, H.R. 4546 differ.

H.R. 4607 would codify the Agency's
administrative authorities.

In comparison with H.R. 4546, H.R. 4607 would
provide the Agency with greater flexibility for
reorganizing its structure and programs.

While H.R. 4546 would establish a 15-member
Science Advisory Board, H.R. 4607 would establish a
broader-based Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere that would not only incorporate the
functions of the current Science Advisory Board but
also serve to advise the Administrator on a broader
range of issues.

Dr. James Baker provided testimony on the current strengths
and limitations of NOAA and how an organic act can help to
ensure NOAA's future success.

NOAA needs more recognition, support, money
and independence. The organic act will enable the NOAA
to better meet the Nation's changing needs through
updating and clarifying its mission and structure.

The organic act should seek to ensure the
scientific independence of the NOAA, particularly on
politically-sensitive issues such as global climate
change and fisheries management. Additionally, NOAA
should become an independent agency, like the EPA, as
it has the maturity to become one.

More support is needed for NOAA's educational
outreach programs. The more the public is educated
regarding NOAA issues, the better support NOAA will
have when dealing with difficult issues.

A provision should be added to Title I of
H.R. 4546 to formalize the mechanism for research to be
conducted and competitively funded at universities and
research institutions outside NOAA.

Rear Admiral Richard West (Ret.) discussed the response of
the science community to the NOAA organic act. He also briefly
reviewed applicable recommendations from the NOAA Research
Review Team report.

One major problem with NOAA is that its
research, operation, and regulatory bodies do not
operate well under its current integrated corporate
culture. Another limiting factor is NOAA's placement
within the Department of Commerce.

The research plan set out in H.R. 4546 is
important, especially because it recognizes the role of
research in NOAA, establishes the goals and process for
Agency-wide research and investments, and delineates
the role of NOAA's external partners. The importance of
peer review and competitive awards, improved processes
for managing grants and contracts, and integrated
research, education and outreach should also be
emphasized in this plan.

The creation of a Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Science and Technology, who would be responsible
for coordinating and managing the NOAA research
enterprise, would provide clear recognition of NOAA as
a science-based mission agency.

A top national priority should be the
development of an Integrated Ocean Observing System
that extends from our watersheds to the outer edge of
the exclusive economic zone.

Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday, Jr. testified that an organic
act should clearly identify research in support of NOAA's
mission as a prime NOAA responsibility.

The creation of the position of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology will
benefit the NOAA through helping to strengthen the role
of science within NOAA and providing NOAA with a
credible science voice.

NOAA's laboratory structure is absolutely
critical to the successful modernization of the
National Weather Service.

Mr. Richard Hirn discussed NWSEO's response to the NOAA
Organic Act.

The most pressing problem facing NOAA is not
its organizational structure but the failure of
successive Administrations and Congresses to adequately
fund NOAA.

The NWSEO supports granting distinct
legislative authority for the National Weather Service,
provided within Section 105 of the Chairman's bill and
not in the Administration's bill.

The consolidation of research and education
into one branch of the NOAA's mission areas as
highlighted in the Chairman's bill may actually result
in an overall reduction in education and research. The
NOAA's research and education functions should be
closely integrated with, instead of separated from its
operational role.

4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

4.4(a)_The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: Past,
Present, and Future

May 8, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-14

Background
On May 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research held a hearing
to examine the current status of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in preparation for program
reauthorization. NEHRP is a long-term, comprehensive, multi-
agency earthquake hazards mitigation program established by
Congress in 1977 to minimize the loss of life and property from
earthquakes. Four agencies participate in this effort: the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator,
Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration; Director,
Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Department
of Homeland Security; (2) Mr. Robert A. Olson, President,
Robert Olson Associates, Inc.; (3) Dr. Lloyd S. Cluff,
Director, Geosciences Department and Earthquake Risk Management
Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; (4) Dr. Thomas D.
O'Rourke, President, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(EERI); Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, Cornell
University; and (5) Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley, Professor and
Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Utah.
Summary of Hearing
Much of the hearing testimony and discussion focused on
leadership and coordination problems and challenges within
NEHRP. Mr. Lowe testified that USGS, NSF, and NIST all had
equal stakes in the program, and that the new strategic plan
for the program should guide these efforts. He went on to cite
some of the successes NEHRP has had in its 25-year history and
present the program's strategic plan.

Two notable accomplishments to come out of
the program are: 1) a nationally applicable building
standard that is used as the basis for the Nation's
model building codes and 2) improvements in providing
seismic design guides for the Nation's infrastructure
(e.g., power and water transmission, bridges, and
hospitals).

Though many years overdue, Mr. Lowe was
pleased to present the strategic plan for NEHRP that
will allow it to further the program's goal of reducing
earthquake loss. He also stated that with the strategic
plan in place, it was important to now establish a
management plan among NEHRP's lead agencies to provide
the monies and control needed to execute the strategic
plan and to provide recommendations to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Mr. Lowe has also asked
for the development of an annual plan that would guide
the program level personnel in their execution of the
strategic plan. Mr. Lowe was confident these plans
would allow for the careful monitoring of the program
at the management level.

Mr. Lowe supported the placement of NEHRP in
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because DHS
is an all-hazards organization as NEHRP should be.

Mr. Olson recently attended a forum with the four NEHRP
agencies and the National Academy of Sciences in honor of the
25th anniversary of NEHRP. He testified about some of the
concerns he heard raised at this forum. These included budget
concerns--appropriations for the program have not kept up with
inflation--and concerns about the leadership of the program
being placed in such a new and expansive agency as DHS. He also
stated that:

We must find ways to speed up the rate at
which knowledge is applied to the field. Past
commitments to basic research are admirable and have
lead to many successes, but there must be a better
balance between investments in research and in
improving applications.

The Committee should create an independent
panel to assess how the original NEHRP charter
legislation might be changed to help reduce earthquake
risk over the next 25 years.

Because of advanced technologies and
theories, it might be time now to revisit the idea of
trying to predict earthquakes. Past investments in this
pursuit have certainly paid off through improved
forecasting abilities.

Earthquake risk is increasing because of
growing populations and little or no focus on hazard
reductions in high-risk areas.

Dr. Cluff testified that the U.S. will face unacceptable
and unavoidable deaths and economic losses if seismic safety is
not given more priority in the 39 states that have significant
earthquake vulnerability. He warned that earthquake risk
continues to grow nationwide. This is largely due to (1)
uncontrolled growth in earthquake-prone areas, (2) the lack of
effective land-use planning in the hazardous areas, (3) the
lack of implementation and enforcement of appropriate building
standards, and (4) the high cost of strengthening the existing
built environment. Furthermore, Dr. Cluff recommended:

Full implementation of the USGS Advanced
National Seismic System (ANSS)

That the Subcommittee endorse the EERI report
``Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake
Losses''

That NEHRP use the placement of FEMA in DHS
to make the program an all-hazards program

Dr. Cluff also described two examples of how NEHRP-style
research programs are having risk mitigation benefits:

A NEHRP-style study Dr. Cluff conducted on
the Denali Fault led to protecting the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline from rupturing due to a magnitude 7.9
earthquake in November 2002.

A project to incorporate USGS shake maps with
maps of Pacific Gas and Electric facilities and
pipelines helps engineers locate problem areas in the
event of an earthquake.

Dr. O'Rourke testified that the EERI believed strongly in
maintaining a strong and viable NEHRP, and giving it increased
funding in line with their recommendations. In addition, Dr.
O'Rourke:

Encouraged support for the ANSS, which will
establish 6000 new monitoring stations, with a
concentration around urban centers where the risk is
highest. The ANSS will also provide shake maps that
will give almost real time information on the severity
of the earthquake.

Made recommendations for leadership changes
at NEHRP because each of the four participating
agencies are in different departments and, therefore,
their cooperation and communication is hindered. These
include giving NEHRP designated staff in each of the
four participating agencies and assigning an OMB
examiner to ensure a coordinated NEHRP budget at the
agencies. He also asked that the President create a
panel of independent experts that would report to
Congress biannually to oversee NEHRP.

Presented EERI's 20-year Research and
Outreach Plan called ``Securing Society Against
Catastrophic Earthquake Losses.'' This plan was
reviewed and approved by the earthquake community and
increases funding levels to $360 million, three times
the current level. This is, however, still twenty times
less than the annualized losses due to earthquake
damage in the U.S.

Dr. Reaveley attributed most of the significant advances in
structural engineering over the past 25 years to the NEHRP
program. Further, from an economic standpoint, Dr. Reaveley
believes it is advantageous to invest in making structures
earthquake resistant because they also become blast resistant
and wind resistant. He also listed the three projects he
considered most important. They are:

Strong motion networks in regions of high-
probable ground shake because they advance the
understanding of the behavior of structures and the
physics of an earthquake.

Performance Based Engineering should be the
model for all NEHRP projects.

Qualified personnel are needed at the local
government level. Plan reviews and inspections must be
done and are not, not even in areas of high seismic
risk.

4.4(b)_Plant Biotechnology Research and Development in Africa:
Challenges and Opportunities

June 12, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-16

Background
On June 12, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research held a
hearing to examine plant biotechnology research and development
activities relevant to African food crops and the challenges
and opportunities involved in these activities.
The witnesses were: (1) Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives; (2) Dr.
Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; (3)
Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
International Development; (4) Dr. Gordon Conway, President,
Rockefeller Foundation; (5) Dr. John Kilama, President, Global
Bioscience Development Institute; and (6) Dr. Robert B. Horsch,
Vice President, Product and Technology Cooperation for
Monsanto.
Summary of Hearing
Speaker Hastert represents the 14th District of Illinois,
which includes parts of four of the top twenty-five corn
producing counties and three of the top fifty soybean producing
counties in the Nation. In addition, Illinois is the second
largest producing state of both corn and soybeans. A high
percentage of both of these crops are genetically modified (34
percent of U.S. corn acres and 75 percent of U.S. soybean acres
are genetically modified). Speaker Hastert testified that
though these crops are classified as genetically modified,
farmers have always been modifying crops to improve yields and
create more resilient varieties, and biotechnology is just the
next step in this process.
Speaker Hastert criticized some foreign nations for
implementing protectionist trade policy based on emotion,
culture, or their own poor industry or history with food safety
regulation and technology, not sound science. He also
criticized the European Union for instituting a five-year
moratorium on genetically modified foods even though European
scientists consider them safe. Several countries have
considered labeling genetically modified foods as such but
Speaker Hastert warned that such a practice would mislead
consumers and create an atmosphere of fear.
Dr. Colwell testified about the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) long history of supporting collaborative
research and how they are aiding plant genomics research.
Though the NSF usually focuses its resources on funding U.S.
scientists and institutions, it also partners with other
agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), to develop programs in developing countries and with
their scientists to contribute to capacity building. They base
these programs on the NSF's principles of quality, merit
review, and the integration of research and education. She
added:

The NSF takes part in the National Plant
Genome Initiative, which was established in 1998 and
includes representatives from the Department of
Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Institutes
of Health, NSF, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and USAID. It
is coordinated by the National Science and Technology
Council's Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes.
This initiative has transformed U.S. plant research and
has created a new generation of plant biologists.

Paraphrasing Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel
laureate and father of the Green Revolution, the world
currently has, or in the very near future will have,
the capability to feed on a sustainable basis 10
billion people. A revolution in plant genomics could
lead to agricultural improvements that rival the Green
Revolution and alleviate the suffering of millions of
people.

Administrator Natsios testified that the agriculture budget
at USAID dropped by roughly $1 billion between 1986 and 2001.
As a result, Africa is the only place in the world where
agricultural production has declined. The only way to reverse
this trend is to devote more money to agricultural development,
especially in biotechnology research to develop seed varieties
appropriate for Africa. He went on to testify specifically
about the food situation in Africa and about the barriers to
implementation of genetically modified food.

The African agriculture is the only
agriculture in the world that has not experienced
dividends from the Green Revolution. Only in the last
decade has the Green Revolution begun to reach Africa,
and this has occurred in the three countries that have
received the most U.S. agricultural aid: Angola,
Mozambique, and Uganda.

There are several rumors intentionally being
spread through African communities to generate fear of
genetically modified food.

Administrator Natsios also countered several
criticisms of genetically modified foods, such as:

Biotechnology is diverting funds from
other needed interventions. However, only $25
million of the total $300 million agriculture
budget goes to biotechnology.

Accepting biotechnology crops will
make African farmers dependent on multinational
companies. However, USAID is working with
African universities and research centers to
move the biotechnology programs into Africa.

Biotechnology derived crops will
adversely affect the environment. However,
Administrator Natsios believes that the
potential agricultural rewards are worth the
risk.

Accepting genetically modified food
aid will hurt agriculture exports to Europe.
The groups that raise this concern are not
African, and Administrator Natsios was
particularly distressed by the timing of this
complaint, coming during a tremendous food
shortage seven years after genetically modified
food aid began arriving in Africa.

Dr. Conway testified for the Rockefeller Foundation, whose
purpose is to improve the lives of poor and excluded people
around the world. In fact, Dr. Borlaug was a staff member with
the Rockefeller Foundation when he did his ground-breaking work
that spawned the Green Revolution. He added:

There are many reasons that per capita food
production in Africa is decreasing, such as conflicts
and disease, but also because the average yield on
Africa farms is simply too low. The average yield on an
African farm is the same as the yield on a European
farm during the time of the Roman Empire 2000 years
ago.

The Rockefeller Foundation is trying to
address two central questions: 1) how can we help poor,
small holder, African farmers increase their food
security, and 2) what tools can be made available to
them to address the difficult challenges they face in
producing a healthy harvest?

Africans should have a choice as to which
solutions they use to solve their agriculture problems.
For this reason, the Rockefeller Foundation is trying
to put African scientists and farmers in a position to
use the new technologies for their own purposes.
Western corporate ownership of a lot of the
intellectual property is impeding this, however.

It is more likely that improvements made in
an applied setting in Africa will have a stronger
impact than developments made in American laboratories.

Dr. Kilama stated that plant biotechnology has not been
given a chance to succeed in Africa, and gave his
recommendations for how it should be implemented. He testified
that:

A clear roadmap is needed that addresses the
root causes of the crisis, rather than its symptoms.
The roadmap should be made up of the following steps.
Focus on financial support of the long-term strategic
plan, not on making short-term investments. Revive and
rebuild Africa's battered capacity for applied
research. Focus on applied research to solve problems
that Africans themselves identify as essential. Rebuild
Africa's battered infrastructure for agricultural
extension.

Many African nations do not have the capacity
to conduct advanced research. In the 1960's and 1970's,
many nations spent at least one percent of their GDP on
scientific research, but today most nations only spend
0.1 percent of their GDP on it. However, there are
several universities and research institutes that are
poised to fill the gap if funding were to increase.

Biotechnology should not just exist in
certain research centers that are far away from the
population and less responsive. It should be instilled
at the grassroots level.

The NSF should encourage American university
professors to spend time at African universities, just
as African scholars have spent time in American
universities.

Dr. Horsch testified for the Monsanto Corporation. Monsanto
helps small farmers in developing countries gain access to
better agricultural products, technologies, and research. Their
presence in Africa is centered mainly in South Africa. He
stated that:

The biggest problems for Africa's agriculture
are pests, depleted soils, drought, and poor human
nutrition from inadequate completeness of diet.

Some recommendations for improving Africa's
agricultural situation are: strengthen U.S. investment
in basic science and education; strengthen support for
innovation and conservation; continue to support open
trade policies and practices; reverse the declines in
international agricultural development assistance;
continue our leadership in science-based regulatory
policies; and deliver public sector biotech products to
subsistence farmers sooner rather than later.

Interagency partnerships are essential for
encouraging continued biotechnology research for
Africa.

4.4(c)_H.R. 2183, Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003

July 9, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-20

Background
On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research held a
hearing to examine the technology infrastructure needs of
minority serving institutions (MSIs) and to consider H.R. 2183,
the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act.
The witnesses were: (1) the Honorable George Allen, U.S.
Senate; (2) the Honorable Edolphus Towns, U.S. House of
Representatives; (3) Dr. Frederick S. Humphries, President,
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education;
(4) Dr. Ricardo R. Fernandez, President, Herbert H. Lehman
College-CUNY; (5) Dr. Larry L. Earvin, President, Huston-
Tillotson College; (6) Dr. Dwight J. Fennell, President, Paul
Quinn College; and (7) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National
Science Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
Senator Allen testified that the purpose of the legislation
was to increase access to technology and address the
technological deficiencies that exist at minority serving
institutions, as well as provide all young people with the
tools for success in college and beyond. Currently, African-
Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians represent 25 percent
of the U.S. workforce but represent less than 10 percent of the
computer and information science and engineering workforce and
computer science faculty. Senator Allen views this as an
economic divide and hopes that the legislation will help fill
this gap. He added:

Though the use of H-1B visas to bring
technical talent to the U.S. has been successful, there
is enough talent in this country to fill those jobs if
there was appropriate education and training.

Some people have been interested in
establishing a peer review process at the National
Science Foundation but there is already peer review
included in the legislation. Plus, there is also an
advisory council established by the legislation.

Representative Towns spoke about the need for a peer review
process in the legislation that includes representatives from
MSIs and about the eventual placement of the program.

Members of the MSI community are needed on
any peer review panel that awards grants under this
program because reviewers from large research
universities are unfamiliar with MSIs. Statistics
suggest that there is a need for this because only 1.3
percent of eligible National Science Foundation (NSF)
monies went to historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs) in the year 2000.

The Science Committee should strongly
consider placing the program either in NSF or the
Department of Commerce. It may be more beneficial to
place it in the Department of Commerce because then it
would not be limited to just academic enhancements for
science research and development like it would in NSF.

Dr. Humphries recommended to the Science Committee that
funding under this legislation be awarded annually instead of
just for one year. To have a significant impact, each
institution requires roughly $2.5 million, which with $250
million in total funding available only supports 100
institutions. To reach all of the MSIs, the funding will have
to be awarded for multiple years. He added:

Representatives from the MSI community should
be included on all peer review panels that award funds
to MSIs.

This program should be housed in NSF because
it will increase minority participation in NSF
programs.

Most HBCUs lack adequate infrastructure
(e.g., Internet connections) and the human resources to
support them. The two major components of this digital
divide are (1) providing access to information
technology, and (2) expanding the application and use
of information technology.

Dr. Fernandez testified representing the views of Hispanic
serving institutions (HSIs), which are institutions with a
full-time equivalent Hispanic student enrollment of at least 25
percent. In addition to this, many HSIs have significant
populations of other minority students. So any initiatives that
aid HSIs also aid other minority populations. Dr. Fernandez
called the legislation the most effective means to serve the
urgent technology education needs of MSIs. In addition, he
stated that three of the most important technology issues are a
lack of an appropriate information technology infrastructure
and equipment, a lack of a strategic information technology
(IT) plan, and faculty development in the use of IT for
teaching, learning, and research.
Dr. Earvin testified on behalf of the United Negro College
Fund. He stated that many universities that provide access to
post-secondary education to low-income students, especially
minorities, must overcome both poverty and technological
illiteracy in educating their students. Without federal
assistance, they will not be able to continue with their
mission. He also made three recommendations for the
legislation. They were:

Adopt a strong peer review provision to
ensure that highly qualified persons who are both
knowledgeable about and familiar with the technological
infrastructure needs of HBCUs and MSIs, but also who
are conversant with the academic programs and needs of
these institutions, will evaluate all proposals to
determine their merit.

Evaluate carefully the agency best suited to
house the program.

Ensure that adequate reporting requirements
are applied both to agency administration and
institutional implementation of the program so as to
guarantee the successful achievement of the
legislation's goals.

Dr. Fennell stated that all higher education institutions
must have, at a minimum, technologies that include desktop
computers, connectivity with Internet access, and the ability
to provide professional development. They also need to have a
functional plan of action describing how to upgrade the campus
environment, retain and retool campus constituents, and
maintain vigilance about new technologies and their use. Dr.
Fennell also made several recommendations for improvements in
the legislation. They were:

Allow for the provision of a process that
provides for the receipt of funding that will be
pertinent to any technology needs as identified by the
institutions because, while institutions have
comparable needs, they are not all the same needs in
terms of technological advances.

A peer review is critical and should include
members of the MSI community.

Allow for the provision of campus-wide
opportunities in professional development and technical
assistance.

4.4(d)_H.R. 2692, United States Fire Administration
Authorization Act of 2003

July 17, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-22

Background
On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research held a
hearing to examine U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) programs and
activities and H.R. 2692, the U.S. Fire Administration
Authorization Act of 2003. The USFA, housed within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and located in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, is charged with helping to prevent and limit fire-
related losses. Its activities revolve around four primary
areas: training, public education, research, and data
collection and analysis. On March 1, 2003, USFA and FEMA
officially became part of the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
The witnesses were: (1) Honorable Dave Camp, U.S. House of
Representatives; (2) Mr. David Paulison, U.S. Fire
Administrator and Director, Preparedness Division of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate/FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security; (3) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology; (4)
Mr. Dennis Compton, Immediate Past Chair, Board for the
International Fire Service Training Association; and (5) Dr.
John R. Hall, Jr., Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and
Research, National Fire Protection Association.
Summary of Hearing
Representative Camp testified that the events of September
11, 2001 expanded the role of America's firefighters beyond
just fighting fires. USFA in particular will have to take on
additional roles as part of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) in coordinating America's fire prevention and response
activities and fire education. Representative Camp then
described the major objectives of the Firefighting Research and
Coordination Act.

The bill focuses on establishing equipment
and technology standards, and would allow the U.S. Fire
Administrator, the National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST), and other standards organizations to
develop voluntary consensus standards for evaluating
the performance and compatibility of new firefighting
technologies. It also allows for the U.S. Fire
Administrator to exercise some flexibility in the rare
case when a newer technology is introduced that may
make an existing voluntary consensus standard
irrelevant.

The bill addresses mutual aid systems, which
are widely acknowledged as effective and efficient
means of sharing emergency management resources among
different jurisdictions.

Lastly, the bill allows the Superintendent of
the National Fire Academy to work with federal, State,
and local officials to develop new curricula at the
Academy.

Mr. Paulison testified on behalf of DHS. As U.S. Fire
Administrator, he said his mission was to reduce the loss of
life and property due to fire and related emergencies, which
still kill or injure more Americans every year than all other
natural disasters combined. He added:

To accomplish this mission, USFA works
closely with members of the fire services, other
emergency responders, and state and local governments.

To date, the Assistance to Firefighters grant
program has received over $1 billion in funding, with
$750 million being appropriated by Congress this year.
These competitive grants address training, safety,
prevention, personal protective gear and other
equipment, as well as fitness and wellness issues for
local fire departments.

One of the most significant issues still to
overcome is inter-operability of communications,
equipment, operations, and training between fire
departments. The Interagency ``SafeCom'' group at DHS
has been established specifically to address this
problem.

Dr. Bement spoke about NIST's role in improving the fire
service and gave several specific examples of programs
currently at NIST. He added:

There is an urgent need for performance-based
consensus standards and NIST is using its measurement
science and technology expertise to aid in the effort
to create them. Many new technologies do not have
consensus standards, which forces fire departments to
either assess the equipment themselves or rely on the
manufacturers' information.

NIST spends $8.4 million on fire research
activities with another $2 million coming from USFA.
Some of NIST's activities include research on passive
and active fire protection technologies, portable
thermal imagers, and more advanced graphic displays for
fire alarm panels.

Chief Compton expressed his strong support for the USFA and
commended it for how well it has served its core mission. He
also recommended that the U.S. Fire Administrator maintain a
prominent position in DHS and remain a Presidentially-
appointed, Senate-confirmed position. Additionally:

Chief Compton supported developing a national
residential fire sprinkler strategy because the
combination of fire sprinklers and smoke alarms in
homes can significantly reduce the number of lives lost
from fires each year.

Credentialing of emergency responders is
critical to the successful management of national
emergencies.

He also warned that transferring the
Assistance to Firefighters grant program to the Office
of Domestic Preparedness would diminish its
effectiveness because the grants would first go to the
states, which would then distribute them to the fire
departments. He would prefer that the program keep its
current structure under USFA where the grants go
directly to the fire departments.

Dr. Hall spoke on behalf of the National Fire Protection
Association, a non-profit organization founded over 100 years
ago whose mission is to save lives through education, research,
and the development of consensus codes and standards. He
testified that reauthorization of USFA is critically important
to the effectiveness of the fire service throughout the U.S. He
added:

Though over $1 billion in funding has been
award through the Assistance to Firefighters grant
program, over $7 billion has been applied for;
additionally, the Council on Foreign Relations
estimates that it will take $98.4 billion over the next
five years to meet the needs of first responders, with
the fire service accounting for more than half of this
amount. Therefore, Congress should fund the program at
no less than the authorized amount of $900 million.

The program should also remain under USFA so
that fire departments can directly receive the grants
without unnecessary red tape.

All equipment purchased with grants from this
program should meet or exceed applicable voluntary
consensus standards. The national fire service
organizations, including the International Association
of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire
Fighters, and the National Volunteer Fire Council,
support voluntary consensus standards whenever
possible.

4.4(e)_Implementation of the Math and Science Partnership
Program: Views From the Field

October 30, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-32

Background
On October 30, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research held a
hearing to discuss the implementation of the Math and Science
Partnership (MSP) Program at the National Science Foundation
(NSF). The MSP Program, part of President Bush's No Child Left
Behind initiative, was authorized by the House in last year's
NSF Authorization Act, which was signed into law in December.
The program provides grants to partnerships of universities and
school districts (and sometimes businesses) to improve K-12
math and science education. This hearing will be the Congress's
first look at how this major new initiative is working.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal
Investigator, Targeted MSP grant, SUNY-Brockport; (2) Mr. Ed
Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York; (3)
Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District,
New York; (4) Dr. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator,
Comprehensive MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso; and (5)
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive
MSP Grant, Michigan State University.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Yasar reported that his project involved integrating
math, science, and computing in a unique way to pique student
interest, and it has been very successful in creating
enthusiasm both in students and teachers. This partnering of
disciplines has been key to the project's success.
Additionally:

The project is a partnership between SUNY-
Brockport and two New York School Districts, Rochester
and Brighton, with assistance from the Shodor Education
Foundation, the Krell Institute, Texas Instruments, and
the Xerox Corporation. The results are disseminated to
the local community with the help of the Monroe County
School Boards Association and the New York State
Education Department.

The project achieves its goals through the
use of professional development of teachers and faculty
members by training and mentoring at SUNY-Brockport and
through technology scholarships and stipends, team
approaches, and peer networking.

Mr. Chi represented the views of participants in Dr.
Yasar's program. He reported on the response from teachers
involved in the program and on some of the student responses to
the new teaching techniques.

As a result of the new teaching techniques,
students are beginning to see connections between math,
science, and technology, which has excited and
interested them. The simulation and modeling programs
have put them in charge of their education, and because
they now ``own'' their own education, they go beyond
what they would typically learn.

The program has made teachers feel as though
they are on the cutting edge, which is inspiring and
motivating them. There is long-term, continuous, open
collaboration among the teachers that exposes them to
new teaching styles and challenges them to hone
existing skills and develop new ones.

Two barriers to achieving the goals of the
program are school administrations that are not as
supportive as they should be and teachers who are not
confident in their abilities to take on the new
techniques.

Mr. Mikols also presented the views of participants of Dr.
Yasar's program. He testified that technology is one tool that
teachers can use to change the way that math and science are
taught. Many students are inherently interested in technology
and it lets them gather information, draw conclusions, and
verify those conclusions in a much quicker way than ever before
possible. He added:

Students will achieve the most when they are
pursuing topics that are directly relevant and
interesting to them.

Making teachers aware that other teaching
avenues are available, and that change is necessary, is
the first step towards improving math and science
education. However, the greatest barrier to change is a
lack of willingness among teachers to accept change.

The program provides ongoing, year-round
training to ensure that the professional development
has long-lasting effects.

The best way to get students to pursue
careers in math and science teaching is to make them
lovers of math and science at as early an age as
possible.

Dr. Navarro's MSP program works in the El Paso, TX
community to provide an opportunity for shared development and
implementation of high quality practices aimed at improving
academic achievement among all students. The El Paso community
has seen dramatic improvements in the achievement gap and
enrollment in college preparatory courses, as well as pass
rates in these courses, since NSF-funded reform efforts began
in 1994. In addition, she testified:

The El Paso MSP has five key priorities: (1)
increase and sustain the quality and quantity of pre-K-
12 math and science teachers; (2) build the capacity of
schools and districts to effectively support efforts to
improve math and science teaching and achievement; (3)
align curriculum instruction and assessment for
students from kindergarten through university; (4)
promote efforts to increase the percentage of students
who go on to college; and (5) conduct research that
advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic
improvements of math and science teaching.

The efforts for this program must extend from
kindergarten through university and beyond to develop
exceptional teachers.

Course outlines should be developed that
provide clear and specific information on math and
science content at each grade level and performance
standards.

A full and robust set of support and
assistance mechanisms is needed to build school
capacity.

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy's MSP program hopes to improve K-12 math
and science education through assessment of students and
teachers, improvement of standards and frameworks, and the
preparation and professional development of teachers. She
added:

The goals of the program are: (1) use
empirical evidence as a basis for the efforts to
improve math and science learning; (2) work with the
partners to develop challenging content standards that
will work to align instruction and assessment; (3)
design professional development that helps all teachers
teach to the high standards and that emphasizes subject
matter knowledge; (4) rethink the ways in which future
teachers are prepared to teach math and science; and
(5) improve students' learning and achievement
throughout the program.

The standards and frameworks developed will
emphasize significant ideas in math and science and are
well articulated and convey high expectations for all
students.

The hope is to tailor the program's
activities to local needs and provide professional
development that enables teachers with differing needs
to access it in individual ways.

4.4(f)_H.R. 3980, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of
2004

March 24, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-51

NSF has several concerns about the proposed
legislation, including:

1. The interagency working group proposed in
H.R. 3980 is redundant with the existing
mechanisms in the National Science and
Technology Council that is working well.

2. The National Advisory Committee on
Windstorm Impact Reduction is redundant with
the advice agencies already receive through
professional societies, meetings, and
workshops.

3. NSF supports basic research, not research
to address specific goals or priorities. NSF is
concerned about the unintended consequences of
codifying a research program into law.

Other than FEMA's National Hurricane Program,
there is little coordinated effort among federal
agencies towards addressing the effects of wind
hazards.

FEMA conducts post-disaster studies to
determine how structures performed and to issue
guidance on how to build more disaster-resistant
structures.

4.4(g)_H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding
Contributions in Math and Science Education Act of 2004

March 30, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-52

Background
On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, the Research Subcommittee of
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives held a
hearing to examine the benefits of business involvement in math
and science education and to consider H.R. 4030, legislation to
establish the ``Congressional Medal for Outstanding
Contributions in Math and Science Education'' program. The
legislation seeks to recognize private entities for their
outstanding contributions to K-12 science, technology,
engineering and mathematics education.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Judith Ramaley, Assistant
Director, Education and Human Resources Directorate, National
Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Mr. Jay Engeln, Resident
Practitioner for Business-School Partnerships, National
Association of Secondary School Principals; (3) Mr. Torrence
Robinson, Director, Federal Affairs, Texas Instruments; (4) Ms.
Antoinette Bailey, Vice President, Community and Education
Relations, Boeing Company; and (5) Mr. Gus Krudwig, Co-Founder,
The Glou Factory.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Smith opened the hearing by stressing the
importance of encouraging and training students in math and
science so they can be successful in the emerging competitive
job market. He also stated that there is a significant increase
in achievement in communities where business and industry have
been more aggressive in supporting their schools and helping to
stimulate education. Ranking Member Johnson added that she has
always believed education must be the number one national
priority.
Ms. Bailey testified that a skilled workforce is critical
to the needs of technology companies like the Boeing Company
and essential to the success of the U.S. economy in general.
She believes it is imperative to align our educational system
to fit the needs of producing the qualified workers of the
future. She added:

Technology companies like Boeing need
employees with great math, science, reading, and
communication skills. They also need employees with
systems integration and leadership skills as well as
the ability to work cooperatively in groups.

Boeing is committed to improving K-12
education. They have learned that to help improve K-12
education Boeing needs to (1) identify its strengths
and weaknesses as a company and leverage their existing
resources, and (2) make quality investments in
education programs that have measurable results and are
replicable and sustainable.

One program they have developed is a series
of posters entitled ``Forces of Flight'' that are
designed to engage students and excite them about the
mysteries of flight.

Mr. Engeln testified that the primary stakeholders in
public schools are the students and parents, but local
employers and businesses also have a vested interest in the
success of the schools. He believes that partnerships with
industry enhance the education experience for students by
supporting teachers and providing additional resources. He
added:

School-business partnerships promote improved
student achievement, reduce self-defeating behaviors
amongst students, create better school environments,
build stronger communities, and enhance property
values. They provide schools with needed equipment and
give students the opportunity to better understand
possible career paths, which can be a strong motivator
for students.

Teachers also benefit from the partnerships
because they feel their efforts are more appreciated,
get additional resources, and are energized by the
community support for their actions.

Palmer High School, where Mr. Engeln is
principal, saw increased test scores in math and
science and improved performance at math and science
fair competitions as a result of their partnership.

Mr. Robinson stated that America's economic and national
security depend upon the future scientists, engineers, and
mathematicians that give America a competitive edge, and
believes that H.R. 4030 would raise the level of industry
involvement in K-12 math and science education. He added:

Texas Instruments (TI) approves of language
in the bill that places priority consideration on
programs that display improved student achievement, as
that should be the ultimate goal of the program.

In its K-12 activities, TI emphasizes
developing and supporting programs that yield
measurable results and are replicable.

One of TI's successful programs has been the
Infinity Project developed in collaboration with
Southern Methodist University. It is a high school
engineering curriculum that makes math, science, and
engineering relevant to the students' lives. The
project has resulted in increasing student interest in
pursuing engineering in the future.

Dr. Ramaley applauds any actions that encourage and
recognize the importance of private sector involvement in
education as these actions will greatly benefit NSF's work to
promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education. However, the Administration has several recommended
changes for the legislation. They are:

Expand the range of education levels from K-
12 to pre-K through higher education, including
community colleges, because all levels of education can
benefit from these types of partnerships.

Expand the types of eligible employers and
organizations to include not-for-profits, local
government entities, medical care providers, etc., to
increase the diversity of the program.

Be flexible with the timescale of the program
because two years may not be long enough for a
collaboration to mature and to demonstrate results.

Appropriately fund the program. The program,
by some estimates, will cost $750,000 per year.

Mr. Krudwig testified that the Glou Factory started about
four years ago as a way to develop some basic skills that were
seen as lacking in students in the Jackson, MI community. He
added:

The Glou Factory identified four needs in the
Jackson community: (1) early vocational training and
decision-making, (2) life skills, like problem-solving,
critical thinking, and conflict resolution, to prevent
unhealthy behaviors, (3) a skilled workforce that
fulfills employment requirements, and (4) community
service.

Programs at the Glou Factory have some of the
highest attendance rates in Jackson County, drawing as
many as 240 students in a school year. A lot of these
students are children that do not do well in
traditional settings but can succeed in these programs.

4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

4.5(a)_Space Shuttle Columbia

February 12, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-2

Background
On February 12, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation held a joint hearing with the House
Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on
the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident. The Committees heard
testimony from NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe regarding the
accident, the investigation, and any related issues.
Summary of Hearing
At approximately 9:00 a.m. EST on February 1, 2003, the
Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry into the
atmosphere while traveling at more than 12,500 miles per hour
at an altitude of 207,000 feet. All seven astronauts were
killed. Immediately following the accident, NASA activated a
contingency plan to preserve all information related to this
flight and established a Mishap Investigation Team to
coordinate the identification, retrieval, and storage of debris
and human remains. NASA also established the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB), and appointed retired Navy Admiral
Harold (Hal) Gehman chair of the investigation Board.
The hearing focused on the potential causes of the
accident, the efforts being made to identify those causes, and
the methods by which NASA and the CAIB conducted the
investigation--and to what extent the CAIB is sufficiently
independent from NASA.
Additionally, Members sought to determine the potential
impact that the grounding of the Shuttle Program would have on
the International Space Station and other NASA programs, such
as the Hubble Space Telescope. Members also inquired as to
whether or not the Shuttle Program had been adequately funded
in the past, what plans NASA has for a replacement vehicle, and
whether or not the Shuttle design is unnecessarily unsafe.
Administrator O'Keefe gave an overview of the debris
recovery efforts being made by NASA, the CAIB, as well as
numerous other federal, State, and local entities. He also
presented the preliminary findings relating to the events that
preceded the accident, as well as the actions taken by NASA
personnel agency-wide relating to STS-107.

4.5(b)_A Review of Aeronautics R&D at FAA and NASA

March 6, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-5

Background
On March 6, 2003, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for
aeronautics research and development programs at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). The hearing explored each agency's
strategic plan for aeronautics research, how well their plans
aligned with their budget request and industry needs, and the
coordination of research activities between FAA and NASA.
Witnesses included Dr. Jeremiah Creedon, Associate
Administrator for Aerospace Technology, NASA; Mr. Charlie
Keegan, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions,
FAA; Dr. R. John Hansman, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, MIT; and Mr. Mac Armstrong, Senior Vice
President--Operations & Safety, Air Transport Association.
Summary of Hearing
Members and several witnesses warned that ``lackluster''
funding of aeronautics research and development (R&D) could
have significant consequences on the future of the aviation
industry. Witnesses from NASA and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) faced tough questions about flat funding
and budget cuts in this key area.
``Unfortunately, the budgets for NASA and the FAA clearly
reflect a lackluster commitment to our future in aeronautics.
In fact, NASA has cut funding for aeronautics research in half
over the last ten years. . .meanwhile, FAA proposes only a
modest increase in its program over the next five years,'' said
Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). ``Given the
recommendations of The Commission on the Future of the United
States Aerospace Industry, what is NASA's rationale for
continuing to cut its aeronautics R&D program?''
Mr. Creedon defended the budget request, stating that NASA
has increased funding for the development of technology in
several key areas, including the Quiet Aircraft Technology
(QAT) project.
Mr. Armstrong disagreed, noting that ``actual budget
authority for [QAT and NASA's Ultra Efficient Engine Technology
program] has been less than half of what has been needed over
the past few years.'' Mr. Armstrong added that it was a
``significant NASA investment in the 1980s Energy Efficient
Engine program, that developed the base technology in today's
modern engines. Without a similar level of investment in R&D
funding and support from NASA and FAA, it is unlikely that we
will develop a new generation of aircraft that are
significantly quieter and more environmentally friendly.''
``If NASA is not willing to be supportive of one of its
core missions and continues to either flat fund or reduce the
development of aeronautics technology, Congress is going to
have to take action,'' said Representative John Larson (D-CT).
``Along with Mr. Forbes and Mr. Weldon I have a bill that will
re-commit NASA to its core mission of improving aviation in
this country. The U.S. is the number one innovator of aviation
technologies in the world and it has been for a century. Its
not becoming number two on my watch.''
Chairman Rohrabacher stated that we must also examine
whether the NASA and FAA programs ``are properly focused and
relevant to national goals and objectives. Preserving our
aerospace industry's edge against fierce international
competition will require greater emphasis and attention to
these goals.'' Echoing Rohrabacher's concerns, which were also
outlined in the Commission report, Mr. Armstrong noted that
``we must be concerned about the global competitiveness of the
U.S. aviation sector. Cuts in NASA and FAA R&D budgets in the
U.S. have been met with increases in the R&D budgets of our
competitors.''
Members and witnesses also expressed concerns about
aviation gridlock--a repeat of the late 1990s when the air
traffic control infrastructure was struggling to accommodate
growth in traffic demand. ``The NASA and FAA research programs
dedicated to the National Airspace System (NAS) are clearly
relevant but also clearly inadequate to meet the expected
demand,'' said Mr. John Hansman. Mr. Armstrong noted that the
FAA's Operational Evolution Plan ``will only add 30 percent
improvement in capacity by 2012, while the number of flights
are predicted to increase by 50 percent.'' To cope, Mr.
Armstrong urged the development of a highly automated system to
replace the current ``human centered and human constrained''
system.
Mr. Hansman concluded, ``the U.S. has not kept pace and is
under-invested in fundamental and high risk research to develop
the disciplines and people to shape aeronautics in the future..
. .I believe we do not fully appreciate the importance and
dependence of air transportation to economic health and quality
of life both in the U.S. and throughout the world.''

4.5(c)_NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan and Orbital
Space Plane Program

May 8, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-18

Background
On May 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan
(ISTP) and Orbital Space Plane Program (OSP). Topics included
the proposed ISTP architecture and OSP requirements, including
NASA's development strategy for the OSP, plans for risk
reduction and technology demonstrations, as well as the
proposed schedule and total cost of the OSP program.
Witnesses included the Honorable Frederick D. Gregory,
Deputy Administrator of NASA; Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of
Aerospace and Science Policy for the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), a member of the Science
Council of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, and
Visiting Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at
Princeton University; the Honorable Dale D. Myers, President of
Dale Myers and Associates; and Dr. Michael Griffin, President
and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel.
Summary of Hearing
Citing a lack of specific goals and a broad vision, Members
expressed frustration over NASA's proposed new ISTP and OSP.
They also echoed witness' concerns that the current plan gives
the U.S. few capabilities above what is currently available and
will come at an undetermined cost.
``In light of NASA's track record for developing space
transportation systems, I welcomed the restructuring of the
Space Launch Initiative as a positive step towards making good
on the promise of cheap, reliable, and safe access to space,''
said Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Chairman Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA). ``As we begin to peel back the layers,
however, NASA's proposed plan appears to be just another
initiative that is long on promises and short on likely
results. That simply won't cut it any more with this
subcommittee.''
Dr. Griffin testified, ``The proposed ISTP can only be seen
as far too conservative. It is not so much wrong, as it is
incomplete. If fully realized, it would leave us with little
more capability than we have today to go beyond Earth orbit. It
would do nothing soon to reduce the cost of space access. It
would saddle us for the next two decades with continued primary
reliance on the Shuttle, which is by any reasoned measure the
riskiest element in the system. Surely we can do better.''
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) called on NASA to cease flying
astronauts in the Space Shuttle and use its resources to focus
on future vehicles. ``It's my opinion that we can't make the
existing orbiter as safe as it needs to be,'' said Barton. ``I
think we ought to scrap that program. I think we ought to spend
the money on building the best technology orbiter or space
plane that we have. If it takes ten years to do it, so be it.
We put a man on the Moon between 1961 and 1969 in the Apollo
program. We certainly have the technology to do something
similar today, if we were to decide we want to put the
resources into it.''
In lieu of manned Shuttle missions, Barton questioned
whether NASA could modify the Shuttle to be an autonomous
vehicle to fly unmanned cargo delivery missions. Dr. Grey
testified that it is technically feasible since nearly 98
percent of the Shuttle's flight was automated already. As a
cargo delivery system, the Shuttle could be operated at a far
reduced cost, Grey added.
Members also expressed skepticism over NASA's plans for a
crew return vehicle. Under the ISTP, the Orbital Space Plane is
scheduled to provide crew return capabilities by 2010, however,
the Russian Soyuz commitment ends in 2006. When questioned on
how NASA planned to bridge the gap, NASA Deputy Administrator
Fred Gregory told the Subcommittee that an agreement had been
reached with international partners that the Russians would
continue to provide crew return capabilities for three
astronauts in Soyuz vehicles until the U.S. could take over.
Mr. Dale Myers testified on his team's assessment that crew
return and crew transfer using an Apollo-derived concept with a
Command and Service Module, warranted serious detailed study.
He added that it could be a favored approach in any eventual
plan to return to the Moon.

4.5(d)_U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space

June 11, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-25

Background
On June 11, 2003, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
held a hearing on U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space. The
hearing explored the benefits and risks of U.S.-Russian
cooperation on space programs. Specifically, the hearing
reviewed Russia's participation in the International Space
Station (ISS) program and the Russian Space Agency's (RSA)
ability to provide near-term and long-term support for the ISS
with Soyuz and Progress space vehicles. Members examined how
NASA has interpreted Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act
(INA) of 2000, how the INA has affected U.S.-Russian space
collaboration, and how INA policies have influenced Russian
nonproliferation. In addition, the hearing also reviewed other
areas of technical collaboration in space between the U.S. and
Russia and how best to organize these collaborations between
government and industry.
Witnesses included Mr. John Schumacher, Assistant
Administrator for External Relations, NASA; Mr. Robert M.
Davis, President and CEO, California Space Authority; and Mr.
Henry Sokolski, Executive Director, The Nonproliferation Policy
Education Center. Ambassador Steve Pifer, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,
Department of State was invited but did not attend.
Summary of Hearing
Members sought to identify the impact of the Columbia
accident on our relationship with Russia and learned that
Russia would continue to fly Soyuz missions through the fall of
2003 in order to maintain operations on the ISS, however,
NASA's plans after that remain vague. Mr. Shumacher testified
that if the Russians are unable to contribute Soyuz and
Progress vehicles after their current commitment, NASA planned
to turn to its other international partners. Pressed further by
Ranking Member Bart Gordon, Shumacher was unable to provide
specific details of how future missions might be funded saying,
NASA would seek ``some form of funding, either with other
partner contributions or us and we would have to come forward
to you for relief on the Act [Iran Nonproliferation Act of
2000] should that ever be the case.''
Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) added, ``It's clear from
today's hearing that there are still many unanswered questions
about how NASA intends to ensure that the Space Station can
continue to operate next year if the Shuttle fleet is still
grounded as most expect. NASA needs to step forward with some
clear contingency plans.''
NASA is prohibited from giving funds to Russia for ISS
under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 and Members echoed
support for the nonproliferation goals in the law. Mr.
Sokolski, who's testimony concentrated on the proliferation
aspects of U.S.-Russian cooperation, went further asking, ``Is
keeping the Space Station's schedule on track (even though
we've already let it slip year after year) and on budget (even
though we've already paid billions and billions over the
project's original cost estimate) a priority that should now
trump our security and that of millions of people who live down
range from Iran's missiles?''
Mr. Davis's testimony focused on the relationship between
U.S. commercial interests and what impact the Iran
Nonproliferation Act has had on the U.S. aerospace industry.

4.5(e)_Commercial Human Space Flight

July 24, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-26

Background
On July 24, 2003, the Senate Science, Technology, and Space
Subcommittee and the House Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a joint hearing entitled Commercial Human
Space Flight. The hearing examined barriers to investing in
entrepreneurial space ventures. Topics included the market
potential of space tourism, regulatory issues, private sector
vehicle technology development, and capital investment
considerations.
Witnesses included Mr. Phil McAlister, Director of Space
and Telecommunications Industry Analysis Division at the Futron
Corporation; Mr. Dennis Tito, founder and CEO of Wilshire
Associates, Inc.; Mr. Elon Musk, founder and President of
SpaceX Inc.; Mr. Jeff Greason, co-founder of XCOR Inc.; and Jon
Kutler, Chairman, CEO, and Founder of Quarterdeck Investment
Partners, LLC.
Summary of Hearing
An emerging demand for commercial human space flight has
attracted the interest of a number of space tourism
entrepreneurs and prompted concerns regarding regulation of
this new industry. Witnesses testified on future opportunities
for space travel, as well as issues surrounding government
regulations and passenger liability for this new frontier of
tourism.
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher
(R-CA) said, ``Opening space to those willing to pay for the
experience of it offers our industrial-base a new source of
technical innovation well beyond government's sphere of
activities. Simply put, by building and flying space launch
vehicles, commercial space entrepreneurs have overcome a
barrier that apparently continues to plague NASA's bureaucratic
inertia.''
``Commercial human space flight may be an idea whose time
is about to come,'' added Space Subcommittee Ranking Member
Bart Gordon (D-TN). However, if it is to succeed, industry and
government need to enter into a serious dialogue on the issues
of appropriate safety standards and the extent to which it is
appropriate for government to indemnify the companies against
the consequences of launch accidents.''
Mr. McAlister emphasized a positive outlook for space
travel, based on a recent survey Futron conducted of affluent
Americans. ``Futron's forecast for suborbital space travel
projects that by 2021, over 15,000 passengers could be flying
annually, representing revenues in excess of $700 million,''
McAlister said.
Also testifying was the first space tourist in history, Mr.
Tito, who said that his opinion of the commercial space
industry has changed after ``talking to thousands of people who
want to fly into space.'' He even told Senate and House Members
that he would ``quite possibly'' invest in a reusable launch
vehicle company, but added that government regulation could
dilute investment opportunities.
Regulation of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) complicates
the industry, however. The Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Aircraft Certification and Regulations Office (AVR),
which regulated the commercial airline industry, and the
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
(AST), which regulated traditional rockets, both claim
jurisdiction over commercial space flight regulation.
Rohrabacher noted, ``Unfortunately, a major barrier for new
space launch ventures is the uncertainty in the government's
ability to create a stable regulatory environment. It is clear
the future of space commercialization hinges on the Federal
Aviation Administration's ability to resolve the issue of how
to regulate commercial human space flight operations. In my
view, the Federal Government has the power to promote investor
confidence by providing clear regulatory guidelines for
commercial space transportation operators, or strangle the baby
in the cradle.''
Witnesses seemed to agree that commercial human space
flight should not be regulated as stringently as regular
commercial flight in the aerospace industry. Mr. Musk suggested
that the government ``adopt a nurturing and supportive approach
to new launch vehicle developments,'' and ``recognize the early
and experimental nature of the industry.'' Mr. Musk, as well as
Mr. Greason addressed the burden imposed on them. Barring
excessive government regulation, both expect to fly paying
passengers to space within three to five years.
Members at the hearing stressed safety and questioned the
government's role in liability protections. Mr. Tito explained
that a repeated demonstration of successful flight would
establish a record of safety. Mr. Greason added, ``it is safe
enough when customers start showing up.'' Witnesses also agreed
that to get the industry off the ground, potential customers
would have to waive all claims of liability against the
companies taking them to space.
Finally, the industry entrepreneurs expressed a desire for
Congress to indemnify the companies against the consequences of
launch accidents, similar to the indemnification it currently
provides the U.S. space transportation industry. Mr. Kutler
provided suggestions on how the government can increase
research and development in the space industry with the ``dual
use'' of supporting government programs as well as private
industry.

4.5(f)_H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act of 2003

November 5, 2003

Hearing Volume No. 108-33

Background
On November 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing to address the legal, regulatory,
and public policy ramifications of H.R. 3245, the Commercial
Space Act of 2003, for the emerging commercial human space
flight industry. H.R. 3245 would regulate and license domestic
commercial human space flight through the Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) within
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The bill also would
provide government indemnification to commercial human space
flight providers for certain liabilities incurred from launch
mishaps.
This hearing examined the relative merits of regulating
commercial human space flight through the AST, or the FAA's
Aircraft Certification and Regulations Office (AVR), or through
another government office and, by extension, the manner in
which experimental launch vehicles should be regulated. The
hearing also addressed the merits of providing indemnification
to commercial human space flight ventures. The government
already offers indemnification to traditional commercial space
transportation ventures, such as satellite launch operations.
Witnesses included Henry Hertzfeld, Senior Research Staff
Scientist, Space Policy Institute Center for International
Science and Technology Policy, George Washington University;
Raymond Duffy, Jr., Senior Vice President, Willis InSpace
Insurance Underwriters; Pamela Meredith, Counsel, Zuckert,
Scoutt & Rasenberger, LLP, as well as Adjunct Professor of
satellite communications and space law, American University,
Washington College of Law; Gary Hudson, Chief Executive
Officer, HMX Inc.; and Michael S. Kelly, Technical Manager,
Northrop-Grumman/Xon Tech.
Summary of Hearing
Witness testimony focused on the message that commercial
human space flight (space tourism) is a burgeoning industry in
need of some degree of government regulation and oversight.
Witnesses varied widely, however, on the extent of regulations
and the need for government indemnification of space tourism
launches.
Space Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said,
``I believe space entrepreneurs provide a beacon of hope for
our troubled space transportation industry by introducing
innovative concepts. However, bureaucratic red tape simply
can't be allowed to impede the growth of such promising
industries. As Ronald Reagan observed when signing the first
Commercial Space Act twenty years ago, `we need to cut real red
tape to see blue sky.' ''
Rep. Rohrabacher's legislation, H.R. 3245, would clarify
the legislative framework for commercial human space flight.
The bill ensures that commercial launchers--such as those being
built by entrepreneurs to take people to the edge of space--
would also be regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST).
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) added,
``Today's witnesses have given us a great deal of food for
thought. The approach we take towards regulation of the
emerging commercial human space flight industry will have a big
impact both on its future viability and on the safety of the
flying public. We need to get it right, and this hearing is an
important first step.''
Much of the debate centered on the indemnification against
losses caused by commercial human space flight launches. The
government currently insures non-human launches, and Ms.
Meredith saw no need to draw a distinction between manned and
unmanned flights. ``There appears to be no reason to treat a
human space flight differently than unmanned flight as far as
indemnification of the licensee and its contractors,
subcontractors, and customers and the customers' contractors
and subcontractors are concerned,'' Ms. Meredith said. She
added that indemnifying passengers and crew depended on a
larger liability plan for the industry.
Mr. Duffy disagreed, arguing, ``It would not be appropriate
for the government to extend any protection to these people. If
someone is willing to participate in commercial human space
flights at this stage of its development then the risk should
be dealt with solely between the passenger and the launch
provider.''
Witnesses also differed on the appropriate federal office
for implementing regulations over the industry. Mr. Kelly
testified that AST was the correct authority. ``The extent of
that regulation, however, should not reach beyond AST's charter
of protecting the lives and property of uninvolved parties.''
Mr. Hudson disagreed saying, ``AST is not up to the
challenge of this development.'' Hudson called for the
``disestablishment of AST, and the elimination of the need for
U.S. persons to seek `launch licenses.' ''
Mr. Hertzfeld noted that there is often a conflict between
promotion and regulation--roles proposed for FAA. ``I believe
the time has come to separate these activities,'' Hertzfeld
said. ``Promotion of U.S. industry has traditionally been the
province of the U.S. Department of Commerce. If the DOT/FAA is
to regulate space without conflict, the promotional activities
should be transferred elsewhere.''

4.5(g)_NASA-Department of Defense Cooperation in Space
Transportation

March 18, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-49

Background
On March 18, 2004, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on cooperation between NASA and the Department
of Defense (DOD). The hearing examined current and historical
examples of NASA-DOD cooperation and reviewed areas of launch
development that should remain the exclusive responsibility of
one agency or the other. The hearing also addressed how DOD and
NASA could encourage the growth of the U.S. domestic launch
market.
Witnesses for the hearing were Rear Admiral (Ret.) Craig
Steidle, NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of
Exploration Systems; Major General (ret.) Robert Dickman,
Deputy for Military Space in the Office of the Under Secretary
of the Air Force; the Honorable Ron Sega, Director of Defense
Research and Engineering; and Mr. Elon Musk, Chief Executive
Officer of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX).
Summary of Hearing
Witnesses were generally positive about the potential for,
and history of, NASA-DOD collaborations, but acknowledged the
failure of a number of recent collaborations, including the X-
37 space test vehicle and the National Aerospace Plane, which
have been canceled.
Witnesses stressed that certain projects are inappropriate
for NASA-DOD collaborations, particularly those involving
weapons systems, which would compromise NASA's position as a
civilian entity. Major General Dickman also pointed out that,
because military bases on the Moon are prohibited by
international treaty, NASA must undertake such a projects
without DOD collaboration.
Mr. Feeney asked witnesses what payoff the President's
Vision for Space Exploration was likely to have for national
security. Witnesses provided few specifics, but agreed that the
increased emphasis on space exploration will encourage students
to pursue science and engineering, leading to advances in a
variety of technical fields that would benefit national
security.
Chairman Rohrabacher also asked witnesses whether the
development timeline for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV),
scheduled for its first crewed orbit in 2014, is reasonable.
Mr. Musk agreed with Chairman Rohrabacher's impression that the
flight would be achievable considerably sooner than that date,
particularly if it were contracted to smaller entrepreneurial
companies in the private sector. Rear Admiral Steidle
responded, however, that the proposed CEV timeline reflects the
development of ``something beyond just a spacecraft,''
including support systems and infrastructure not accounted for
by Mr. Musk.
Mr. Lampson also asked the witnesses what they felt were
the biggest impediments to productive NASA-DOD partnerships.
Major General Dickman responded that, although there is no
impediment to developing basic technology, NASA and the DOD's
different vehicle requirements make it difficult for the two
organizations to share launch vehicles. Witnesses agreed that
both NASA and DOD leadership must also be dedicated to
cooperation. Mr. Feeney asked witnesses to identify specific
redundancies in the certification requirements, and Chairman
Rohrabacher asked that those responses be made in writing.

4.5(h)_Lunar Science and Resources: Future Options

April 1, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-53

Background
On April 1, 2004, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on the suitability of the Moon for long-term
scientific and commercial activities. A long-term human
presence on the Moon is a primary component of the President's
Space Exploration Initiative, announced January 14, 2004. The
initiative does not specify particular science or technology
goals for the mission, however. The purpose of the hearing was
to develop these specifics by analyzing the Moon's potential as
a base for space science research, including radio, infrared
and optical telescopes, and our ability to use in situ
resources for further exploration.
Witnesses for the hearing were Dr. Paul Spudis, Senior
Staff Scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory and Visiting Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary
Institute; Dr. Daniel F. Lester, Research Scientist at the
McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas at Austin; Dr.
Donald Campbell, Professor of Astronomy and Associate Director
of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) at
Cornell University; Dr. John S. Lewis, Professor of Planetary
Sciences and the Co-Director of the Space Engineering Research
Center at the University of Arizona; and Dr. Timothy Swindle,
Professor of Geosciences and Planetary Sciences at the
University of Arizona.
Summary of Hearing
Witnesses agreed that more research is necessary to
determine whether the Moon could produce enough water to
support a long-term human presence. Witnesses recommended
detailed mapping surveys to determine the location, volume,
concentration and accessibility of ice and hydrogen (which
could be combined with oxygen to produce water) on the Moon.
Though witnesses said the Moon may contain recoverable
stores of elements like oxygen, silicon, titanium, aluminum and
calcium, Dr. Lewis was pessimistic about the economy of such
lunar mining, saying in his statement, ``. . .the cost of
retrieval of lunar materials is certain to be very high,
rendering the return of almost any lunar-derived product to
Earth prohibitively expensive.''
The witnesses agreed that helium-3 is the most promising
output of lunar mining. Present on Earth only in vanishingly
small concentrations, helium-3 could be a fuel source for
fusion reactors. Such reactors have been in development since
the 1960's, however, and are not yet a viable technology.
Witnesses agreed with Chairman Rohrabacher's assessment that
``. . .helium-3 has no value now and we are only talking about
something that has value. . .if we can perfect fusion energy.''
Dr. Lewis was critical of the idea of using the Moon as a
base of operations for Mars missions: ``[T]he use of lunar-
derived propellants, whether oxygen extracted from iron-bearing
minerals. . .or hydrogen and oxygen made from polar ice, to
support expeditions to Mars makes no logistic sense. The Moon
is not `between' Earth and Mars; it is a different destination,
poorly suited to function as a support base for travel to
Mars.'' Dr. Lewis argued that the fuel saved by refueling a
Mars-bound craft at fueling station in orbit around the Moon is
negligible; a direct flight to Mars would use an equal amount
of fuel.
Witnesses also stated that advances in space-based
telescopes negate most of the advantages of hypothetical Moon-
based instruments. Dr. Lester said, ``[T]he opportunities for
lunar-based astronomy offer much less value, compared to
observatories in free space, than had been anticipated several
decades ago.''
Though witnesses were critical of the Moon's commercial
value and its value as a base for telescopes or Mars-mission
operations, they agreed that the Moon is a scientifically
valuable object and that crewed or robotic expeditions to
locations such as the Aikin Basin could make unique
contributions to our understanding of the early solar system
and the evolution of the Earth.

4.5(i)_NASA Contests and Prizes: How Can They Help Advance
Space Exploration?

July 15, 2004

Hearing Volume No. 108-66

Background
On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing to examine how NASA could use inducement prizes
to spur innovation. The report of the President's Commission on
Implementation of United States Exploration Policy, issued in
June, recommended that NASA offer such prizes, and NASA has
requested permission to begin a small prize program and is
seeking legislative authority to run an expanded program.
Witnesses for the hearing were Rear Admiral Craig E.
Steidle (Ret.), Associate Administrator at NASA for Exploration
Systems; the Honorable Robert Walker, Chairman of Wexler and
Walker Public Policy Associates and former Chairman of the
House Science Committee; Dr. Peter Diamandis, Chairman of the X
Prize Foundation; and Dr. Molly Macauley, economist and Senior
Fellow with Resources for the Future.
Summary of Hearing
Members and witnesses expressed support for the creation of
new inducement prizes, which they said would encourage
innovative thinking and technological breakthroughs, while
spreading development costs among the competing teams. They
disagreed, however, on how and by whom the prizes should be
managed.
Chairman Rohrabacher suggested the creation of a National
Endowment for Space Technology and Innovation, specifically
charged with offering and awarding prizes. Admiral Steidle and
Dr. Diamandis disagreed; Admiral Steidle argued that the prizes
should be overseen by NASA's Centennial Challenges program,
while Dr. Diamandis advocated a partnership between NASA and a
private foundation. ``NASA money could be matched 4:1 with
outside capital,'' he said. Dr. Macauley, on the other hand,
argued that a NASA-administered prize would carry an
unnecessary regulatory burden.
Witnesses largely agreed that the prize-giving body should
not require contestants to follow safety regulations beyond
those required by law. ``You ought to make certain that you
have the kind of mechanisms that permit people to take a
substantial amount of risk,'' said Mr. Walker. Dr. Diamandis
agreed, explaining that the X Prize requires that teams ``abide
by all local, regional and federal rules,'' but places no
additional safety regulations on the contest.
Ms. Jackson Lee expressed concern about how prizes would
affect minorities and women. ``. . .All I can see is the
private prize,'' she said, ``which again would be self-
contained, dominated by people who are already in the field,
and if you will, excluding by being a very select and exclusive
club.. . .''
The witnesses responded that, though a prize could not
deliberately address issues of diversity, it would encourage
``non-traditional'' contractors. Dr. Diamandis argued that a
prize ``flattens the playing field'' and ``encourages the non-
traditional, smaller groups to get involved, the ones with the
ideas that are really innovative that would never see the light
of day.''
Witnesses also stressed that prizes were not suited to all
situations. According to Dr. Holtz-Eakin, ``they are most
effective in situations that are characterized by great
uncertainty about how to literally get from point A to point
B.'' Dr. Macauley also told Members that prizes are ``not a
silver bullet,'' and should be seen as a complement to existing
approaches. Similarly, Mr. Lampson said that prizes ``should be
not viewed as a substitute for adequate and sustained
investment by the Federal Government in aeronautics and space
R&D.''
APPENDIX

----------

Views and Estimates
Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 2004

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 as essential 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 AND HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES

In the first session of the 108th Congress, the Science Committee
will focus on homeland security issues, including cyber security, the
establishment of the new Department and the impact of security concerns
on the conduct of research; reauthorization of the Nation's space and
aeronautics programs and the investigation into the disintegration of
the Space Shuttle Columbia; and oversight of the Department of Energy
and the development of the research title for a comprehensive Energy
Bill. Many of the Committee's concerns and interests in these and other
areas are captured in the agency-by-agency discussion in the next
session. But three sets of central concerns that cut across agency
lines need to be reviewed first.
Presidential Initiatives
The Administration's budget highlights five ``multi-agency R&D
priorities'' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of
them--work on networking and information technology, nanotechnology,
and climate change. (Analytical Perspectives, p. 185) The Committee
strongly endorses these initiatives, and agrees that they deserve
priority in funding.
The Administration proposes a six percent increase from the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2003 request for the interagency program on Networking and
Information Technology (NITRD). The Committee believes this is the
minimum the program needs.
The Administration proposes increasing spending on nanotechnology
by ten percent. This promising, broadly applicable technology field
merits the additional spending. The Committee plans to report out
authorizing legislation for the nanotechnology initiative (H.R. 766)
later this spring.
The Administration proposes spending about $1.75 billion on climate
change science, an amount equivalent to FY03 enacted levels. The
Committee believes this is an adequate investment in this important
research. The Committee supports the proposal to dedicate $182 million
to the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), compared to last
year's $40 million request. However, the Committee notes that much of
the increase appears to be the result of the reclassification of
several ongoing research programs.
The Committee commends the Administration for working to develop a
strategic plan to guide all federal research activities regarding
climate, including the CCRI. The Committee plans to work with the
Administration to complete the plan this year and ensure that areas of
climate research the plan identifies as priorities receive adequate
funding.
The Committee also endorses the two other multi-agency R&D
initiatives, which relate to combating terrorism, which is mentioned in
the next section; and to education, some of which is discussed in the
section on the National Science Foundation.
Homeland Security
The Committee played an active role in drafting the legislation
that established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
particularly in creating the Science and Technology Directorate and in
outlining the Department's role in cyber security.
The Committee is therefore pleased that R&D to combat terrorism is
one of the top priorities in the Administration's FY04 budget proposal.
The FY04 budget request includes an estimated $3.2 billion across all
agencies for homeland security R&D, including over $900 million for R&D
within DHS--almost one-third more than was requested in FY03 for R&D by
the agencies being transferred into the new Department.
Most of the R&D funding for DHS ($803 million) will go to the Under
Secretariat for Science and Technology, including $350 million for the
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA).
The Under Secretariat for Science and Technology is unusual among
the divisions of DHS in that its mission and responsibilities require
new capabilities that cannot be met by the programs and agencies being
transferred into it. Perhaps more than any other part of the
department, the challenge will be to build a division with greater
capability than the sum of its individual pieces. Ultimate success will
depend on careful planning and the investment of significant new
resources.
While the Committee is generally supportive of the scale of the
proposed budget for DHS, the Administration has not yet provided enough
information to fully evaluate the proposed budget, despite repeated
requests dating back several months. Important questions remain
regarding the new Department's R&D agenda and how it will be carried
out.
The Committee is concerned that the primary early focus of DHS R&D
will be on development, with basic research comprising only five
percent, or $47 million, of the DHS R&D request. More information is
needed on the R&D agenda both within and outside the Department to
determine if this is adequate, especially given the proposed cuts in
basic research at the Department of Defense.
The Committee is also concerned that the proposed budget fails to
adequately address the Nation's critical needs for cyber security R&D.
The President's National Strategy to Secure Cyber Space tasks DHS with
the responsibility to conduct research and development to reduce the
vulnerability of our nation's computer networks. Nowhere, however, is
this responsibility noted in the proposed budget.
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, continue to dwarf the
remainder of the R&D budget. While the budget documents acknowledge the
need to increase support for the physical sciences, the proposed
spending levels would not allow that to occur, especially when compared
to the enacted levels for FY03.
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 would decrease substantially from FY03 requested
levels.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's non-military national
laboratories, civilian energy research, development, and demonstration
programs, and commercial application of energy technology activities.
The Committee strongly believes that the Administration's FY04
budget request for DOE's Office of Science, which funds 40 percent of
the Nation's physical science research, is inadequate. The budget
proposes funding the Office at $3.3 billion, essentially the same level
provided by the Omnibus Appropriations for FY03. This is significantly
less than the $3.8 billion the House conferees proposed providing to
the Office for FY04 in last year's comprehensive Energy Bill (H.R. 4).
The proposal also falls short of the goal of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which recommended in its
2002 report that the FY04 budget request begin bringing funding for the
physical sciences into parity with that of the life sciences.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of the
Office of Science's 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 supports the inclusion of $12 million in the Office
of Science request for the United States to rejoin international
negotiations aimed at building ITER, a burning plasma physics
experiment intended to lead eventually to the development of fusion as
a commercially viable energy source. The Committee also supports the
request for $64 million, also within the Office of Science, for
nanoscale science including funding for instrumentation and
construction of several nanoscale research centers. The Committee is
concerned, however, that without an increase in the Office of Science's
total budget, existing programs will be cut to provide the necessary
increases for these new initiatives.
The Committee strongly supports the President's initiative calling
for America to lead the world in developing hydrogen-powered
automobiles and the necessary fueling infrastructure to support them,
although many details have not yet been determined. The Committee is
pleased that the Administration has requested $273 million for hydrogen
technology programs, a 50 percent increase over FY03 enacted levels.
The Committee is concerned, however, that the proposed increases in
hydrogen programs would come at the expense of much of the rest of the
R&D funded by DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
account. For example, biomass R&D, which is crucial to curbing the use
of petroleum and other fossil fuels and improving our energy security,
would be cut significantly under the budget proposal. The Committee
believes that the EERE account should be increased so that increases
for the hydrogen initiative do not come detract from other programs.
The Committee supports the Administration's request for an increase
in support for nuclear energy science and technology programs.
Developing technologies that can reduce the volume and long-term
toxicity of high-level waste from spent nuclear fuel and reduce the
threat of proliferation is necessary if the Nation is to continue to
rely on nuclear power. The Committee is concerned, however, about the
drastic cuts proposed for the nuclear energy research initiative
(NERI), which funds innovative, peer-reviewed nuclear research at
universities and has been the source of new ideas for improving the
safety and performance of nuclear energy.
The Committee needs more time to review the request for the Fossil
Energy Research and Development program. The proposed request appears
to fall significantly below the enacted levels for FY03. The Committee
continues to support the Clean Coal program with the requirements that
were included in the House-passed version of H.R. 4 in the last
Congress.
Finally, the Committee supports the proposal to spend $1.6 billion
for climate change technology development and $40 million for
competitive grants to develop and deploy technologies that reduce or
sequester greenhouse gases. The Committee awaits details on the program
to ensure that federal dollars are being well spent to develop and
commercialize advanced technologies that can help mitigate global
climate change.
The Committee notes that the Department of Energy has also
committed to completing a strategic plan for all the government's
efforts to develop climate change technologies, similar to the plan for
federal climate research, within the year. The Committee plans to work
with the Administration to ensure that the plan is on time and that the
areas of climate technology the plan identifies as priorities receive
adequate funding.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA's Office of Research and Development carries out 80 percent of
EPA's R&D activities, and receives a majority of the funds available in
the agency's science and technology (S&T) account. While the
Administration's proposed budget for S&T at EPA of $731 million is nine
percent above its FY03 request, it is only 1.5 percent above FY03
enacted levels. The Committee believes that an increase in funding for
EPA's S&T activities is warranted, especially in light of the across-
the-board green progress ratings EPA has earned on all five of the
President's management initiatives.
The Committee is pleased that the Administration is seeking funding
for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship program, which it
had proposed to eliminate in the FY03 budget request. However, the
Committee believes the program should be funded at $10 million, the
level enacted for FY03.
The Committee supports EPA's request for increased funding for
improving Computational Toxicology, (which helps reveal the sequence of
events by which chemicals can cause adverse effects in humans) and the
Integrated Risk Information System (which provides critical human
health information that enables health-based decision-making). The
Committee also supports EPA's proposed increase in funding to study
risks in sensitive populations such as the aged. Finally, the Committee
again supports EPA's proposed new investments in homeland security for
drinking water systems, for implementation of training and technical
assistance as required by the Bioterrorism Response Act, and for rapid
risk assessment.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The proposed budget would increase NOAA's funding by $172 million,
or about 5.5 percent, above the FY03 enacted level. The Committee
supports this overall level of funding for NOAA.
The Committee is pleased that the request for NOAA includes funding
for the National Sea Grant College Program. The Administration had
proposed in its FY03 request to transfer the program from NOAA to the
National Science Foundation. The Committee led an effort to reform the
program by making more of its funding merit-reviewed and competitive.
The Committee's reforms were included in the reauthorization that
passed Congress and was signed by the President last fall.
The Committee supports NOAA's request for an increase of $17
million for climate change research, observations and services for a
total of $296 million. Both the scientific community and the
Administration have identified these three areas as high priorities.
Included in this amount is $41.6 million specifically for NOAA's
activities under the President's Climate Change Research Initiative
(CCRI), which is intended to reduce scientific uncertainty and provide
policy makers with useful information regarding climate change.
The Committee strongly supports the $5.5 million request for new
funding to upgrade the current NOAA Weather Radio system. The increase
will be used to fully automate NOAA Weather Radio and broaden its
capabilities to become an All Hazards Network, allowing local emergency
management officials to send information and warnings to the public for
any hazardous situation, not just weather emergencies. The expansion
will greatly improve our nation's ability to respond to any emergency,
including terrorist attacks.
The Committee is pleased the Administration has requested an
increase of $40 million NOAA's new satellite program (NPOESS) for a
total of $277 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 this increase may not be
enough as the total request for NPOESS (NOAA and Air Force) is $50
million less than what is called for in NOAA's NPOESS planning
documents. The Committee is also concerned about NOAA's current and
future capability to utilize, manage, and store all the satellite and
weather data that are critical for forecasting and research. The
Committee will continue to work with the General Accounting Office to
ensure NPOESS is able to fulfill its mission and that NOAA makes
progress on solving its satellite data management problems.
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, which has consistently provided high-quality
research in a wide variety of fields including homeland security,
nanotechnology, health care, building science, and computer security.
The Administration proposes to spend $387.6 million for the core NIST
laboratory functions (the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services account) in FY04--an increase of $28.2 million, or eight
percent, over FY03. The Committee is pleased with this request, and in
particular supports the new initiatives in nanotechnology and homeland
security for which the Administration has requested funding. However,
the Committee believes that more funding should be provided to NIST to
implement the significant new responsibilities Congress has recently
given it. Specifically, the Committee believes NIST should be provided
an additional $47 million to implement the Cyber Security Research and
Development Act and $10 million to implement the Help America Vote Act,
both of which were enacted during the last Congress.
The Committee is also pleased with the Administration's proposed
construction and maintenance budget for NIST of $69 million. The budget
request provides funding to undertake much needed improvements at
NIST's laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Above all, however, the
Committee wants to ensure that the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory
in Gaithersburg, Maryland is completed as soon as possible. NIST's FY03
appropriation did not provide enough funding to keep this facility on
schedule for completion by the end of 2003. If no additional funding
can possibly be provided for its completion this year, the Committee
recommends additional funding for FY04.
The Committee takes issue with the proposal to virtually eliminate
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 $2.28 billion in new or retained sales, $480 million in
cost savings, and $873 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 continues to support the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) and is disappointed that it is phased out in the Administration's
budget. The Committee remains willing to work with the Administration
on the ATP reform package it sent to Congress late last year.
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to
keep NTIS functioning as a self-sustaining entity.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of non-
medical basic research conducted at colleges and universities. 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.
In addition, NSF sponsors programs to improve K-12 and undergraduate
education, and its fellowships and research assistantships support many
graduate and post-doctoral students. The Foundation continues to
receive high marks under the President's Management Reform Agenda. This
year the Foundation received the only two ``green lights'' from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--one for financial management and
the other for e-government.
The FY04 budget request for NSF is $5.481 billion, an increase of
$452.9 million--or nine percent--over the FY03 request, but only three
percent more than the FY03 appropriated level. As a result, when
compared to the actual FY03 appropriated amounts, the high priority for
NSF funding expressed in the President's budget (which was submitted
before the FY03 appropriation was completed) fades to nearly flat
funding when adjusted for inflation. Moreover, the FY04 budget request
falls far short of the $6.39 billion authorized by the 107th Congress
for NSF education and research activities in FY04.
The Committee believes that NSF should receive $6.390 billion in
FY04, the amount authorized by the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368). This request would increase
funding for NSF's core science programs, such as information technology
and nanoscale science and engineering research, and it would enable NSF
to begin fully funding K-12 education programs and the large facility
projects that have already been approved by the National Science Board.
Education and Human Resources
The Committee will continue to support education programs that
improve student achievement and involvement in science, math,
engineering and technology, and it will ensure that math and science
education reforms, undertaken to fulfill the vision of the President's
No Child Left Behind initiative, are grounded in sound science.
The Committee is pleased that the budget requests $200 million to
complete the third year of funding for the Mathematics and Science
Education Partnership Program. While the requested level is lower than
the amount authorized last year by the National Science Foundation Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-368), it does restore recent funding cuts and it
increases the overall level to accommodate the high number of quality
applications.
The Committee appreciates the fact that the budget provides funding
for the Noyce Scholarship Program and the Tech Talent Program (referred
to as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent
Expansion Program, or STEP), but notes that the FY03 appropriated level
now exceeds the FY04 request by $3 million and $15 million
respectively. The Committee believes that the Noyce Scholarship Program
should receive $20 million and the Tech Talent Program (or STEP) should
receive $30 million, the amounts authorized under P.L. 107-368.
Finally, the Committee is pleased that the budget request for NSF's
education programs increases the stipend level for graduate students in
research or teaching fellowships from $25,000 to $30,000.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--United States Fire
Administration (USFA)
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) was created in 1974 to aid
localities in reducing the loss of life and property from fires and
related emergencies. In 1979, USFA became part of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which, in turn, will be transferred on March
1 into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). USFA's Fire
Prevention and Control activities, authorized at a level of $50.0
million for FY03, are due to be reauthorized this year. The FY04 budget
request for these USFA activities has not yet been provided to
Congress.
The Committee is concerned about the fate of non-homeland security
activities transferred into the Department of Homeland Security, and is
troubled by the lack of information regarding USFA fire prevention and
control activities included in the budget justifications. The committee
will carefully monitor the administration of these programs to ensure
that they continue to be operated in an efficient and effective manner.
USFA has also administered the (separately authorized) Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program to provide direct assistance to local
fire departments for training, purchase of equipment, and other
purposes. The program is authorized at a level of $900 million for
FY04. The President has requested $500 million, or $245 million less
than the amount appropriated for FY03, for this program as part of the
Administration's $3.5 billion counter-terrorism initiative within the
Department of Homeland Security Border and Transportation Security
Directorate's Office of National Preparedness.
The Committee is pleased that the budget requests a specific amount
for the Assistance to Firefighters grant program (as opposed to zeroing
out the program in favor of other first responder programs, as in the
FY03 request) but supports the authorized amount for FY04 and is
opposed to the transfer of the program out of the DHS Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate where FEMA-USFA would administer
it. The Committee believes that USFA, with its long history of working
with America's fire services and demonstrated record of successfully
implementing the fire grant program, is clearly the appropriate agency
for administration of the program. The Committee also believes the
focus of the program should remain on supporting basic firefighting
needs, separate and distinct from other grant programs providing funds
for terrorism incident response.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
NEHRP is an interagency program led by FEMA that includes the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The
program aims to reduce the loss of life and property from earthquakes
by improving emergency response, increasing our understanding of
earthquake risks, and improving earthquake engineering.
Most NEHRP activities, authorized at a level of $122.6 million for
FY03, are due to be to reauthorized this year. Additional multi-year
authorizations exist to operate the Advanced National Seismic Research
and Monitoring System (ANSS, $35.0 million for FY04) and the George E.
Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES, $17 million
for FY04). The complete FY04 budget request for NEHRP has not yet been
provided to Congress because of the delayed release of DHS-FEMA budget
justifications. However, supporting agency levels have been provided:
NSF, $45.0 million; USGS, $46.1 million; NIST, $2.5 million. The
Committee is concerned about the fate of the NEHRP program as FEMA is
transferred into the Department of Homeland Security, and troubled by
the apparent lack of coordination between NEHRP agencies in preparing
the budget request. The Committee is also concerned that the request
for the ANSS is only $2.0 million, less than five percent of the
authorized level.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Administration has proposed $15.469 billion for NASA in FY04,
an increase of less than one percent above NASA's FY03 appropriation of
$15.335 billion. Unfortunately, as a result of the tragic loss of the
Space Shuttle, it is impossible at this time to credibly assess the
proposed funding levels contained in significant portions of NASA's
FY04 budget request.
On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed
during re-entry and the seven astronauts on-board were killed.
Following the accident, NASA grounded the Shuttle fleet indefinitely
pending an investigation by a team of outside experts. Clearly, the
accident and subsequent grounding of the Shuttle will have a
significant effect on NASA's proposed FY04 budget request for the
Shuttle program and the programs that rely on the Shuttle, specifically
the International Space Station (ISS), and the ISS research program
which is contained in the Office of Biological and Physical Research.
In total, these programs account for approximately $6.6 billion of
NASA's $15.5 billion budget. It is too early in the investigation to
accurately predict what NASA's FY04 budget requirements will be for
these programs.
The Administration is not expected to call for the construction of
a new Shuttle Orbiter as was done to replace the Challenger in 1986
both because a fleet of three Orbiters is probably sufficient to
complete the missions planned and because Shuttle manufacturing has
been shut down for so long that it would be extremely difficult to
restart it. However, as a result of the grounding of the Shuttle, NASA
is studying alternatives to accelerate the development of an Orbital
Space Plane (OSP) as part of the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). NASA's
FY04 request for SLI is $1 billion and an acceleration of the program
would likely increase the funding required for the program, but it is
premature to predict whether NASA will propose an acceleration of the
OSP and how that might affect the budget. The Committee plans to
reassess all NASA human space flight programs as part of its
investigation into the Columbia accident.
NASA hoped to achieve U.S. core complete assembly of the ISS by
spring 2004 and have 12 research racks in operation. However, these
plans are being re-assessed as well. Therefore, the Committee cannot
adequately address whether the Administration's $1.71 billion FY04
budget request for ISS assembly and operations is justified. While the
ISS has been an item of concern for the Committee, NASA has made
significant progress this past year in establishing more credible cost
estimates and management processes for the program.
The Administration requested $972 .7 million in FY04 for NASA's
Biological and Physical Research program, which is a 6.5 percent
increase over the FY03 request, as calculated using full cost. This
budget reflects NASA's commitment to the Research Maximization and
Prioritization (ReMAP) Task Force recommendations to increase the
priority and productivity of science on the Space Station. NASA
management should be commended for providing more stability to the
Space Station research program. However, the loss of the Columbia and
grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet will impact NASA's ability to
conduct this research.
Three major NASA programs, Space Science, Earth Science, and
Aeronautics are not directly affected by the grounding of the Space
Shuttle fleet. The Administration's FY04 budget request for NASA's
Space Science enterprise is $4.01 billion. The Committee strongly
supports NASA's Space Science program and the Administration's request,
including Project Prometheus for space nuclear power and propulsion
systems, optical communications, and the Beyond Einstein initiative.
The Committee supports the Administration's request of $1.55
billion for NASA's Earth Science Enterprise and applauds NASA's work
with the interagency climate change science program. However, the
Committee is concerned that the Administration is requesting only $75
million in FY04 for NASA's Earth Science Application programs, despite
its proven track record of high payoff endeavors, including improved
weather forecasting, disaster management, terrain mapping, and aviation
safety. The Committee is also concerned that the Administration is not
adequately transitioning NASA's technology efforts, such as space radar
and weather monitoring sensors, into operational capabilities.
The Administration's FY04 budget request for NASA's Aeronautics
Technology program is $959 million, a one percent increase over last
year's request. The Committee is concerned that the Administration has
significantly under-funded research and development in aeronautics.
Once a core program within NASA, the Administration plans to cut an
additional five percent from this program over the next five years,
exacerbating a ten-year pattern of declining budgets at a time of
growing need. These needs were highlighted in the Final Report of the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, a
Congressionally-created commission chaired by former Science Committee
Chairman Bob Walker. This report concluded: ``As we approach the 100th
anniversary of powered flight, the Commission urges the President and
Congress to recognize a pressing national need, and powerful
opportunity, and act now to create a 21st century air transportation
system.''
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Committee believes that the FY04 budget request for FAA's
research and development is not adequate. The budget request appears to
be $282 million, but is difficult to calculate because of the way it
has been distributed across several accounts. The level of R&D
investment falls far short of the funding required to maintain and to
improve our air transportation system. The Committee looks forward to
working with the FAA to ensure that R&D funding is commensurate to the
challenges facing our air transportation system.
The Committee believes that the FY04 budget request of $12.6
million for the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST)
is more than is necessary to meet the projected demand for issuing
commercial launch licenses and promoting the space transportation
industry. The Committee urges the Office and the U.S. Air Force to
develop streamlined safety regulations for U.S. launch operations that
do not hinder the competitiveness of commercial launch providers.
Department of Commerce-Office of Space Commercialization
The Committee urges continued funding for this office at a level of
at least $760,000 for FY04. In the past, the Office has played a useful
role in promoting the commercial space industry and removing
unnecessary impediments to the development of a robust and prosperous
space industry. The Office needs to take a stronger role in legal and
policy discussions within the government and be more aggressive in
assisting U.S. commercial space providers in their efforts to conduct
business with the government.

Minority Additional Views
FY 2004 Views and Estimates
to the House Budget Committee
March, 2003

We generally agree with the policy guidance offered by the Majority
in their Views and Estimates to the Budget Committee on the FY04 budget
for civilian R&D. Those Views start with a global observation about the
importance of adequate funding for science and technology, but the
document is actually silent on what level of funding the Majority
believes would be adequate. Instead, we are left with a collection of
program-level recommendations done up department-by-department. That
leaves us wondering what use the Budget Committee can put this document
to as it looks for guidance on, for example, funding levels for
Function 250 over the next five years. There is a fundamental
disconnect between the purpose of composing Views and Estimates and the
content of the Majority's report.
But this is nothing new. Each year for the past decade we have seen
the Views and Estimates move further from their intended purpose of
providing a solid, analytical, five-year recommendation to the Budget
Committee. Many of our Members will sign on to the Majority's Views
because the report does no harm, but the report also does no good by
evading its central responsibility. Content is sacrificed in pursuit of
unanimity.
We might make the same calculation were we charged with writing
Views and Estimates because the budget process itself has become
largely irrelevant. If the process is irrelevant, why make enemies and
stir dissent by asking Members to sign up to big budget increases in
S&T for the next five years (or cuts, or minimal increases--whatever
poison you choose will simply divide Members)? The logic of the
situation leads one irresistibly away from offering a clear-eyed vision
of the S&T budget for the next five years and towards a detailed
discussion of specific programs and initiatives. It is a kind of bad
conjurer's trick to use lots of hand-waving about specific programs in
hopes that no one will notice that the rabbit--a five-year projection--
didn't disappear because it was never there in the first place. The
whole exercise reminds us of the Committee's much-ballyhooed 1998
National Science Policy Study, which meekly called for ``stable and
substantial'' funding for Federal R&D without actually committing to
any specific funding recommendations. As pointed out by critics at the
time, the ``stable and substantial'' criterion would be met by a budget
that was slowly, steadily, inexorably declining over time.
In these additional views, we want to suggest an overall level of
funding for FY 2004 for R&D and offer some observations on the use of
metrics in the President's budget request and on earmarks in the budget
process.

A Reluctant Recommendation

The Administration's overall request for R&D amounts to a 4.8
percent increase over the FY 2003 appropriated levels and yet that
appears inadequate. Under the President's request, many programs would
receive less funding in FY 2004 than in FY 2003. The Department of
Energy's civilian research programs, the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments
of Agriculture, Interior, Veterans Affairs, and Education would all be
flat or face R&D cuts from the 2003 appropriated level if the
President's request were enacted. Perhaps most tellingly, non-defense,
non-NIH research in the President's budget grows by just 1.6 percent
from the 2003 enacted level--below the level of inflation. It seems a
mistake then to stay wedded to the President's numbers.
More than a mistake, it might be irresponsible. The reality is that
the appropriators have been pushing for strong growth in R&D accounts;
R&D increased by 13.8 percent from 2002 to 2003. On top of this, there
is near unanimous agreement that the need for national security-related
research continues to grow, and there is a consensus that we should be
investing more in the physical sciences and in such areas as energy and
environmental technologies. Further, while we can't say what impact the
Columbia tragedy will have on NASA's budget, we can guess that more
money rather than less will be needed at the agency. In light of these
factors, it would seem reasonable to recommend an increase in the
overall R&D funding in the eight percent to ten percent range compared
to the FY 2003 enacted levels. It seems impossible to do the things we
know we need to do in R&D with anything less than that, unless we are
now willing to start sacrificing biomedical research. As to out years,
we would like to believe that increases for security and physical
sciences could decline slightly, say to the five percent to seven
percent range in the four subsequent years.

Metrics in the President's Budget

The President's budget makes much of the effort to develop metrics
for R&D programs. We fully support the effort to identify reasonable
measures of performance for programs, both to give program managers
useful tools for evaluating progress and to provide policy-makers in
Congress and elsewhere with insight into the Administration's budgetary
decisions. However, we remain skeptical that this Administration has
demonstrated the utility of metrics in producing sound budgeting
decisions. We also have limited confidence in the ability of OMB to
know the difference between a good management criterion and a bad one--
and the difference matters. Some have said that a bad number is better
than no number at all. From our perspective a bad number, if used to
guide budgetary decisions, can lead to terrible outcomes.
Judgment Is Required. For example, OMB's evaluation of the Space
Shuttle program in the FY04 budget submission notes that the ``Shuttle
operational costs are rising'' and that one of the goals for the
program is ``to help mitigate cost growth in Shuttle operations.'' But
is the criterion of ``mitigating cost growth'' wise? Perhaps the wisest
course would be to increase Shuttle costs, and quickly, in light of an
overworked, depleted workforce. Absent in the program summary is any
direct engagement with the central issue surrounding the Shuttle
program even before the Columbia accident: is the program doing
everything it should to ensure flight safety? That seems like an
important metric and, given the costs of losing a Shuttle, an essential
one, but it isn't represented in the OMB analysis. We are not
suggesting that OMB is somehow to blame for the Columbia accident, just
that what OMB counts matters to agencies and what OMB counts may not
always be what an agency most needs to focus on.
Objectivity vs. Political Philosophy. We find programs that receive
solid ratings in the OMB Metric effort but are canceled for other
reasons. Thus the Manufacturing Extension Program at the Department of
Commerce is proposed for phase-out despite having good scores on
planning (86 out of 100), management (91) and results (80). Why?
Because OMB doesn't believe the purpose of the program has been
demonstrated--that the services provided to small manufacturers through
MEP centers should be handled by the private sector. Perhaps OMB is
right. Perhaps it is wrong. But the number given MEP for ``purpose''
(40) is based on faith and political ideology rather than objective
measurement. The same is true for many other programs (Fossil Energy
R&D and the Advanced Technology Program both come to mind). Canceling a
program because you don't believe the government should do it is
certainly defensible, but making this the most important criterion will
always relegate managerial objectivity to a diminished role, if not
irrelevancy.
Some Tactical Retreats. And then, for all the talk of metrics and
management initiatives, one finds some retreat from the previous
Administration in the use of objective numerical criteria. NASA's new
strategic plan, which was released with the FY 2004 budget request,
eliminates a number of quantitative performance objectives set by NASA
in previous years. For example, in the late 1990s, NASA set an explicit
aviation safety objective to guide its R&D efforts, namely ``Reduce the
accident rate by a factor of five within ten years and by a factor of
ten within twenty years.'' In contrast, the new NASA strategic plan has
changed the objective to ``Decrease the accident rate and mitigate the
consequences of accidents.. . .'' In the area of air traffic management
R&D, the previous objective was ``Double the capacity of the aviation
system within 10 years and triple it within 25 years.'' The revised
objective is now ``Enable more people and goods to travel faster and
farther, anywhere, anytime with fewer delays.'' Perhaps the original
numbers were too ambitious, but these sorts of applied R&D programs
should be the easiest areas to develop reasonable measures of
performance. So why have the numbers been dropped?
Metrics and Policy. Finally, an emphasis on program-level metrics
without some broader awareness of how R&D policies fit together with
and support other policies is a recipe for failure. In promoting the
development and adoption of applied energy or environmental
technologies, for example, supportive policies are needed to move
innovations into broader use. Spending billions of dollars to enhance
our understanding and encourage innovation in areas that will benefit
the public is simply wasted if the knowledge stays bottled up or if
innovations find no outlet through complementary policies. We see no
evidence that the Administration's efforts at R&D metrics provide for
integrated analysis of how to achieve broader societal goals for which
applied R&D is but one component. For example, what regulatory and
fiscal stimuli might be necessary to complement the President's
hydrogen initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a hydrogen
economy? How do these stimuli relate to the R&D program?
Summary of Metrics. In the end, the effort to utilize metrics will
rise or fall on how it addresses the issues raised in this section. In
the short run, the use of metrics must at least result in clearer
program goals and execution. The evidence is not entirely encouraging
in this regard. The one area where the Administration seems to have
worked the hardest to craft a coherent planning process has been in
climate change R&D; however, according to a just released National
Academy of Sciences evaluation, that draft plan ``lacks most of the
basic elements of a strategic plan: a guiding vision, executable goals,
clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress.''

Earmarks

The President's budget also makes much of earmarks in R&D accounts,
arguing that one cannot measure the effectiveness of such expenditures,
that higher priority work is crowded out through political favoritism,
and that earmarks are distorting some programs (for example, NIST's
construction account was heavily earmarked for non-NIST projects in FY
2002 and FY 2003 appropriations). We have some sympathy for OMB's
objections and worry about the ability of some programs to carry out
their missions. This committee has a long history of supporting NIST
construction accounts--and of wondering why the Department of Energy
should help build hospitals. However, we say to our friends at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that, if you don't like earmarks,
don't fund them. Most earmarks do not exist in law. They are contained,
by and large, in the detailed report language that accompanies
appropriations bills. Report language is not binding on an agency. The
ultimate responsibility for earmarks lies with the Administration that
cuts the check. From a political perspective, we understand why no one
in the Old Executive Office Building wants to start telling
Appropriators they won't get their earmarks, but if you really believe
them to be such a problem, perhaps you should swallow hard and start
drawing lines in the sand. It is the kind of brave decision someone
might make just before leaving town to run for Governor.

Hon. Ralph Hall Hon. Zoe Lofgren
Hon. Bart Gordon Hon. Anthony Weiner
Hon. Nick Lampson Hon. Jim Matheson
Hon. John Larson Hon. Brad Sherman
Hon. Mark Udall Hon. Lynn Woolsey
Hon. Mike Honda Hon. Lincoln Davis
Hon. Brad Miller Hon. David Wu
Hon. Chris Bell Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee Hon. Dennis Moore
Hon. Jerry Costello ................................

Views and Estimates of the
Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 2005

BACKGROUND

As the House and Senate begin consideration of the President's
Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) budget request, there is no question that a
great deal of debate will revolve around the budget deficit and its
impact on the long-term economic health of the Nation. As these
discussions move forward, the Science Committee urges Congress to
recognize the importance and contributions of science and technology to
productivity and economic growth--and consequently--fiscal security.
Indeed, nothing benefits federal revenues over the long-term as
much as accelerated economic growth, and nothing fuels long-term growth
more than science and technology.
Further, the strength of the U.S. scientific enterprise has long
been a crucial component of America's national security. Advancements
in science and technology were 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 just as essential to winning the war against terrorism.
As the President's Science Advisor Dr. John Marburger noted in
testimony before the Science Committee, ``This Administration
understands that science and technology are major drivers of economic
growth and important for securing the homeland and winning the war on
terrorism.'' Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Under Secretary
Charles McQueary echoed this sentiment at the same hearing, stating
that ``the Nation's advantage in science and technology is key to
securing the homeland.''

SCIENCE COMMITTEE AGENDA

In the second session of the 108th Congress, the Science
Committee's top objective will be to lead efforts to evaluate and
consider the President's space exploration initiative. The Committee's
views on the initiative will be embodied in reauthorization legislation
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
Committee will also emphasize oversight of some of the key programs the
Committee has helped put into place, including the work of the DHS
Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate; important interagency R&D
activities such as nanotechnology, climate change research, networking
and information technology, and cyber security; and Department of
Energy (DOE) R&D activities at the Office of Science. The Committee
will also work to strengthen funding and activities at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). With regard to these agencies, the Committee notes
particular priorities of preserving the Math and Science Partnerships
program at NSF and ensuring that NIST has adequate funding to fulfill
new responsibilities in areas such as the development of technical
standards for voting machines.

OVERALL R&D FUNDING

Consistent with the President's overall FY05 budget request, the
budget request for R&D primarily would increase funding for the
Department of Defense (DOD) and DHS (7 and 15 percent, respectively).
All other R&D receives an average increase of 2.3 percent. The R&D
budget increases are almost entirely for development (8 percent), while
basic and applied research are almost flat-funded (0.6 and 0.5 percent
increases, respectively). The Committee believes the proposed funding
for basic research is insufficient. Funding short-term development at
the expense of longer-term basic and applied research is not advisable,
and neglects those portions of R&D where government support is most
crucial.
The Committee also believes that the budget must fully consider
appropriate balances between defense and non-defense R&D spending and
between biomedical and non-biomedical spending. At $69 and $29 billion,
respectively, the R&D budgets of DOD and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) comprise 75 percent of the total R&D budget, including 93
percent of the FY05 increases (Analytical Perspectives, p. 59). While
fully acknowledging the important contributions of these agencies, the
Committee urges that similar attention be given to other important R&D
agencies, such as NSF, DOE, and NIST.

INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES

Presidential Initiatives
The Administration's budget highlights five ``multi-agency R&D
priorities'' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of
them--work on networking and information technology, nanotechnology,
and climate change. The Committee strongly endorses these initiatives,
and agrees that they deserve priority in funding.
The Administration proposes a 2 percent increase from the FY04
estimated level for the interagency program on nanotechnology. This
increase includes a 20 percent increase for nanotechnology programs at
NSF, which is merited. Additional funds, beyond the administration's
request, are needed for the nanotechnology programs at NIST and the DOE
Office of Science.
The Administration proposes spending $2 billion for the interagency
Climate Change Science Program, approximately the same as enacted in
FY04. The Committee supports the proposal to dedicate $240 million to
the interagency Climate Change Research Initiative, a 42 percent
increase above the FY04 enacted level. This Initiative focuses on
short-term results to support improved public debate and decision-
making. However, the Committee notes that much of the increase for CCRI
appears to reflect reclassification of ongoing research activities.
The Administration proposes a one percent decrease from the FY04
estimated level for the interagency program on Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD). This program
includes important work on high-end computing and high-confidence
software and systems, and the Committee believes that funding for work
in this area should be raised, not lowered.
While cyber security R&D is not a formal Presidential initiative,
significant effort is being put into programs in this area at a number
of agencies. While the budget requests $76 million for cyber security
R&D and education and training programs at NSF (up 19 percent) and
$18.5 million for cyber security R&D at NIST (up 48 percent), this
funding is still well below the levels authorized in the Cyber Security
Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305). In addition, within the
DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, the FY05 budget requests
only $18 million for cyber security R&D, the same level as in FY04. The
Committee believes that increased funding for, and increased
coordination of cyber security R&D programs are needed.
The Committee also endorses the two other multi-agency R&D
initiatives, which relate to combating terrorism (discussed in the next
section) and to hydrogen (discussed in the section on the Department of
Energy).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

FULL COMMITTEE

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Committee wrote the portion of the Homeland Security Act that
created DHS's S&T Directorate. The Committee is pleased that the
Administration has requested a 15 percent increase in funding for R&D
in DHS.
Most of the requested R&D funding for DHS ($1.04 billion) is for
the S&T Directorate, which receives a 14 percent increase. A
significant part of the increase is directed toward operational
expansion of the BioWatch system, which is designed to monitor major
cities for biological agents. Funding for more basic research programs
does not fare as well. The funding for University Programs decreases
dramatically, from $69 million in FY04 to $30 million in FY05. The
Committee is concerned that if DHS does not make and maintain
investments in basic research, including research at universities and
national laboratories, the next generation of homeland security
technologies will not be available against the next generation of
threats.
The FY05 budget request proposes to commence consolidation of the
department's R&D programs into the S&T Directorate by transferring $24
million worth of R&D activities from the U.S. Coast Guard and from the
Federal Air Marshal Service. The Committee is supportive of the
consolidation, and looks forwarded to the remaining research programs
in the Department being moved into the S&T Directorate.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's non-military national
laboratories, civilian energy research, development, and demonstration
programs, and commercial application of energy technology activities.
Office of Science
The Committee believes that the Administration's FY05 request for
DOE's Office of Science, which funds 40 percent of the Nation's
physical science research, is inadequate. The budget proposes funding
the Office at $3.4 billion, a reduction of two percent. This is
significantly less than the $4.2 billion included in the House-passed
conference report for H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2003.
The proposal also falls far short of the goal of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which recommended in a
2002 report that the FY04 budget request should begin bringing funding
for the physical sciences into parity with that of the life sciences.
DOE's Office of Science is the largest federal supporter of the
civilian physical sciences, a critical component of the federal
research portfolio that has been dwarfed by support for biomedical
research in recent years.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of user
facilities and academic research funded by the Office of Science. 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. This year's
budget not only continues the problem, but may make it worse in future
years. Included in the budget are preliminary design and long-lead
acquisition for three new projects (the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor, a protein factory, and the Linac Coherent Light
Source). The Committee is concerned that if work begins on these
projects in such a constrained budgetary environment, either the
construction of the facilities will be prolonged, raising their costs,
or core research programs may have to be cut.
Over the last few years, the Committee has repeatedly expressed
concern about the deterioration of many DOE facilities. To address this
deterioration, the FY05 budget proposes to reduce allocations for
infrastructure and to allow third parties to build new facilities that
the Federal Government will then lease. While this approach may be
feasible in some instances, it is important that adequate safeguards be
in place to ensure that private interests serve public needs rather
than the other way around. Further, the Committee is concerned that
this approach does not adequately address the ongoing infrastructure
needs of DOE facilities.
Energy Supply R&D
The Committee is concerned that R&D related to energy efficiency
and alternative sources of energy is underfunded, especially at a time
of higher fuel prices. Energy efficiency and renewable research has
been reduced by 1.3 percent since FY01.
The Committee supports the President's initiative calling for
America to lead the world in developing hydrogen-powered automobiles
and the necessary fueling infrastructure to support them, although many
details have not yet been determined. The Committee is pleased that the
Administration has requested $228 million for hydrogen technology
programs, a 28 percent increase over FY04 enacted levels.
The Committee is concerned, however, that the proposed increases in
hydrogen programs come at the expense of much of the rest of the R&D
funded by DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. For
example, biomass R&D, which is crucial to increasing our energy
independence while helping American farmers, receives a significant
cut.
The Committee is troubled by the Administration's diminished
commitment to nuclear energy research, especially the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI). The AFCI develops technologies that can reduce the volume and
long-term toxicity of high-level waste, which is critical to the
responsible stewardship of spent nuclear fuel. NERI, which funds
innovative, peer-reviewed nuclear research at universities, has been
the source of new ideas for improving the safety and performance of
nuclear energy. These technologies may also enhance national security
by reducing the danger of proliferation of nuclear materials.
While the Committee continues to support the Clean Coal program
with the requirements that were included in H.R. 6, the Committee has
concerns about the FutureGen project, which is to be funded with
rescinded Clean Coal funds. In particular, the Administration's request
for $237 million for the FutureGen project includes language that would
exempt the project from the basic good government provisions needed to
control costs.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for
80 percent of EPA's R&D activities, and it receives the majority of
funds available in the agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account.
ORD serves a unique role in environmental R&D: it conducts basic and
applied research that supports EPA's regulatory programs and
investigates the next generation of environmental challenges. To meet
these needs, ORD conducts intramural research at EPA's many
laboratories and it supports extramural research at colleges and
universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant
program.
For FY05, the budget request includes $689 million for S&T at EPA,
an 11.8 percent reduction. Much of this cut stems from a 35 percent
reduction in funding for the STAR extramural grant program. This
reduction--which would decrease available funding for ecological
research by $22.2 million, pollution prevention research by $5 million,
endocrine disruptor research by $4.7 million, and mercury research by
$2 million--results from the STAR program's poor score in the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART Review).
The poor score is surprising in that it comes just a year after the
program was endorsed by the National Research Council in its report,
The Measure of STAR. The Committee plans to hold hearings shortly to
review OMB's assessment of the STAR program, and will seek restoration
of the STAR funds if the criticisms of the program seem unjustified.
The Committee is also troubled by the proposed elimination of ORD's
building decontamination research program. EPA has been working closely
with DHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to aid in
the detection and removal of biological and chemical contaminants in
the environment. EPA has brought expertise to the table that other
agencies do not have. The budget neither explains why this program is
eliminated nor indicates whether the $8.3 million currently spent on
building decontamination research will be transferred to another agency
to carry out this important work.
The Committee is pleased the budget includes funding for the STAR
Fellowship program, which supports graduate student fellowships in
environmental science. However, the Committee believes the program
should be funded at $10 million, the level enacted in FY03 and FY04.
The Committee also supports the budget request for increased
funding to improve computational toxicology, which helps reveal the
sequence of events by which chemicals can cause adverse effects in
humans, and the Integrated Risk Information System, which provides
critical human health information that enables health-based decision-
making.
Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
NOAA's activities include providing weather forecasts and warnings,
charting the seas for navigation, developing guides for the use and
protection of ocean and coastal resources, and performing research to
improve understanding of marine, coastal and atmospheric environments.
The Committee has jurisdiction over four of NOAA's five line offices--
the National Ocean Service, the Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Research, the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service, and the National Weather Service.
The FY05 budget request for NOAA is $3.4 billion, a decrease of
$308 million (8.3 percent). Most of the reduction is due to the
elimination of earmarks, and the Committee supports this overall level
of funding for NOAA.
The Committee is pleased with the requested increase of $13.5
million for climate change research and observations. Most of the
increase is to support the Climate Change Research Initiative, which
focuses on priority areas such as ocean observations, aerosol research
and carbon cycle research.
The Committee also supports the request of $898 million for
satellite programs at NOAA. This request is a $71 million (8.6 percent)
increase over the FY04 enacted level of $827 million. The increase is
for procurement, acquisition, and construction of the next generation
of weather satellites, and it is in line with the long-term budget
plans for these satellite systems. The Committee remains concerned,
however, that the most recent polar satellite budget plan, if enacted,
could result in a gap in polar satellite coverage at the end of this
decade. The plan proposes that the last of the old generation
satellites be launched without having a new satellite available as a
backup in the event of a launch failure. If such a loss were to occur,
no replacement satellite would be available until the next scheduled
launch date--a gap in coverage of up to 21 months. Polar weather
satellites provide data for three- to seven-day weather forecasts,
hurricane and storm tracking, and climate science observations. The
Committee held a hearing about this problem last year and it is working
with the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the costs and risks
associated with NOAA's polar satellite program. To date, the cost of
the entire program has risen from original estimates of $6.5 billion to
the most recent estimate of $7.4 billion.
The Committee strongly supports NOAA's request for $27 million for
satellite data product processing and distribution, and $26 million for
satellite product development, readiness and application. The Committee
is concerned about NOAA's current and future capability to utilize,
manage, and store satellite and weather data critical for forecasting
and research. These funding levels will ensure that our large
investment in satellites is fully utilized with timely and useful
satellite data products.
The Committee is pleased the Administration has requested an
increase of $2.2 million over the FY04 enacted level of $5.3 million
for the Space Environment Center. The Center, which predicts the
effects of solar storms, is vital to our ability to mitigate damage to
our telecommunications, aviation, and electricity industries during
such storms.
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, which has consistently provided high-quality
research in a wide variety of fields, including homeland security,
nanotechnology, health care, building science, and computer security.
The budget request includes $422 million for the core NIST laboratory
functions (the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account,
or STRS) in FY05--an increase of about $84 million (according to
updated NIST figures), or almost 25 percent. The Committee strongly
supports this request, which is especially needed to restore steep
funding cuts NIST's base programs sustained in FY04. The full increase
is necessary to restore the cuts.
The proposed request must cover the cost-of-living increase for
federal employees, the one-time costs associated with purchasing
equipment for the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML), the loss
of internal NIST funding from the proposed elimination of the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), and the costs of laying off employees who
worked on ATP. The entire remainder of the proposed increase would be
needed to restore the cuts made in FY04.
The request includes funding for a number of initiatives important
to many sectors of our nation's economy and security, including
nanomanufacturing, cyber security, and standards development and
testing for equipment for first responders and the military. The
request could also enable NIST to undertake its responsibilities under
the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to help develop technical standards
for voting equipment, although no funds have been explicitly requested
for that purpose. NIST needs at least $2.8 million in both FY04 and
FY05 to begin to carry out its vital responsibilities under HAVA. The
Committee views the funding of NIST's activities under HAVA as a top
priority.
The Committee supports the budget request of $33.7 million for
NIST's construction account, which includes funding to complete the
upgrades at the Central Utility Plant at NIST's laboratory in Boulder,
Colorado. The Committee also is pleased that construction of the AML in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, will be completed on schedule. The Committee
supports the $25 million requested for FY05 in the Research Support
Account (part of the STRS account) for new scientific instruments that
would make the AML fully operational. Funding for this equipment is
critical to the nanomanufacturing initiative proposed for FY05, and it
will ensure that full advantage can be taken on AML's world-class
facilities.
The Committee is concerned that the $39 million request for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) fails to restore the
devastating 65 percent cut in FY04. MEP provides smaller manufacturers
with technical assistance to become more competitive, and it has a
proven track record; numerous studies bear out its contributions to the
economy. The FY04 level of funding will result in a downsizing process
(currently underway) that will close many MEP centers and potentially
cripple the program. The proposed budget for FY05 would only reinforce
this trend. The Committee believes that it will reduce the
effectiveness of MEP at a time when it is most needed.
The Committee continues to support ATP and is disappointed that the
Administration has included no funds for ATP in the FY05 request. The
Committee supports funding the program at the FY04 enacted level ($169
million).
Department of Commerce--National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to
keep NTIS functioning as a self-sustaining entity.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of
federal funding for non-medical basic research conducted at colleges
and universities. NSF funds basic research across nearly all
disciplines of science and engineering, making NSF-supported research
integral to progress in national priority areas such as health care and
national security, among others. In addition, NSF sponsors programs to
improve K-12 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and
research assistantships support many graduate and post-doctoral
students.
NSF continues to receive high marks from the Office of Management
and Budget for the quality of its management and for the excellence of
its programs. As in the FY04 budget request, NSF was awarded two green
lights on the Executive Branch Management Scorecard. Also, in the past
year, four NSF programs were examined using the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART): Nanoscale Science and Engineering, Information
Technology Research, Facilities, and Individuals (programs directed
toward math, science, and engineering education and training of
students at the K-12, undergraduate, and graduate levels). All received
ratings of Effective (the highest rating).
The FY05 budget request for NSF is $5.75 billion, an increase of
three percent, or $167 million over the FY04 level. This insufficient
request is $1.6 billion below the funding level in the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368). The budget
requests the largest percentage increases for personnel and
administrative initiatives and for construction of major research
facilities.
The Research and Related Activities (RRA) account, which contains
the funds for most NSF research grants programs, receives a 4.7 percent
increase. However, actual spending on research programs would increase
by only 2.8 percent because the Administration transfers into the
research account funds that would be used to close out the Math and
Science Partnerships program (an education and human resources
program).
While recognizing that budget realities may not allow Congress to
fund NSF at the guidance level provided in the current authorization,
the Committee still believes that significant increases for NSF's
overall budget are warranted. Congress should provide as much funding
as possible to strengthen support for core science and education
programs, and priority areas such as information technology and
nanoscale science and engineering research.
Education and Human Resources
The Committee strongly opposes the proposed cuts for programs in
NSF's Education and Human Resources (EHR) account. The Committee is
especially troubled by the proposal to eliminate the NSF's Math and
Science Partnership Program. This program was specifically authorized
as part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002.
The Committee strongly believes that NSF is the only federal agency
with a proven record of selecting education projects that offer the
best hope to narrow the achievement gap and raise student performance
in math and science. Through its competitive, merit-based process, NSF
is uniquely qualified to use its decades of experience in education
research and evaluation to appraise grant proposals and to strengthen
the link between research findings and classroom practice. The
Partnerships program should be funded at the authorized level of $200
million.
The Committee also opposes proposed cuts in two other programs that
were created in the 2002 Act. The Noyce Scholarship Program and the
Tech Talent Program (referred to as the Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, or STEP) should
be funded at their authorized levels of $20 million and $30 million,
respectively.
United States Fire Administration (USFA)
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) was created in 1974 to aid
localities in reducing the loss of life and property from fires and
related emergencies. As an entity of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), USFA was officially transferred into the Department of
Homeland Security in March of 2003. Last November, the President signed
Science Committee legislation reauthorizing USFA activities through FY
2008, including $63 million for FY05 (P.L. 108-169). The budget request
does not specify a level of funding for USFA. USFA should remain a
distinct entity within DHS.
From FY01 through FY03, USFA also administered the (separately
authorized) Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This popular
program provides direct assistance to local fire departments for
training, purchase of equipment, and other purposes. In the FY04
appropriations act for DHS, the program was transferred to the DHS
Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). The FY05 budget request includes
$500 million for the fire grant program at ODP. As the fire grant
program authorization is due to expire this year, the Committee plans a
comprehensive review of the program in preparation for reauthorization
later this year. This review will include thorough consideration of
which agency is most appropriate to administer the program, as well as
an examination of the effectiveness of the program at improving first
responder preparedness.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
NEHRP is an interagency program that Congress created in 1977. It
includes NSF, NIST, FEMA, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The
program aims to reduce the loss of life and property from earthquakes
by improving emergency response, increasing our understanding of
earthquake risks, and improving earthquake engineering.
The President's overall FY05 request for NEHRP is $114.5 million,
including $57.7, $46.5, $20.5, and $1.8 million, for NSF, USGS, FEMA,
and NIST, respectively. With the exception of NSF NEHRP activities,
which receive a 20 percent increase for earthquake engineering
simulation research, these amounts are roughly flat compared to FY04
levels. The Committee remains concerned that NEHRP continues to operate
without true interagency coordination, and has reported legislation,
H.R. 2608, that seeks to address this problem. H.R. 2608 passed the
House late last year and is awaiting action in the Senate. The
Committee also notes its concern for the low funding request for the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), which has been continually
funded at less than 10 percent of authorized levels.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The budget request provides $16.244 billion for NASA in FY05, an
increase of 5.6 percent, by far the largest percentage increase for any
civilian science agency. The budget is shaped by the President's
proposed space exploration initiative and constitutes, in many
respects, a first down payment on the President's proposal to send
humans back to the Moon and eventually on to Mars ``and beyond.''
The Committee has just begun holding hearings on the President's
initiative and does not yet have a position on it. Moreover, the
Committee's evaluation of the proposed initiative has already
highlighted many unanswered questions about its costs. As a result, the
Committee cannot yet evaluate whether NASA's overall FY05 budget
request is appropriate, or too high or too low. Instead, in this
document, the Committee will note some of the areas of concern in the
FY05 budget proposal, and in the budget that has been laid out for the
four ensuing fiscal years. These comments are also informed by a NASA
chart that projects spending out to 2020, by which time humans will
have returned to the Moon if the initiative unfolds as planned.
Under the President's plan, the Space Shuttle and International
Space Station programs remain the centerpieces of NASA's human space
flight program for the near-term. Nearly half of NASA's FY05 budget is
dedicated to these two programs.
It is unclear whether the FY05 budget for the Space Shuttle is
adequate to return to flight. Recently, NASA announced that the Shuttle
would not resume flying before March 2005--a year later than NASA's
original projections and about five months later than the most recent
estimate. The Committee is pleased that NASA is not rushing the return
to flight. But the delays highlight the inherent uncertainty about what
tasks will need to be completed to return to flight and what expenses
those tasks will entail.
The understandable delays in returning to flight necessarily raise
concerns about whether NASA's schedule for completing construction of
the Space Station are overly optimistic. The President's initiative
assumes that Station construction will be completed around 2010,
freeing up funds for other endeavors and avoiding an extremely costly
recertification of the Shuttle. (The Columbia Accident Investigation
Board said the Shuttle should not be flown after 2010 unless it were
recertified.)
The Committee is also unable to evaluate the proposed $1.1 billion
FY05 budget for Biological and Physical Research, most of which would
be spent on the Space Station. Under the President's initiative, NASA
is to re-orient the Station research program to focus on the biological
research needed to overcome the impediments that space presents to
astronauts' long-term survival. NASA has just begun to develop that new
research program, so it is impossible to know what it should cost.
The Committee also needs additional information to evaluate the
$428 million FY05 budget request for the Crew Exploration Vehicle
(CEV), the new vehicle NASA intends to design to transport humans on
missions to the Space Station, the Moon and beyond. The FY05 funding is
the first installment on a development project that NASA estimates will
cost $6.6 billion between FY05 and FY09 and another $8.4 billion by the
time the CEV is ready to achieve its first flight with humans on-board
in 2014.
NASA's proposed FY05 budget for Space Science is $4.1 billion, an
increase of approximately five percent over FY04 levels. As part of the
President's initiative, the FY05 budget for Space Science includes a
new robotic program for lunar exploration. The FY05 budget also
reflects the transfer of a major portion of Project Prometheus out of
Space Science and into the new Exploration Systems account.
While the budget for Space Science appears to be adequate, the
Committee is still reviewing the projects that will be deferred or
eliminated to carry out the President's proposal. Of particular
interest is the Joint Dark Energy Mission, which was to have been
funded by NASA and DOE. The Committee is also concerned with NASA's
decision to cancel future Hubble servicing missions. Any decision to
reinstate Hubble servicing missions would likely require additional
funding in the FY05 budget.
NASA's proposed FY05 budget for Earth Science is $1.4 billion, a
decrease of nearly three percent from FY04 levels. The Committee
believes that the budget request for these programs is inadequate to
meet the pressing needs for better satellite data. The cuts, which are
designed to help fund the exploration initiative, seem ill-timed when
the Administration has announced a significant new global change
research plan.
The Committee is also troubled by the limited funding the budget
provides for NASA's Aeronautics program. The budget cuts the program by
nearly three percent, down to less than $919 million for FY05.
Aeronautics research has long been level funded, and it is especially
disadvantaged as NASA's overhead costs of operating infrastructure fall
disproportionately on this program.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Committee continues to be disappointed with the tepid support
for Federal Aviation Administration research and development
activities. The budget request of $237.4 million represents a slight
decrease from FY04 enacted levels, and is significantly less than the
$356.2 million authorized by the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), signed by the President on December
12, 2003.
The FAA, together with other federal departments and agencies, is
embarking on an extensive, long-term project to develop a next
generation air traffic management system. The Committee believes this
activity, coupled with on-going research, demands greater investment.
The FY05 request for the FAA's Office of the Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is $11.9
million. The Committee is optimistic that eventual passage of
legislation (H.R. 3752) authorizing AST to develop regulations for
commercial human space flight will result in the development of a
robust and profitable new industry. The Committee, however, remains
concerned that AST is continuing to develop burdensome and costly
launch regulations that will undermine the competitiveness of the
existing U.S. expendable launch industry.
Department of Commerce--Office of Space Commercialization
The Committee urges continued support for this Office. The Office
has played a useful role in promoting the commercial space industry and
in removing unnecessary impediments to its development. The Office
needs to take a stronger role in legal and policy discussions within
the government and be more aggressive in assisting U.S. commercial
space providers in their efforts to conduct business with the
government.

Science Committee Minority Additional Views
FY 2005 Views and Estimates
to the House Budget Committee
March 8, 2004

Introduction

The government plays a unique role in meeting the Nation's
investment needs. Since the time of Adam Smith, it has been recognized
that some public needs will go unmet unless the government steps in.
Bridges, roads, seaports, airports, education, and research and
development (R&D) are all areas where private investment would fall
short of the true public need.
Today's globally competitive environment requires the Federal
Government to meet these needs as rapidly as possible. Each failure to
invest in infrastructure, in education, or in innovation can contribute
to the costs of doing business in America and create a rationale for
businesses to close their doors, for jobs to be moved offshore, and for
opportunities to simply slip away. Innovation is about responding to
real public needs today to guarantee that our citizens have jobs and a
better quality of life tomorrow.
At a tune when we have suffered three years of recession and
jobless recovery, and at a tune when more businesses are moving work to
foreign operations, a stagnant level of investment, as we find in the
President's FY 2005 budget submission, is simply unacceptable.
We have to do better. We would concede that such a task is almost
beyond our measure due to the horrific federal deficit that we face.
This year's budget request alone will probably add at least $600
billion to the national debt when costs of the occupation of Iraq are
finally accounted for. Given that burden, it is hard to argue for
increasing funding for investments, but it is just such investments in
our economy and our people that can help get us out of the hole dug by
this Administration's fiscal choices. So not only do we have to do
better than the Administration's proposal, we cannot wait for a future
Administration; having wrestled this irresponsible deficit to the
ground, to take action. Investments have to happen in this next fiscal
year.

Three Recommendations for the FY 2005 R&D Budget

Recommendation #1: Increase civilian R&D spending in function 250 and
function 270 by at least five percent in the FY 2005 budget.

On December 19, 2002, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4664,
which authorized a doubling of the NSF budget over the period of five
years. The original NSF doubling bill was introduced in the House by
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson several years earlier. Only after intense
activity on the part of many interested scientific and industry groups,
and by a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, was the NSF-
doubling bill enacted. That bill, and other efforts to increase funding
for the physical sciences, are emblematic of the broad recognition that
funding for R&D in the physical sciences has lagged dangerously in
recent years.
For this reason, and recognizing the staggering problem we face
with the current deficit, we are recommending a modest five percent
increase in funding for functions 250 (Science) and 270 (Energy) of the
federal budget. Any number for increased R&D investment is somewhat
arbitrary. However, we believe that a five percent increase for these
functions is a good place to start and hope that an improved budgetary
climate will allow these figures to increase dramatically in future
budgets. We simply must improve upon the President's budget for NSF,
which falls $1.6 billion below the level he endorsed in H.R. 4664.
A five percent increase would also allow us to move towards the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) goal
of bringing the physical sciences and engineering into parity with the
life sciences, It was just two years ago that PCAST reported to the
President that, ``All evidence points to a need to improve funding
levels for physical sciences and engineering. Continuation of present
patterns will lead to an inability to sustain our nation's technical
and scientific leadership. We recommend that beginning with the FY04
budget and carrying through the next four fiscal years, funding for
physical sciences and engineering across the relevant agencies be
adjusted upward to bring them collectively to parity with the life
sciences.''
We suspect there are many budgetary choices that could be made to
meet our goal of a five percent increase in R&D funding. The Budget
Committee has the cross-cutting responsibility and authority to tend to
these needs right now, and we encourage that Committee to do so.

Recommendation #2: Until the Congress has better information on which
to judge the long-term cost of the President's Moon/Mars initiative, we
believe that NASA's FY 2005 funding request should be reallocated in a
manner that strengthens NASA's existing programs, helps address the
backlog of deferred maintenance at NASA's facilities, ensures that the
Shuttle will continue to fly safely for as long as it is needed,
ensures that the International Space Station will be a safe and
productive facility, makes a start on a replacement means of getting
U.S. astronauts into space, and enables the analyses that will be
needed to develop a viable and sustainable exploration agenda.

A full description of this recommendation may be found later in
this report.

Recommendation #3. Programs under the Committee's jurisdiction that
enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and promote
innovation should be fully funded. These programs include the
Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) and the Advanced Technology
Partnership (ATP) in the Department of Commerce, as well as cooperative
government/industry/university programs funded through other civilian
agencies, including NASA, NIST, and the Department of Energy.

A description of the benefits of the MEP and ATP programs may be
found later in this document.

Analysis of the President's FY 2005 budget for R&D

The President's science team, headed by Dr. Jack Marburger,
contends that tree FY 2005 R&D budget request is very robust,
considering the fiscal pressures under which the Federal Government is
operating. We could dwell here--but we won't--on the fact that the
policies of the President and his team have caused most of these fiscal
pressures.
These are some of the points that Dr. Marburger has made in the
past few weeks to buttress his argument:

``Total Federal R&D investment during the [President's] first
term will be increased 44 percent. That's the equivalent of
increases of 10 percent each year.''

``The budget commits 13.5 percent of total discretionary
outlays to R&D. Not since 1968 and the Apollo program have we
seen an investment in science of this magnitude.''

``Funding for basic research is at an all time high of $26.8
billion in FY 2005.''

``The non-security R&D growth rate is 2.5 percent.''

Some of these statements are careful, selective arrangements of
facts designed to put a positive spin on a dismal overall picture. Some
of the statements are simply false. The fact of the matter is that the
FY 2005 budget submission for R&D (excluding weapons development) is
the most anemic R&D budget submitted to the Congress by any President
in the past 20 years. It is an R&D budget unsuited to the challenges of
the time.
Here are some of the problems that we find with the
Administration's spin on their R&D submission:

The Request for Science Funding is Flat--The Administration brags about
a five percent increase for R&D spending in 2005, but fails to mention
that the increase is largely targeted for weapons development and other
defense programs. In our view, the most representative measure of R&D
funding, and the measure which best captures the economic and broader
societal benefits of R&D funding, is the concept of the ``Federal S&T
budget'' (FST), which the National Academy of Sciences developed
several years ago. FST includes civilian R&D and defense R&D, but not
weapons development. Page 61 of the ``Analytical Perspectives''
document, from the Administration's own package of FY 2005 budget
documents, actually shows a decrease of 0.4 percent in proposed FST
funding. This is the first time that any President has requested a
decrease in the FST since it has been tracked. Further, government-wide
funding for basic research would increase by only 0.6 percent and
funding for applied research by only 0.5 percent--both well below the
rate of inflation.

The President's Analysis Uses Highly Selective or Inaccurate Numbers--
There is barely a number in the Administration's presentation that
can't be questioned. For example, as cited above, there is a claim that
``the non-security R&D growth rate is 2.5 percent;'' in actuality,
OMB's own category of ``Federal S&T'' shows a cut of 0.4 percent.
Another claim is that ``not since the Apollo program have we seen an
investment in science of this magnitude.'' While R&D as a percent of
discretionary spending is relatively high in historic terms, the
elevated levels are due to defense development, not science. A more
important measure--Federal R&D as a percentage of GDP--is near a 50-
year low of 0.7 percent.

Tricky Accounting Is Used to Inflate Minuscule Increases in Agency
Budgets--At NSF, the R&D numbers are deceptively inflated by adding
close-out costs of unrelated education programs. Included in the
Administration's purported $201 million increase for NSF research is
$80 million for close-out funding for the Math & Science Partnership
Program, which is current awarded under the K-12 education program. The
actual increase for new science activities is therefore 2.7 percent
rather than the advertised 4.7 percent.
At NIST, the Administration claims a 20 percent increase of $86
million for core laboratory programs. In fact, however, this supposed
``increase'' includes: $25 million for equipment normally listed in the
working capital fund, $13 million to make up for ATP grants that will
no longer be transferred to the laboratories, and $35 million to cover
ATP close-out costs. Laying aside for a moment the devastation of
NIST's MEP and ATP programs, almost no funding is actually left over
for a real increase in NIST's in-house research.

The Budget Does Not Deal with the Challenge of Job Creation--The single
best government program to provide immediate help to U.S.
manufacturers--the Manufacturing Extension Partnership--is severely
slashed. The Advanced Technology Program is eliminated. Technology
transfer programs at NASA and DOE are cut, and there are no new ideas
or initiatives for moving federal technologies into the private sector,
especially small businesses.

The President Takes Credit for Congressional Actions from Prior Years--
When it appears to strengthen their case, the Administration brags
about increases in various R&D accounts over the past four years,
without distinguishing in any way between the President's requests and
subsequent Congressional action. In fact, the Administration's R&D
priorities have remained virtually unchanged since it submitted its
first R&D budget in early 2001 (well before the 9-11 terrorist
attacks). Those priorities have been: funding weapons development at
the Defense Department; signing on to the Congressional goal and
completing the doubling of the NIH budget in FY 2002-03; and increasing
homeland security R&D in 2004-2005. All other Federal R&D programs have
fared very badly in the President's four budget submissions, but have
been rescued year after year by Congressional action. By citing four-
year trends, rather than the weak FY 2005 budget submission numbers,
the Administration tries to leave the impression that it alone is
responsible for R&D increases.

The Administration Treats Congressional Earmarks Hypocritically--The
Administration decries R&D earmarks but does nothing (e.g., requiring
competition) to lessen their impact. Furthermore, when it suits the
Administration to count earmarks (e.g., when crowing about budget
increases from 2001-2005), they do so. When it doesn't suit them to
count earmarks (e.g., when claiming that one of their FY 2005 budget
cuts isn't so bad when the FY 2004 earmarks are discounted), they
don't.

The Administration Hasn't Followed Through On Their Commitments--Two
years ago, the President signed an authorization bill doubling NSF
funding over five years. The requests for NSF since the signing
ceremony have been anemic--they might produce a doubling in about 25
years. In another example, Secretary of Energy Abraham late last year
gave a well-received speech at the National Press Club touting DOE's
long-term plan for construction of new scientific facilities. However,
in the FY05 budget, funding for DOE facilities is cut severely. Also,
DOD officials have supported the idea of targeting a significant
increase--up to three percent of the DOD budget--for R&D, but defense
R&D in this budget is cut severely. Finally, the President signed a
bill last year authorizing greatly expanded funding at NSF and NIST for
cyber security R&D and training--a critical element in any strategy to
deal with terrorist threats. The FY 2005 budget contains no new funding
for this initiative.

The President's Human Space Flight Initiative

While we welcome the President's announcement of long-term goals
for the Nation's civil space program, we are concerned that the budget
request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
raises more questions about the President's initiative than it answers.
Without more information on the costs and impacts of the President's
proposal, it would be irresponsible at this time for us to endorse the
initiative and the liens it would impose on the NASA budget over the
next several decades.
The President's initiative is described as ``affordable.'' However,
at the Committee's recent hearing on the initiative, the NASA
Administrator and the Director of the President's Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) were unable to provide a clear answer when
asked what the President was told about the casts of the initiative,
and in particular the cost of returning humans to the Moon. Equally
troubling, when asked if the Committee could assume that ``what you are
allocating and what you think is necessary to complete the mission is
the same thing,'' the NASA Administrator replied: ``No, sir. What is
occurring in 2009 and out is a projection of what the transition, the
transformation of the approach that we are taking here would import if
you compare if to the annual cost of an inflation-level increase to the
annual top line. That is all that this attempts to do.. . .'' When
asked the clarifying question: ``Does that projection try--is that
projecting what it is going to cost to get us to the Moon?,'' the NASA
Administrator responded: ``No sir, it does not.'' We thus must conclude
that the case for the affordability of the initiative has yet to be
made. That concerns us as we contemplate committing the American
taxpayer to an initiative whose major costs will be incurred after this
Administration has left office. NASA's recent failure to pass its
external financial audit for the second time in the last three years
only compounds our concern.
We are also troubled by the impact of the President's initiative on
other important NASA programs and activities. In order to pay for the
proposed exploration agenda, NASA's aeronautics and Earth science
programs--which have suffered over the last three years--would continue
to languish for the next decade and a half. Research and development on
next generation space transportation systems that could significantly
reduce the cost and increase the reliability of access to space would
be essentially curtailed. Exciting new avenues of research into
fundamental mysteries of the universe would be deferred. Another three
quarters of a billion dollars would be removed from the budget for
research on the Space Station--research that until recently was touted
by NASA as benefiting citizens here on Earth.
Moreover, in order to make the budgetary math work, the President's
initiative requires NASA to abandon the Space Shuttle years before a
replacement vehicle will be available. In short, the Administration has
decided to make the United States dependent on Russia for getting our
astronauts into space anti! the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle
becomes operational--if all goes well--a decade from now. At the same
time, the Administration has steadfastly refused to explain how it
intends to deal with the prohibitions contained in the Iran
Nonproliferation Act against acquiring such crew transfer services from
Russia.
We thus believe that the burden of proof is on the Administration
to demonstrate both the affordability of the President's request and
the wisdom of the policy decisions that have been made to fund it.
Unless and until that happens, we believe that NASA's funding request
should be reallocated in a manner that strengthens NASA's existing
programs, helps address the backlog of deferred maintenance at NASA's
facilities, ensures that the Shuttle will continue to fly safely for as
long as it is needed, ensures that the International Space Station will
be a safe and productive facility, makes a start on a replacement means
of getting U.S. astronauts into space, and enables the analyses that
will be needed to develop a viable and sustainable exploration agenda.
That reallocation should start when Congress considers NASA's proposed
FY 2004 Operating Plan and should continue in Congress's consideration
of the FY 2005 budget request.
We agree with the President that we need a vision for the Nation's
civil space program. However, challenging goals have to be tied to a
viable and prudent implementation plan if they are to be more than
rhetoric. We hope that the Administration will step up to the task of
developing such a plan.

The Importance of the Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing
Extension Program at the Department of Commerce

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the National Institute of
Standards (NIST) is a modest program aimed at bridging the gap between
the research lab and the marketplace. All too often we have heard that
while the U.S. is at the forefront of basic research, U.S. companies
often do not capitalize on these basic research results. The ATP is
designed to address this market-place failure. Partnering with the
private sector, ATP early-stage investment accelerates the development
of innovative technologies that promise significant commercial pay-offs
and widespread benefits for the Nation. With a modest federal
investment (approximately $180 million/year), the ATP fosters the
development of technologies that create the industries and the jobs of
the future. The Administration's own analysis for ATP shows that
benefits from just a few ATP projects reviewed to date is projected to
exceed $17 billion.
The ATP partners with companies of all sizes and non-profits,
encouraging them to take on greater technical challenges with
potentially that extend well beyond the innovators. For small start-up
firms, early support from the ATP can spell the difference between
success and failure. Universities and non-profit independent research
organizations also play a significant role as participants in ATP
projects with well over half the projects including university
participation--more than 160 universities and over 25 national labs
participate in ATP projects.
The ATP has several critical features that set it apart from other
government R&D programs. It focuses on the technology needs of American
industry, not those of government, has strict cost-sharing rules, and
does not fund product development. Awards are made strictly on the
basis of rigorous peer-reviewed competitions, and support does not
become a perpetual subsidy or entitlement.
The Administration's proposed elimination of ATP is extremely short
sighted as the U.S. continues to shed manufacturing jobs and high-tech
service jobs. Rather than eliminating investments in our future, we
must invest in proven programs that will develop the technologies will
provide jobs in the future.
The attitude that workers and manufacturers can fend for themselves
also marks the Administration's position on funding for MEP. The Bush
Administration continues to ignore the economic plight of our small
manufacturers by gutting the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
program. The FY05 budget request is two-thirds less than what is
required to maintain the existing MEP network of centers and services.
Approximately 350,000 small manufacturers account for over half the
total value of U.S. production and represent 98.8 percent of all
manufacturing establishments. They employ nearly 11.1 million people
and account for two-thirds of all U.S. manufacturing employment. These
jobs are high-skilled and high-wage, with production employees earning
50 percent more than retail employees per hour.
MEP is a national network of manufacturing extension Centers and
field offices located throughout all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Centers
are funded by federal, State, local, and private resources to serve
small manufacturers. Each Center works directly with local
manufacturers to provide expertise and services tailored to their most
critical needs, which range from process improvements and worker
training to business practices and information technology applications.
Last year, the MEP served 18,422 small manufacturers across the
country. In 2002, MEP assistance resulted in $2.79 billion in
increased/retained sales, $681 million in cost savings, $940 million
investment in modernization, and 32,000 jobs created or retained. At a
time of continued bleeding of U.S. manufacturing jobs, it is hard to
imagine a more ill-advised budget cut than the Administration's gutting
of the program.

Hon. Bart Gordon Hon. Jerry Costello
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson Hon. Lynn Woolsey
Hon. Nick Lampson Hon. John Larson
Hon. Mark Udall Hon. David Wu
Hon. Michael Honda Hon. Brad Miller
Hon. Lincoln Davis Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee
Hon. Zoe Lofgren Hon. Brad Sherman
Hon. Dennis Moore Hon. Anthony Weiner
Hon. Jim Matheson Hon. Dennis Cardoza

Additional Views of Representatives Gordon and Costello
We strongly support the Administration's budget request for the
FutureGen clean coal research initiative, This project will lead to
technologies that would allow the United States to utilize coal, our
most plentiful fossil fuel resource, in an environmentally responsible
fashion. The goal of the project is to develop a utility-scale plant
that produces hydrogen, sequesters carbon and results in near zero
emission of greenhouse gas. This project is an important step in our
Climate Change effort, but it will also produce a technology that
enhances our nation's energy independence. This is a long-term
investment for the country deserving of continued Congressional
support.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 12, 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia 108-2
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics, Committee on Science and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 13, 2003 Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for 108-1
Fiscal Year 2004 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 27, 2003 NASA's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request 108-3
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 5, 2003 The Path to a Hydrogen Economy 108-4
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 6, 2003 A Review of Aeronautics R&D at FAA and NASA 108-5
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 12, 2003 The Aerospace Commission Report and NASA Workforce 108-7
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 13, 2003 Subcommittee Markup: H.R. 1081, Aquatic Invasive H.R. 1081/108-69
Species Research Act
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 13, 2003 Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: 108-8
Strengthening the Science .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 19, 2003 H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and 108-6
Development Act of 2003 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 26, 2003 Markup: H.R. 1297, Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act H.R. 1297/108-69
(Markup held by the Committee on Science) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 26, 2003 Dealing With Foreign Students and Scholars in an Age 108-9
of Terrorism: Visa Backlogs and Tracking Systems
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 2, 2003 Markup: H.R. 238, Energy Research, H.R. 238/H.Rept.
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial 108-128, Pt. 1
Application Act of 2003 .........................
(Markup held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 9, 2003 The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology 108-13
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 10, 2003 Transportation Research and Development: 108-10
Investing in the Future .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2003 Markup: H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and H.R. 766/108-69
Development Act of 2003 and H.R. 1578, Global Change H.R. 1578/108-69
Research and Data Management Act of 2003
(Markup held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2003 NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan and 108-18
Orbital Space Plane Program
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2003 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 108-14
Program: Past, Present, and Future .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Research.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2003 Cyber Security Research and Development 108-17
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 4, 2003 Markup: H.R. 1081, Aquatic Invasive Species H.R. 1081/108-69
Research Act .........................
(Markup held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 4, 2003 H.R. 1118, Staffing for Adequate Fire and 108-15
Emergency Response Firefighters Act of 2003 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 5, 2003 Markup: H.R. 1856, Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia H.R. 1856/H.Rept. 108-
Research Amendments Act of 2003 326, Pt. 1
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 5, 2003 Manufacturing R&D: How Can the Federal 108-11
Government Help? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 10, 2003 The Future of University Nuclear Science and 108-12
Engineering Programs .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 11, 2003 U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space 108-25
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 12, 2003 Plant Biotechnology Research and Development in 108-16
Africa: Challenges and Opportunities
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Research.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 26, 2003 Markup: H.R. 1085, NASA Flexibility Act of 2003 H.R. 1085/108-69
and H.R. 2734, Federal Aviation Administration H.R. 2734/108-69
Research and Development Authorization Act
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 9, 2003 H.R. 2183, Minority Serving Institution Digital and 108-20
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Research.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 10, 2003 Competition for Department of Energy Laboratory 108-24
Contracts: What Is the Impact on Science?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 24, 2003 Commercial Human Space Flight 108-26
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics, House Committee on Science, and the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 4, 2003 The Columbia Accident Investigation Board 108-27
Report .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2003 NASA's Response to the Columbia Report 108-28
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 25, 2003 Keeping the Lights On: Removing Barriers to Technology 108-23
to Prevent Blackouts
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 8, 2003 Markup: .........................
--H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act of 2003; H.R. 3245/108-69
--H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy H.R. 912/H.Rept.
Awards Act 108-418;
--H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; H.R. 1292/H.Rept. 108-
and, 423;
--H.R. 2450, Human Space Flight Independent H.R. 2450/108-69
Investigation Commission Act of 2003
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 16, 2003 Markup: H.Con.Res. 279, Recognizing the signifi- H.Con.Res. 279/108-
cance of the anniversary of the American Asso- 69
ciation for the Advancement of Science Congressional .........................
Science and Engineering Fellowship Program, and
reaffirming the commitment to support the use of
science in governmental decision-making through such
Program; and,
H.Res. 395, Recognizing the importance of chemistry to H.Res. 395/108-69
our everyday lives and supporting the goals and
ideals of National Chemistry Week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 16, 2003 The Future of Human Space Flight 108-29
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 29, 2003 NASA's Organizational and Management 108-30
Challenges in the Wake of the Columbia .........................
Disaster .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 30, 2003 What Is Space Weather and Who Should Forecast It? 108-31
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 30, 2003 Implementation of the Math Science Partnership 108-32
Program: Views From the Field
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Research.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 5, 2003 H.R. 3245, Commercial Space Act of 2003 108-33
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 5, 2003 Mercury Emissions: State of the Science and Technology 108-34
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 6, 2003 What Are the Administration Priorities for 108-35
Climate Change Technology? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 4, 2003 [Field Hearing] Review of Non-Oil and Gas 108-36
Research Activities in the Houston-Galveston- .........................
Gulf Coast Area .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 5, 2003 [Field Hearing] Nanotechnology Research and 108-37
Development: The Biggest Little Thing in Texas
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 23, 2004 [Field Hearing] Fueling the High Technology 108-38
Workforce With Math and Science Education .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 23, 2004 [Field Hearing] Tools for Enhancing Small 108-39
Business Competitiveness in the Dallas Area: .........................
A Review of Federal Programs .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 28, 2004 Markup: H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation H.R. 3551/H.Rept.
Research and Development Act of 2003 108-662, Pt. 1
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 4, 2004 Markup: .........................
--H.Con.Res. 189, International Geophysical Year; H.Con.Res. 189/H.Rept.
108-422;
--H.R. 912, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards H.R. 912/H.Rept. 108-418;
Act;
--H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; H.R. 1292/H.Rept. 108-
423;
--H.R. 3389, To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology H.R. 3389/H.Rept. 108-
Innovation Act of 1980 to permit Malcolm Baldrige 419;
National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit
organizations;
--H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation Research and H.R. 3551/H.Rept. 108-
Development Act of 2004; and, 662, Pt. 1;
--H.R. 3752, Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of H.R. 3752/H.Rept. 108-429
2004
(Markup held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 9, 2004 [Field Hearing] Strengthening Windstorm Hazard 108-40
Mitigation: An Examination of Public and Private
Efforts
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 11, 2004 An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for 108-41
Fiscal Year 2005 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 12, 2004 U.S. Vision for Space Exploration 108-42
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 25, 2004 The Conflict Between Science and Security in Visa 108-43
Policy: Status and Next Steps
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 3, 2004 Reviewing the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR Initiatives 108-44
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2004 Perspectives on the President's Vision for Space 108-45
Exploration
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 EPA Budget 108-46
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2004 H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and 108-47
Development Act of 2004 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 18, 2004 The 2003 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Math 108-48
and Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan for Success
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 18, 2004 NASA-Department of Defense Cooperation in Space 108-49
Transportation
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2004 Priorities in the Department of Energy Budget for 108-50
Fiscal Year 2005
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2004 H.R. 3980, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 108-51
2004
(Hearing held jointly by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 30, 2004 H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding 108-52
Contributions in Math and Science Education Act
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Research.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 1, 2004 Lunar Science and Resources: Future Options 108-53
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 National Institute of Standards and 108-54
Technology Budget: Views From Industry
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2004 Bioterrorism Preparedness: People, Tools, and Systems 108-56
for Detecting and Responding to a
Bioterrorist Attack .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary 108-57
Report .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 12, 2004 H.R. 4107, Assistance to Firefighters Grant 108-58
Reauthorization Act of 2004 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 13, 2004 H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing 108-55
Revitalization Act of 2004 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2004 The Impact of Federal Energy Efficiency and 108-59
Renewable Energy R&D Programs .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2004 Homeland Security Research and Development at the EPA: 108-60
Taking Stock and Looking Ahead
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20, 2004 An Examination of H.R. 3890, A Bill to 108-61
Reauthorize the Metals Program at the .........................
Department of Energy .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 4, 2004 [Field Hearing] Transportation Research and 108-62
Development: Applications and Opportunities in the .........................
Denver Region
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
Date Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the Publication Number
108th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 21, 2004 [Field Hearing] The Assistance to Firefighters Grant 108-63
Program: A View From Upstate New York
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2004 Nuclear R&D and the Idaho National Laboratory 108-64
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2004 Testing and Certification for Voting Equipment: How 108-65
Can the Process Be Improved?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 15, 2004 NASA Contests and Prizes: How Can They Help Advance 108-66
Space Exploration?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 15, 2004 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 108-67
Administration Organic Acts .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment, .........................
Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 21, 2004 Cyber Security Education: Meeting the Needs of 108-68
Technology Workers and Employers
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 29, 2004 H.R. 4546, National Oceanic and Atmospheric H.R. 4546/108-69
Administration Act
(Markup held by the Committee on Science.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 31, 2004 H.Con.Res. 279, H.Res. 395, H.R. 766, H.R. 1081, H.R. 108-69
1085, H.R. 1297, H.R. 1578, H.R. 2450, H.R. 2692,
H.R. 2734, H.R. 3245, H.R. 4546
(Compilation of Markups held by the Committee on .........................
Science that were not published as part of a
legislative report.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 2004 A Compilation of Federal Science Laws 108-A
As Amended Through December 31, 2003 .........................
(Committee Print) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------