[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

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.

         4.4(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. 15, 2003                  NOAA Satellites: Will Weather Forecasting Be Put at     108-19
                                Risk?
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment,       .........................
                                Technology, and Standards.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 16, 2003                  Supercomputing: Is the U.S. on the Right Path?          108-21
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 17, 2003                  H.R. 2692, United States Fire Administration            108-22
                               Authorization Act of 2003                               .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 17, 2003                  H.R. 2692, United States Fire Administration            H.R. 2692/H.Rept.
                               Authorization Act of 2003                               108-245
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on Research.)          .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 22, 2003                  Markup:                                                 .........................
                               --H.R. 1085, NASA Flexibility Act of 2003;              H.R. 1085/108-69
                               --H.R. 1856, Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research   H.R. 1856/H.Rept. 108-
                                Amendments Act of 2003;                                 326, Pt. 1;
                               --H.R. 2608, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction      H.R. 2608/H.Rept. 108-
                                Program Reauthorization Act of 2003;                    246, Pt. 1;
                               --H.R. 2692, United States Fire Administration          H.R. 2692/108-69
                                Authorization Act of 2003;
                               --H.R. 2734, Federal Aviation Administration Research   H.R. 2734/108-69
                                and Development Reauthorization Act; and,
                               --H.R. 2801, Minority Serving Institution Digital and   H.R. 2801/H.Rept. 108-
                                Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003.            789, Pt. 1.
                               (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)                                       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  
