[House Report 109-748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 450
109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House
Report 109-748
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
JANUARY 4, 2007
January 2, 2007.--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
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
Union Calendar No. 450
109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 109-
748
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
0
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
JANUARY 4, 2007
January 2, 2007.--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 DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas AL GREEN, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DORIS MATSUI, California
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Energy
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington BRAD SHERMAN, California
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana AL GREEN, Texas
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS MATSUI, California
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas MARK UDALL, Colorado
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRAD SHERMAN, California
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
TOM FEENEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York +BART GORDON, Tennessee
* LRanking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and
Subcommittee assignments.
** LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee
assignments.
+ LThe Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-
officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right
to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all
matters before the Subcommittees.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
C O N T E N T S
Summary of Activities
Committee on Science
109th Congress, 2005-2006
Page
History of the Committee on Science.............................. 1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science.... 13
1.1--P.L. 109-14, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 (H.R. 2566)........................................... 13
1.2--P.L. 109-20, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, Part II (H.R. 3104).................................. 13
1.3--P.L. 109-35, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, Part III (H.R. 3332)................................. 14
1.4--P.L. 109-37, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, Part IV (H.R. 3377).................................. 15
1.5--P.L. 109-40, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, Part V (H.R. 3453)................................... 15
1.6--P.L. 109-42, Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, Part VI (H.R. 3512).................................. 16
1.7--P.L. 109-58, Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6)......... 17
1.8--P.L. 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (H.R. 3)................. 18
1.9--P.L. 109-112, Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of
2005 (S. 1713)............................................. 19
1.10--P.L. 109-155, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (S. 1281)......... 20
1.11--P.L. 109-163, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (H.R. 1815)............................... 22
1.12--P.L. 109-347, Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act (H.R. 4954)....................................... 23
1.13--P.L. 109-364, John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122)......... 24
1.14--P.L. 109-424, Tsunami Warning and Education Act (H.R.
1674)...................................................... 25
1.15--P.L. 109-430, National Integrated Drought Information
System Act of 2006 (H.R. 5136)............................. 26
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science........................................................ 29
2.1--H.R. 28, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act
of 2005.................................................... 29
2.2--H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Act........................................................ 30
2.3--H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act
of 2005.................................................... 31
2.4--H.R. 426, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2005....... 33
2.5--H.R. 610, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration,
and Commercial Application Act of 2005..................... 33
2.6--H.R. 798, Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of
2005....................................................... 34
2.7--H.R. 921, Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005................ 36
2.8--H.R. 1022, George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey
Act........................................................ 37
2.9--H.R. 1023, Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act... 37
2.10--H.R. 1158, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.... 38
2.11--H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act
of 2005.................................................... 38
2.12--H.R. 1640, Energy Policy Act of 2005................... 40
2.13--H.R. 1817, Department of Homeland Security
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006..................... 40
2.14--H.R. 2364, To establish a Science and Technology
Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit and
prepare students for careers in the National Weather
Service and in National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration marine research, atmospheric research, and
satellite programs......................................... 41
2.15--H.R. 3070, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2005................... 42
2.16--H.R. 3929, Dana Point Desalination Project
Authorization Act.......................................... 44
2.17--H.R. 4941, Homeland Security Science and Technology
Enhancement Act of 2005.................................... 44
2.18--H.R. 5143, H-Prize Act of 2006......................... 45
2.19--H.R. 5316, Restoring Emergency Services to Protect Our
Nation From Disasters (RESPOND) Act of 2006................ 46
2.20--H.R. 5356, Research for Competitiveness Act............ 48
2.21--H.R. 5357, Research for Competitiveness Act............ 49
2.22--H.R. 5358, Science and Mathematics Education for
Competitiveness Act........................................ 50
2.23--H.R. 5450, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Act......................................... 52
2.24--H.R. 5656, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration,
and Commercial Application Act of 2006..................... 53
2.25--H.R. 6203, Alternative Energy Research and Development
Act........................................................ 55
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the
Committee on Science and Passed by the House of Representatives 57
3.1--H.Con.Res. 96, Recognizing the significance of African
American women in the United States scientific community... 57
3.2--H.Con.Res. 180, To support initiatives developed by the
Firefighter Life Safety Summit............................. 57
3.3--H.Con.Res. 324, Directing the Secretary of the Senate to
make a technical correction in the enrollment of S. 1281... 58
3.4--H.Con.Res. 366, To congratulate the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration on the 25th anniversary of the
first flight of the Space Transportation System, to honor
Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen, who flew
Space Shuttle Columbia on April 12-14, 1981, on its first
orbital test flight, and to commend the men and women of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and all
those supporting America's space program for their
accomplishments and their role in inspiring the American
people..................................................... 58
3.5--H.Con.Res. 448, Commending the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration on the completion of the Space
Shuttle's second Return-to-Flight mission.................. 58
3.6--H.Res. 441, To congratulate NASA and the Discovery crew
of the successful completion of the 14-day test flight to
the International Space Station............................ 59
3.7--H.Res. 450, Recognizing Space Shuttle Commander Eileen
Collins, Mission Specialist Wendy Lawrence, and the
contributions of all other women who have worked with NASA
following the successful mission of Space Shuttle Discovery
on STS-114................................................. 59
3.8--H.Res. 457, National Chemistry Week..................... 60
3.9--H.Res. 491, National Cyber Security Awareness Month..... 60
3.10--H.Res. 515, Of inquiry requesting the President to
provide to the House certain documents in his possession
relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on
coastal regions of the United States....................... 60
3.11--H.Res. 541, Honoring Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall,
and Theodor W. Hansch for being awarded the Nobel Prize in
Physics for 2005, and Drs. Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs,
and Richard R. Schrock for being awarded the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry for 2005......................................... 61
3.12--H.Res. 681, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Engineers Week, and for other purposes..................... 61
3.13--H.Res. 717, Directing the Secretary of Commerce to
transmit to the House of Representatives a copy of a
workforce globalization final draft report produced by the
Technology Administration.................................. 62
3.14--H.Res. 892, Recognizing the dedication of the employees
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Michoud Assembly Facility, the ``Michoud Hurricane Ride-Out
Team,'' who risked their lives during Hurricane Katrina's
assault on southeast Louisiana, and kept the generators and
pumps running to protect the facilities and flight
hardware, and whose dedication kept the Michoud Assembly
Facility an island of dry land, which made it possible to
resume External Tank production less than five weeks after
the storm passed........................................... 62
3.15--H.Res. 948, Recognizing the dedication of the employees
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Stennis Space Center who, during and after Hurricane
Katrina's assault on Mississippi, provided shelter and
medical care to storm evacuees and logistical support for
storm recovery efforts, while effectively maintaining
critical facilities at the Center.......................... 63
3.16--H.Res. 993, Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to raising awareness and
enhancing the state of computer security in the United
States, and supporting the goals and ideals of National
Cyber Security Awareness Month............................. 63
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee
Legislative Activities......................................... 65
4.1--Committee on Science.................................... 65
4.1(a) January 26, 2005--Tsunamis: Is the U.S. Prepared?. 65
4.1(b) February 2, 2005--Options for Hubble Science...... 67
4.1(c) February 9, 2005--Improving the Nation's Energy
Security: Can Cars and Trucks Be Made More Fuel
Efficient?............................................. 68
4.1(d) February 16, 2005--An Overview of the Federal R&D
Budget for Fiscal Year 2006............................ 70
4.1(e) February 17, 2005--NASA's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget
Proposal............................................... 72
4.1(f) March 3, 2005--H.R. 798, Methamphetamine
Remediation Research Act of 2005....................... 73
4.1(g) April 14, 2005--The 2004 Presidential Awardees for
Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching......... 75
4.1(h) April 28, 2005--NASA Earth Science................ 77
4.1(i) May 12, 2005--The Future of Computer Science
Research in the U.S.................................... 78
4.1(j) June 8, 2005--Business Actions Reducing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions.......................................... 81
4.1(k) June 28, 2005--The Future of NASA................. 83
4.1(l) July 21, 2005--U.S. Competitiveness: The
Innovation Challenge................................... 84
4.1(m) September 15, 2005--Cyber Security: U.S.
Vulnerability and Preparedness......................... 86
4.1(n) October 7, 2005--NOAA Hurricane Forecasting....... 89
4.1(o) October 20, 2005--Science, Technology, and Global
Economic Competitiveness............................... 92
4.1(p) October 26, 2005--The Investigation of the World
Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and
Next Steps............................................. 94
4.1(q) November 3, 2005--Status of NASA's Programs....... 96
4.1(r) November 16, 2005--Ongoing Problems and Future
Plans for NOAA's Weather Satellites.................... 97
4.1(s) November 17, 2005--Environmental and Safety
Impacts of Nanotechnology: What Research Is Needed?.... 99
4.1(t) February 15, 2006--An Overview of the Federal R&D
Budget for Fiscal Year 2007............................ 102
4.1(u) February 16, 2006--NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Proposal............................................... 105
4.1(v) March 2, 2006--NASA's Science Mission Directorate:
Impacts of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal........ 106
4.1(w) March 9, 2006--Should Congress Establish ``ARPA-
E,'' the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy?..... 107
4.1(x) March 30, 2006--K-12 Science and Math Education
Across the Federal Agencies............................ 109
4.1(y) April 27, 2006--H.R. 5143, The H-Prize Act of 2006 112
4.1(z) May 3, 2006--The Role of the National Science
Foundation in K-12 Science and Math Education.......... 113
4.1(aa) May 5, 2006--Innovation and Information
Technology: The Government, University, and Industry
Roles in Information Technology Research and
Commercialization...................................... 116
4.1(bb) May 11, 2006--Inspector General Report on NOAA
Weather Satellites..................................... 117
4.1(cc) June 8, 2006--The Future of NPOESS: Results of
the Nunn-McCurdy Review of NOAA's Weather Satellite
Program................................................ 119
4.1(dd) July 19, 2006--Voting Machines: Will the New
Standards and Guidelines Help Prevent Future Problems?. 120
4.1(ee) July 25, 2006--Scientific and Technical Advice
for the U.S. Congress.................................. 122
4.1(ff) September 13, 2006--How Can Technologies Help
Secure Our Borders?.................................... 124
4.1(gg) September 21, 2006--Research on Environmental and
Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: What Are the Federal
Agencies Doing?........................................ 127
4.1(hh) September 28, 2006--Implementing the Vision for
Space Exploration: Development of the Crew Exploration
Vehicle................................................ 129
4.1(ii) September 29, 2006--GAO Report on NOAA's Weather
Satellite Program...................................... 130
4.2--Subcommittee on Energy.................................. 133
4.2(a) April 27, 2005--Priorities in the Department of
Energy Budget for Fiscal Year 2006..................... 133
4.2(b) June 16, 2005--Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing.......... 135
4.2(c) July 12, 2005--Economic Aspects of Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing........................................... 136
4.2(d) July 20, 2005--Fueling the Future: On the Road to
the Hydrogen Economy................................... 137
4.2(e) November 2, 2005--Winning Teams and Innovative
Technologies From the 2005 Solar Decathlon............. 139
4.2(f) April 6, 2006--Assessing the Goals, Schedule, and
Costs of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership......... 141
4.2(g) May 17, 2006--The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Act of 2006 (Discussion Draft)......................... 143
4.2(h) June 5, 2006--Ending Our Addiction to Oil: Are
Advanced Vehicles and Fuels the Answer?................ 145
4.2(i) August 2, 2006--Renewable Energy Technologies--
Research Directions, Investment Opportunities, and
Challenges to Commercial Application in the United
States and the Developing World........................ 146
4.2(j) September 20, 2006--Department of Energy's Plan
for Climate Change Technology Programs................. 148
4.3--Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards.. 151
4.3(a) May 11, 2005--China, Europe, and the Use of
Standards as Trade Barriers: How Should the U.S.
Respond?............................................... 151
4.3(b) June 28, 2005--Small Business Innovation Research:
What Is the Optimal Role of Venture Capital?........... 153
4.3(c) February 23, 2006--Health Care Information
Technology: What Are the Opportunities For and Barriers
to Inter-operable Health Information Technology
Systems?............................................... 154
4.3(d) March 16, 2006--EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 Science and
Technology Budget Proposal............................. 156
4.3(e) April 21, 2006--Great Lakes Restoration: How? How
Soon?.................................................. 158
4.3(f) May 4, 2006--Improving Drought Monitoring and
Forecasting: H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought
Information System Act of 2006......................... 160
4.3(g) May 24, 2006--Views of the NIST Nobel Laureates on
Science Policy......................................... 162
4.3(h) July 27, 2006--Undersea Research and Ocean
Exploration: H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration
Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea Research Program
Act of 2005............................................ 163
4.4--Subcommittee on Research................................ 165
4.4(a) March 9, 2005--National Science Foundation Budget
and Management Challenges.............................. 165
4.4(b) May 18, 2005--The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Review and Outlook......................... 167
4.4(c) June 29, 2005--Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S.
Stand?................................................. 170
4.4(d) July 20, 2005--Fueling the Future: On the Road to
the Hydrogen Economy................................... 172
4.4(e) November 10, 2005--The Role of Social Science
Research in Disaster Preparedness and Response......... 174
4.4(f) March 15, 2006--Undergraduate Science, Math, and
Engineering Education: What's Working?................. 177
4.4(g) September 20, 2006--International Polar Year: The
Scientific Agenda and the Federal Role................. 180
4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 185
4.5(a) March 16, 2005--The Future of Aeronautics at NASA. 185
4.5(b) April 20, 2005--Future Markets for Commercial
Space.................................................. 187
4.5(c) June 14, 2005--Live From Space: The International
Space Station.......................................... 189
4.5(d) October 27, 2005--Financial Management at NASA:
Challenges and Next Steps.............................. 190
4.5(e) March 29, 2006--The Future of Air Traffic Control:
The R&D Agenda......................................... 192
4.5(f) June 13, 2006--The NASA Workforce: Does NASA Have
the Right Strategy and Policies to Retain and Build the
Workforce It Will Need?................................ 194
4.5(g) July 18, 2006--The National Academy of Sciences'
Decadal Plan for Aeronautics: A Blueprint for NASA?.... 195
4.5(h) September 26, 2006--The National Academy of
Sciences' Decadal Plan for Aeronautics: NASA's Response 197
Appendix
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2006...... 201
Supplemental Views of Congressman Ralph M. Hall on the Need to
Support the President's Vision for Space Exploration........... 214
Supplemental Views of Ralph M. Hall, Ken Calvert, Sheila Jackson
Lee, Al Green, Charlie Melanchon, and Jim Matheson on the Need
for Continuation of DOE Oil and Natural Gas Research and
Development Programs........................................... 215
Additional Views of Bob Inglis................................... 217
Additional Views of Bart Gordon, Mark Udall, and David Wu on
Views and Estimates, Committee on Science, Fiscal Year 2006.... 218
Additional Minority Views and Budget Estimates................... 220
Additional Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2006, A Balanced
Oversight for the President's Budget Request for NASA.......... 222
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2007...... 225
Additional Views of Ralph M. Hall................................ 237
Additional Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 of Bob Inglis 239
Democratic Views and Estimates on the FY 2007 Budget for Civilian
Science and Technology Programs................................ 240
Additional Views and Estimates of Jerry F. Costello and Daniel
Lipinski....................................................... 248
List of Publications of the Committee on Science (109th Congress) 249
Union Calendar No. 450
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-748
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
__________
January 2, 2007.--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.
LThe 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.
LThe 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. LFederal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-
commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and
commercialization to the marketplace.
2. LAll R&D programs should be relevant and tightly
focused to the agencies' missions.
3. LGovernment-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. LThe Federal Government should not fund research in
areas that are receiving, or should reasonably be
expected to obtain, funding from the private sector.
5. LRevolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities
that make possible the impossible should be pursued
within controlled, performance-based funding levels.
6. LFederal 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 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.
Boehlert also reorganized the Subcommittees to reflect
these new priorities. The four Subcommittees became Research;
Energy; Environment, Technology, and Standards; and Space and
Aeronautics.
Unexpected events in our nation's history--the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 and the loss of the Space Shuttle
Columbia on February 1, 2003--would also focus the Committee's
attention on preventing future terrorist attacks and charting a
new course for human space exploration.
The Committee played a central role in the establishment of
the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which
represented the largest reorganization of the Federal
Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in
1947. Because of the Committee's tenacious efforts, the final
legislation creating the new Department, signed into law on
November 22, 2002, included a Science and Technology
Directorate and a Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects
Agency, the two entities within DHS tasked with putting our
nation's scientific ingenuity to work at protecting the
American people.
Heeding Chairman Boehlert's admonition that ``the War on
Terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as
much as on the battlefield,'' the Science Committee also worked
to ensure that agencies throughout the Federal Government were
investing in the science and technology necessary to combat
terrorism over the long-term.
One area of particular concern to Chairman Boehlert was the
vulnerability of the Nation's power grid, financial
institutions and other critical infrastructures to a cyber
attack. To strengthen our nation's cyber security efforts,
Boehlert authored the Cyber Security Research and Development
Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on November
27, 2002.
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. The Committee's legislation, signed
into law on October 1, 2002, designated the National Institute
of Standards and Technology as the lead agency for all future
building failure investigations.
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. The Committee was particularly concerned
about the significant delay in the processing of student visas
following 9/11 and worked closely with the Administration to
streamline the application process and reduce wait times for
foreign researchers.
In addition to its efforts to shape the Department of
Homeland Security, the Committee also had several legislative
victories in the areas of research and education policy. A
signature piece of legislation from the 107th Congress, the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act, was signed into
law in December 2002, authorizing the doubling of the agency's
budget over 10 years. The bill also gave additional focus to
the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) education programs
and set up a process for establishing priorities for large
science projects.
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. 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.
The Columbia accident prompted President George W. Bush to
issue a new vision for NASA that calls for the return of humans
to the Moon and future manned mission to Mars and beyond.
Following the President's announcement, the Committee held
hearings and numerous briefings to evaluate his exploration
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 in aeronautics.
Determined to strike the proper balance between NASA's
human exploration programs and its science and aeronautics
programs, the Committee drafted an authorization bill for NASA
that formally endorsed the President's exploration initiative,
dubbed the Vision for Space Exploration, while also ensuring
that NASA remains a multi-mission agency by requiring robust
programs in Earth science, space science, and aeronautics. By
an overwhelming vote of 383 to 15, the House of Representatives
endorsed the Committee's blueprint for the future direction of
NASA and, on December 30, 2005, the bill was signed into law.
President Bush also signed into law Science Committee bills
that allowed NASA to adapt to the workforce challenges of the
21st Century and promoted the development of the emerging
commercial human space flight industry. The NASA Flexibility
Act of 2004, introduced by Chairman Boehlert, gave NASA new
personnel tools to attract and retain a top-notch technical
workforce. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004,
introduced by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana
Rohrabacher of California, established a regulatory regime
within the Federal Aviation Administration to encourage the
development of the commercial human space flight industry,
while providing information to the public on the inherent risks
in space tourism and limiting that risk, as appropriate.
Following the recommendation of reports on ocean policy,
the Committee passed an ``organic act'' for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that would
formally establish the agency in law and clearly define its
role and responsibilities. The House passed the bill, which was
introduced by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan, the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards, in September 2006, but the legislative clock ran out
before it could be enacted into law.
One of Chairman Boehlert's signature accomplishments in the
109th Congress was elevating the issue of U.S. economic
competitiveness to the forefront of domestic policy
discussions. He and Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon of
Tennessee were among those who requested the 2005 National
Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
which recommended increased investment in research and
education.
On December 7, 2005, Chairman Boehlert, along with
Representative Ehlers and Representative Frank Wolf of
Virginia, hosted a day-long Innovation Summit at the Department
of Commerce that brought together more than 50 chief executive
officers and university presidents to discuss the Nation's
economic challenges with top Administration officials,
including the secretaries of Education, Energy, Commerce and
Labor.
The Committee's efforts helped pave the way for President
Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), announced in
the 2006 State of the Union Address. The ACI proposed doubling
the budgets of NSF, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's laboratory programs, and the Department of
Energy's Office of Science over 10 years.
The Committee also worked to establish a research regime to
help promote the development of nanotechnology, which was
estimated by the National Science Foundation to become a $1
trillion industry within a decade. Recognizing the enormous
economic potential of nanotechnology, Chairman Boehlert
authored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, signed into law in December 2003, which
authorized increased funding and established a coordinated
interagency program to carry out nanotechnology research.
Recognizing that the full economic potential of
nanotechnology will only be realized if the public fully
accepts the technology, the Committee also held several
hearings on the potential environmental, health, and safety
implications of nanotechnology and pressed the Administration
to devote a greater share of research and development funding
to addressing these areas of concern.
Central to the Nation's ability to compete is its ability
to meet its energy demands, and the Science Committee took an
active role in promoting the development of alternative energy
sources. The Committee authored key provisions in the Energy
Policy Act, enacted in 2005, that authorized research in and
development of clean, domestically produced renewable energy
sources. Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Research, also introduced the H-Prize
Act, which called for the establishment of a national prize
competition to summon America's best and brightest minds to the
challenge of developing the technical breakthroughs that would
make hydrogen vehicles technically and economically practical.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
1.1--P.L. 109-14, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005 (H.R.
2566)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-14, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier
safety, and transit programs, and authorizes appropriations,
through June 30, 2005. This includes the authorization of
appropriations under Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century for federal lands highways (Indian reservation roads,
public lands highways, park roads and parkways, and refuge
roads), national corridor planning and development and
coordinated border infrastructure programs, and metropolitan
planning. The legislation amends federal maritime law to
increase the authorization of appropriations for personnel and
activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly related to the
national recreational boating safety program. P.L. 109-14 also
amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend until July 1, 2005,
the authorization of expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund
(including the Mass Transit Account) and the Aquatic Resources
Trust Fund, including the sport fish restoration account and
the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On May 24, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
2566, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On May
25, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension of the
rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill was
received in the Senate on May 26, 2005, and was passed the same
day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On May 31, 2005,
the bill was signed by the President, and it became Public Law
109-14.
1.2--P.L. 109-20, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART II
(H.R. 3104)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-20, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 Part II, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, and transit programs, and authorizes
appropriations, through July 19, 2005. This includes the
authorization of appropriations under Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century for federal lands highways (Indian
reservation roads, public lands highways, park roads and
parkways, and refuge roads), national corridor planning and
development and coordinated border infrastructure programs, and
metropolitan planning. The legislation amends federal maritime
law to increase the authorization of appropriations for
personnel and activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly
related to the national recreational boating safety program.
P.L. 109-20 also amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend
until July 20, 2005, the authorization of expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) and the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, including the sport fish
restoration account and the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On June 29, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
3104, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On June
30, 2005, the Committee on Science discharged H.R. 3104. On
June 30, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension
of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill
was received in the Senate on June 30, 2005, and was passed the
same day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On July 1,
2005, the bill was signed by the President, and it became
Public Law 109-20.
1.3--P.L. 109-35, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART
III (H.R. 3332)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-35, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 Part III, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, and transit programs, and authorizes
appropriations, through July 21, 2005. This includes the
authorization of appropriations under Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century for federal lands highways (Indian
reservation roads, public lands highways, park roads and
parkways, and refuge roads), national corridor planning and
development and coordinated border infrastructure programs, and
metropolitan planning. The legislation amends federal maritime
law to increase the authorization of appropriations for
personnel and activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly
related to the national recreational boating safety program.
P.L. 109-35 also amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend
until July 22, 2005, the authorization of expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) and the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, including the sport fish
restoration account and the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On July 19, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
3332, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On July
19, 2005, the Committee on Science discharged H.R. 3332. On
July 19, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension
of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill
was received in the Senate on July 19, 2005, and was passed the
same day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On July 20,
2005, the bill was signed by the President, and it became
Public Law 109-35.
1.4--P.L. 109-37, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART IV
(H.R. 3377)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-37, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 Part IV, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, and transit programs, and authorizes
appropriations, through July 27, 2005. This includes the
authorization of appropriations under Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century for federal lands highways (Indian
reservation roads, public lands highways, park roads and
parkways, and refuge roads), national corridor planning and
development and coordinated border infrastructure programs, and
metropolitan planning. The legislation amends federal maritime
law to increase the authorization of appropriations for
personnel and activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly
related to the national recreational boating safety program.
P.L. 109-37 also amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend
until July 28, 2005, the authorization of expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) and the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, including the sport fish
restoration account and the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On July 21, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
3377, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On July
21, 2005, the Committee on Science discharged H.R. 3377. On
July 21, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension
of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill
was received in the Senate on July 21, 2005, and was passed the
same day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On July 22,
2005, the bill was signed by the President, and it became
Public Law 109-37.
1.5--P.L. 109-40, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART V
(H.R. 3453)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-40, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 Part V, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, and transit programs, and authorizes
appropriations, through July 30, 2005. This includes the
authorization of appropriations under Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century for federal lands highways (Indian
reservation roads, public lands highways, park roads and
parkways, and refuge roads), national corridor planning and
development and coordinated border infrastructure programs, and
metropolitan planning. The legislation amends federal maritime
law to increase the authorization of appropriations for
personnel and activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly
related to the national recreational boating safety program.
P.L. 109-40 also amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend
until July 31, 2005, the authorization of expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) and the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, including the sport fish
restoration account and the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On July 27, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
3453, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On July
27, 2005, the Committee on Science discharged H.R. 3453. On
July 27, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension
of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill
was received in the Senate on July 27, 2005, and was passed the
same day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On July 28,
2005, the bill was signed by the President, and it became
Public Law 109-40.
1.6--P.L. 109-42, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART VI
(H.R. 3512)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-42, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2005 Part VI, extends federal highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, and transit programs, and authorizes
appropriations, through August 14, 2005. This includes the
authorization of appropriations under Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century for federal lands highways (Indian
reservation roads, public lands highways, park roads and
parkways, and refuge roads), national corridor planning and
development and coordinated border infrastructure programs, and
metropolitan planning. The legislation amends federal maritime
law to increase the authorization of appropriations for
personnel and activities expenses of the Coast Guard directly
related to the national recreational boating safety program.
P.L. 109-42 also amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend
until August 15, 2005, the authorization of expenditures from
the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) and
the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, including the sport fish
restoration account and the boat safety account.
Legislative History
On July 28, 2005, Representative Don Young introduced H.R.
3512, which was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Science, and Resources. On July
29, 2005, the Committee on Science discharged H.R. 3512. On
July 29, 2005, the House considered the bill under suspension
of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill
was received in the Senate on July 29, 2005, and was passed the
same day, without amendment, by unanimous consent. On July 30,
2005, the bill was signed by the President, and it became
Public Law 109-42.
1.7--P.L. 109-58, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 (H.R. 6)
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 6 is omnibus energy legislation whose stated purpose
is, ``to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable,
and reliable energy.'' 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
re-authorization of Price-Anderson and research, development,
demonstration and commercial application programs authorized in
other titles of the bill, including Hydrogen, Clean Coal, and
Vehicles.
The Science Committee's Energy research bill, H.R. 610, was
introduced by Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert on
February 8, 2005 and after amendment in committee, was
incorporated in great part into H.R. 6 (see Sec. 2.5 on H.R.
610).
Legislative History
Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6 on April 18, 2005. 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, Agriculture, and Financial Services. The
Committee on Rules filed H.Rept. 109-49 on H.Res. 219,
providing for consideration of H.R. 6.
On April 20, 2005 the House agreed to H.Res. 219 by voice
vote. On April 21, 2005, the House passed H.R. 6, as amended,
by: Y-249, N-183 (Roll Call No. 132).
The Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 28, 2005 by: Y-85, N-12
(Roll Call No. 158), after striking all after the enacting
clause and inserting the text of S.10, the Senate companion
measure, as amended. The Senate Amendment contained several
titles and provisions falling within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, including provisions related to energy
research, development and demonstrations. On July 1, 2005, the
Senate requested a conference and appointed conferees.
The House disagreed with the Senate amendment to H.R. 6 and
agreed to a conference. From the Committee on Science, the
Speaker appointed Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert,
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert, and Committee
Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon, provided that
Representative Mr. Costello be appointed in lieu of Rep. Gordon
for consideration of Secs. 401-404, 411, 416, and 441 of the
House bill, and Secs. 401-407 and 415 of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference.
The Conferees met on July 14, 19, 21 and 24, 2005 and
reached agreement on July 26, 2005. On July 27, 2005, the
conference report (H.Rept. 109-190) was filed. The conference
report passed the House on July 28, 2005 and passed the Senate
on July 29, 2005. It was signed into the law by the President
on August 8, 2005 and became Public Law No: 109-58.
1.8--P.L. 109-59, SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2005 (H.R. 3)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
primarily authorizes funds for federal-aid highways, highway
safety programs, and transit program. The research and
development provisions of H.R. 3 are similar to H.R. 3550, the
Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003,
which was referred to the Committee on Science in the 108th
Congress.
The Science Committee has jurisdiction over those parts of
the law that relate to surface transportation research and
development, including the Surface Transportation Environment
Cooperative Research Program (STECRP), a road weather research
and development program, and the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. P.L. 109-59 takes specific steps to increase
surface transportation research spending, to tie research
spending to overall transportation spending, and to fill many
critical gaps in research on the entire transportation system.
The law authorizes several programs to fill these gaps,
including STECRP; the Future Strategic Highway Research Program
to address renewal, safety, reliability and capacity; increased
funding for exploratory advanced research; and increased
research into the institutional barriers to the deployment of
intelligent transportation systems.
Legislative History
Representative Don Young introduced H.R. 3, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, on February 9, 2005, at which time the bill
was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 3 is similar to H.R. 3550 from the 108th
Congress, which was referred to the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Education and the Workforce,
Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science. While
H.R. 3 was referred only to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure at introduction, it is important to note the
context in which this bill was considered. For example,
Representative Don Young's remarks at the introduction of H.R.
3 noted both the need to act quickly on a bill to reauthorize
federal transportation programs and the fact that H.R. 3
reflected work done on H.R. 3550 during the previous Congress
(including that by the Conference Committee on H.R. 3550, which
included conferees appointed from the Science Committee). On
March 2, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met to consider the bill. Three amendments were
offered and then withdrawn. The Committee favorably reported
the bill, H.R. 3, by voice vote. On March 7, 2005, the
Committee filed H.Rept. 109-12, and the bill was subsequently
placed on the Union Calendar (No. 5). On March 8, 2005, the
Committee filed a supplemental report, H.Rept. 109-12 Part II.
On March 8, 2005, the House considered H.R. 3. On March 10,
2005, the bill passed as amended, by a roll call vote (Y-417,
N-9; Roll Call No. 65).
The Senate received H.R. 3 on March 20, 2005, and on April
6, 2005, it was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar (No. 69)
under general orders. On April 27, 2005, the Senate met to
consider the bill. On May 17, 2005 the bill passed as amended,
by roll call vote (Y-89, N-11; Roll Call No. 125).
On May 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 3, and the Speaker appointed the following
House conferees--from the Committee on Science: For
consideration of Sections 2010, 3013, 3015, 3034, 3039, 3041,
4112, and Title V of the House bill, and Title II and Sections
6014, 6015, 6036, 7118, 7212, 7214, 7361, and 7370 of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Representatives Ehlers, Reichert, and Gordon. On July 28, 2005,
the Committee of Conference filed H.Rept. 109-203. On July 29,
2005, the House agreed to the Conference Report by: Y-412; N-8
(Roll Call No. 453)--clearing the measure for the Senate. The
Senate agreed to the Conference Report on July 29, 2005, and
agreed to it by: Y-91; N-4 (Roll Call No. 220). On August 10,
2005, the President signed H.R. 3, and it became P.L. 109-59.
1.9--P.L. 109-112, IRAN NONPROLIFERATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2005 (S.
1713)
Background and Summary of Legislation
Amends the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 to state that
the definition of ``extraordinary payments in connection with
the International Space Station'' does not mean U.S. cash or
in-kind payments under the Agreement Concerning Cooperation on
the Civil International Space Station, with annex, signed at
Washington January 29, 1998, and entered into force March 27,
2001, or any protocol, agreement, memorandum of understanding,
or contract related thereto (Agreement). (Under such Act the
United States is prohibited from making such payments to the
Russian Aviation and Space Agency unless specified
determinations are made with respect to Russian cooperation in
preventing proliferation to Iran, or to a foreign person
identified as contributing to proliferation to Iran.)
Directs the President to submit to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives a report that
identifies each Russian entity or person to whom the United
States has, since the date of enactment of this Act, made a
cash or in-kind payment under the Agreement.
Requires such report to: (1) include the purpose of each
payment; and (2) the assessment that the payment was not
prejudicial to preventing the proliferation of ballistic or
cruise missile systems in Iran and other countries that have
supported acts of international terrorism.
Legislative History
H.R. 4003 was introduced by Rep. Paul of Texas on November
6, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Science, in addition
to the Committee on International Relations. On November 17,
2005 the measure was referred to the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics. The companion bill, S. 1713, passed the Senate,
without amendment on September 21, 2005. The House agreed to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended, by a voice
vote on November 26, 2005. The President signed S. 1713 on
November 22, 2005, which became P.L. 109-112.
1.10--P.L. 109-155, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 (S. 1281)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The House of Representatives and Senate met to confer on S.
1281, the Senate version of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2005. The conferees
used the text of the House version of the NASA Authorization
Act (H.R. 3070) as the basis for negotiations. The conference
report endorses the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration,
including developing a sustained human presence on the Moon as
a stepping-stone for future exploration of Mars and other
destinations. The conference report also directs NASA to carry
out a balanced set of programs in human space flight, space
science, Earth science and aeronautics. In addition, the report
provides for the continued operation of the Space Shuttle, and
directs NASA to complete assembly and continue to utilize the
International Space Station.
The conference report authorizes funds for NASA in the
amount of $17.93 billion for Fiscal Year 2007, and $18.68
billion for 2008. This conference report also creates a new
budget account structure for four distinct areas. They include
``Science, Aeronautics and Education,'' ``Exploration Systems''
and ``Space Operations,'' as well as an account for the
Inspector General. The report sets a 10 percent ceiling on the
amount of funds that NASA can reprogram in the Exploration
Systems and Space Operations account.
The conference report includes many of the original
sections of H.R. 3070, including the provision establishing a
mechanism to help both NASA and Congress spot potential cost
growth and schedule problems early in the development phase of
major programs. This provision ensures that Congress will have
sufficient time to review any program whose costs escalate
beyond 30 percent. In addition, the conference report directs
NASA to develop a national aeronautics policy, a science policy
with a list of prioritized science missions, and a plan for
facilities and agency workforce needed to meet these goals. The
conference report also includes requirements previously passed
by the House Science Committee addressing remote sensing
applications (H.R. 426, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of
2005), the detection and cataloging of near-Earth asteroids
(H.R. 1022, the George E. Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey
Act) and an award program for amateur astronomers (H.R. 1023,
the Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act).
The conference report directs NASA to conduct an
independent assessment of the Landsat sensor on the NPOESS
mission. NASA is also authorized to conduct a Hubble Servicing
mission should the Administrator deem it feasible. In addition,
the conference report requires NASA to launch payloads on
foreign launch vehicles only in accordance with the President's
Space Transportation Policy.
The conferees recognize that the International Space
Station (ISS) is a multi-national research effort which
provides NASA with a unique opportunity to conduct research in
low-Earth orbit. The conference report designates the ISS as a
national laboratory, and directs NASA to complete an
implementation plan to increase research opportunities as part
of this designation. The conferees encourage increased
application of life sciences and microgravity research and
protects such fundamental research on the Station through a 15
percent funding requirement.
As a part of the conference report, NASA is urged to use
commercial service providers to support human missions to the
ISS as well as future missions to the Moon and Mars. This
measure is complementary to the goal the conference report has
set for NASA to have an increased attention to technology
transfer between NASA and the private sector.
The conference report directs NASA to report on the nature
and amount of contracts performed by foreign entities, and also
requests that the Office of Science and Technology Policy
report on its continuing efforts to ensure the effective use of
R&D funds within the national science enterprise relating to
NASA.
As part of the conference report, NASA is granted the
authority and encouraged to undertake a national awareness
campaign in order to support the United States position as a
global leader in science and engineering. The conference report
also authorizes NASA to establish a prize program to stimulate
innovation in basic and applied research, technology
development, and prototype demonstrations that have the
potential for application in space and aeronautics.
As safety has been and continues to be a top priority in
NASA's mission, the conferees included a requirement for a
review of NASA's safety management, as well as a report on the
use and dissemination of best practices and expanded whistle-
blower protections. The conference report also establishes a
framework for a Commission to investigate future U.S. space
vehicle accidents, as well as a Task Force to evaluate and
report on ISS safety. Finally, the conference report expands
transfer authority to allow NASA flexibility to respond to
natural disasters.
Legislative History
S. 1281 was introduced on June 21, 2005 by Sen. Hutchinson
of Texas. The measure was co-sponsored by Sen. Inouye of
Hawaii, Sen. Lott of Mississippi, Sen. Nelson of Florida, and
Sen. Stevens of Arkansas. On June 23, 2005, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered the measure, as
amended, reported favorably. On July 26, 2005, the measure was
reported to the Senate, as amended, with the written report,
109-108, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. On September 28, 2005, S. 1281 was laid before
the Senate by unanimous consent, and passed, as amended, by
unanimous consent. The measure was received in the House, and
held at the desk, on September 28, 2005.
The text of H.R. 3070 was used as the basis for
negotiations with the Senate for the conference of the House
and Senate versions of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. On
December 16, 2005, conference report of the NASA Authorization
Act (H.Rept. 109-354) was filed. On December 17, 2005, Chairman
Boehlert moved to suspend the rules and agree to the conference
report H.Rept. 109-354. The motion to suspend the rules and
agree to the conference report was agreed to by a voice vote,
and motions to reconsider were laid upon the table without
objection.
On December 22, 2005, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by Unanimous Consent. On December 30, 2005, the
President signed S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2005, which became Public
Law 109-155.
1.11--P.L. 109-163, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006 (H.R. 1815)
Background and Summary of Legislation
On December 16, 2005, the Speaker appointed Science
Committee Chairman Boehlert, Rep. Akin of Missouri, and Science
Committee Ranking Minority Member Gordon as additional
conferees to H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, for consideration of Section 223 of the
House bill and Sections 814 and 3115 of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference.
These conference committee deliberations, contained in
H.Rept. 109-360, resulted in the enactment of Sections 252 and
3117 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006, which was signed into law by the President on January 6,
2006. Descriptions of those provisions follow.
Section 252--Research and Development Efforts for Purposes of Small
Business Research
Amends the Small Business Act to direct the Secretary, at
least every four years, to revise and update criteria and
procedures utilized to identify Department of Defense (DOD)
research and development (R&D) programs which are suitable for
funding under the Small Business Innovation Research Program
(SBIR Program). Authorizes the Secretary, and each military
department Secretary, to create and administer a
commercialization pilot program to accelerate the transition of
technologies, products, and services developed under the SBIR
Program to Phase III, including the acquisition process.
Requires an evaluative report from the Secretary to
Congressional committees at the end of each fiscal year.
Terminates the pilot program at the end of fiscal year 2009.
Directs the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide for,
and fully implement the tenets of, Executive Order No. 13329
(Encouraging Innovation in Manufacturing).
Section 3117--Savannah River National Laboratory
Makes the Savannah River National Laboratory a
participating laboratory in the DOE laboratory directed
research and development program.
1.12--P.L. 109-347, SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY (SAFE) PORT
ACT (H.R. 4954)
Background and Summary of Legislation
On September 28, 2006, the Speaker appointed Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Science Committee
Members Michael Sodrel and Charlie Melancon as additional
conferees to H.R. 4954, for consideration of Sections 201 and
401 of the House bill, and Sections 111, 121, 302, 303, 305,
513, 607, 608, 706, 801, 802, and 1107 of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference.
These conference committee deliberations, contained in
H.Rept. 109-711 (conference report to accompany H.R. 4954),
resulted in the enactment of Sections 121, 302, 303, 501, 502,
604, 605, 606, 702 of the Security and Accountability for Every
(SAFE) Port Act, which was signed into law by the President on
October 13, 2006. Descriptions of those provisions follow.
Section 121--Domestic radiation detection and imaging
The legislation instructs the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), in collaboration with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, to publish performance standards and
operating procedures for the use of non-intrusive imaging and
radiation detection equipment in the United States.
Section 302--Reauthorization of Homeland Security Science and
Technology Advisory Committee
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee was established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002
to ensure that the DHS Science and Technology Directorate
received input from communities with expertise in homeland
security research and technologies and the users of such
technologies. The SAFE Port Act amends the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend the authorization
for the advisory committee through December 31, 2008.
Section 303--Research, development, test, and evaluation efforts in
furtherance of maritime and cargo security
The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in collaboration with the Under Secretary for Science
and Technology and other DHS offices, to conduct research,
development, testing, and evaluation efforts in furtherance of
maritime and cargo security.
Title V--Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
This title of the legislation amends the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 to establish the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) within DHS. The responsibilities of the DNDO include
conducting and supporting research and development projects to
generate and improve technologies to detect and prevent the
illicit entry, transport, assembly, or potential use within the
United States of a nuclear explosive device or fissile or
radiological material and carrying out a program to test and
evaluate technology for detecting a nuclear explosive device
and fissile or radiological material. The legislation also
requires DHS and other agencies to submit to Congress a
research and development investment strategy for nuclear and
radiological detection and DHS to submit a report on the impact
of the establishment of the DNDO on the DHS Science and
Technology Directorate and the coordination and prioritization
of research, development, testing, and evaluation of technology
at DHS.
Title VI--Commercial Mobile Service Alerts
The goal of this title of the legislation is to improve the
ability of people to receive alerts in emergency situations,
including via commercial mobile service devices and outdoor
alerting technologies, such as loudspeakers mounted on poles.
The legislation authorizes the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Science and Technology, in consultation with the
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to
establish a research, development, testing, and evaluation
program to support the development of technologies to increase
the number of commercial mobile service devices that can
receive emergency alerts. The legislation also authorizes the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to
establish a program under which grants may be made to provide
for outdoor alerting technologies in remote communities
effectively unserved by commercial mobile service. Funding for
the DHS research program and the Department of Commerce grant
program shall be provided from the Digital Transition and
Public Safety Fund.
Section 702--Disclosures regarding homeland security grants
The legislation requires that each State or local
government that receives a grant made or administered by DHS to
deliver to DHS annually an accounting of how funds provided
under the grant are expended. Such grants include the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program.
1.13--P.L. 109-364, JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007 (H.R. 5122)
Background and Summary of Legislation
On September 7, 2006, the Speaker appointed Science
Committee Chairman Boehlert, Rep. Sodrel of Indiana, and
Ranking Minority Member Gordon as additional conferees to H.R.
5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, for consideration of Sections 312 and 911 of
the House bill and Sections 333, 874, and 1082 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference.
These conference committee deliberations, contained in
H.Rept. 109-702, resulted in the enactment of Sections 314 and
911 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, which was signed into law by the President on
October 17, 2006. Descriptions of these provisions follow.
Section 314--Research on Effects of Ocean Disposal of Munitions
Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a historical review
of the number, size, and probable locations where the Armed
Forces disposed of military munitions in coastal waters; (2)
periodically release any new information obtained during such
review; (3) include such information in the annual report on
environmental restoration activities submitted to Congress
under current law; (4) complete the historical review and
submit a final findings report to Congress; (5) provide
information obtained to the Secretary of Commerce to assist the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
preparing nautical charts and other navigational materials that
identify known or potential hazards posed by such disposed
munitions; (6) continue to inform potentially affected users of
the ocean environment of such possible hazards and mitigation
methods; (7) continue to conduct research on the effects on
ocean environment and those who use it of such disposed
munitions; and (8) institute monitoring mechanisms if the
review or research indicates that contamination is being
released into ocean waters from disposed munitions at a
particular site or that the site poses a significant public
health or safety risk.
Section 911--Designation of Successor Organizations for the Dis-
established Interagency Global Positioning Executive Board
Amends the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness
Act of 2000 to reflect the name change of the Interagency
Global Positioning System Executive Board to the National
Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Executive
Committee.
1.14--P.L. 109-424, TSUNAMI WARNING AND EDUCATION ACT (H.R. 1674)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1674, the Tsunami Warning and Education
Act, is to improve tsunami detection, forecasting, warnings,
notification, preparedness, and mitigation to protect life and
property in the United States and to assist the international
community in the development of an integrated global tsunami
warning and education system. On December 26, 2004, an
estimated magnitude 9.2 undersea earthquake off the west coast
of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, unleashed a tsunami that
affected more than 12 countries throughout Southeast Asia and
stretched as far as the northeastern African coast. Current
estimates indicate that at least 150,000 people were killed,
and millions more were injured, displaced or otherwise
affected. Most experts agree that thousands of lives could have
been saved if an adequate tsunami detection, warning and
education program had existed in these areas. Many experts
predict that an earthquake similar in magnitude and proximity
to the shore as that which occurred in Sumatra has a 10 to 15
percent chance striking the West Coast of the U.S. within the
next 50 years. Such a tsunami would wreak havoc on the West
Coast within minutes, before any warnings could likely be
issued. Therefore, the best way to save lives during such an
event is for states and local officials to develop evacuation
and disaster plans and educate the public about what it must do
immediately after feeling the ground shake.
H.R. 1674 directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to expand its tsunami forecasting and
warning capability to cover all U.S. coastlines (not just the
Pacific). The bill provides flexibility to NOAA to determine
the proper mix of tsunami detection equipment (buoys, tidal
gauges, etc.) that it should deploy, but requires that the
components be integrated with other ocean observing systems.
H.R. 1674 codifies the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation
Program, an existing Federal-State partnership, to improve
community awareness and preparedness for tsunamis. States would
help decide what activities would be funded, such as developing
and updating inundation maps and evacuation plans and
installing warning sirens.
Legislative History
Representative Sherwood Boehlert, with Representatives
Inslee, Ehlers, and Wu, as original co-sponsors, introduced
H.R. 1674, the Tsunami Warning and Education Act, on April 18,
2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on
Science. On January 26, 2005, the Committee on Science held a
hearing on the threat that tsunamis posed to the United States,
as well as on steps the Federal Government should take to
mitigate these threats.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on April 20, 2005 to consider the bill. No amendments were
offered, and the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 1674 by
voice vote.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Science considered H.R.
1674. The Committee adopted one amendment by voice vote. The
Committee favorably reported the bill as amended, by voice
vote. On September 28, 2006, the Committee filed H.Rept. 109-
698, and the bill was then placed on the Union Calendar (No.
422).
On December 6, 2006, the House considered H.R. 1674, and it
passed as amended, by voice vote. The Senate received H.R. 1674
on December 6, 2006. On December 8, 2006, the Senate considered
H.R. 1674. No amendments were offered and it passed by
unanimous consent.
1.15--P.L. 109-430, NATIONAL INTEGRATED DROUGHT INFORMATION SYSTEM ACT
OF 2006 (H.R. 5136)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 5136 is to establish a National
Integrated Drought Information System within the National
Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to improve drought forecasting and
monitoring capabilities. Drought is neither sudden nor violent
but it can be among the most devastating of natural disasters.
Unlike other natural disasters, which have impacts that are
often intense but localized, drought can simultaneously affect
wide swaths of the Nation. In every one of the years from 1885
to 1995, some part of the United States has experienced a
severe or extreme drought. NOAA estimates that drought results
in total economic impacts in the U.S. of $6 to $8 billion each
year from such impacts as crop loss; premature livestock sales;
degraded water quality; decreased tourism revenue from limited
rafting, boating, fishing, golfing and skiing; decreased energy
generation capacity; increased groundwater pumping costs; and
reduced barge tonnage for commercial shipping. According to
NOAA, the total cost of particularly severe droughts, including
economic impact and government aid to affected communities, has
exceeded $60 billion in the past. Experts in drought mitigation
argue that substantial losses from drought are not inevitable.
With adequate forecasting and monitoring capabilities,
government and business can adjust their activities and
substantially mitigate the extent and severity of many impacts
of drought.
Water managers, water users, and drought researchers have
identified four primary weaknesses in current drought forecast
and monitoring efforts. First, no mechanism currently exists to
comprehensively assess the extent, severity, or impacts of
drought with the level of detail required to support operation
decision-making. Second, not all of the data collected by
federal programs are delivered in a timely fashion, and in
compatible formats. Third, current drought forecast and
monitoring products provide general guidance on current and
future drought risk, but do not provide enough detail and are
not updated frequently enough to meet the operational needs of
most water managers and users. While water managers can use
these low resolution maps to communicate the overall state and
trends of drought, the maps do not distinguish drought
conditions on an individual reservoir or watershed level, which
is the level at which water managers need information to make
operational decisions. Finally, there is no single coordinating
agency that operates a clearinghouse or a prediction model
incorporating the drought-related data and tools produced by
the many federal, State, and local agencies that work on
drought management and that collect drought-related
information.
H.R. 5136 will address these issues and facilitate the
development of a more comprehensive, real-time drought
information and forecasting system, the National Integrated
Drought Information System (NIDIS). The Act specifies that
NIDIS shall serve as an effective early drought warning system
providing the following: (1) a comprehensive system to collect
and integrate information on drought for usable, reliable, and
timely drought assessments and forecasts; (2) a means to
communicate forecasts, conditions and impacts on an ongoing
basis to the private sector, and decision-makers at all levels
of government to aid timely, informed decisions leading to
reduced impacts and costs; and (3) a means to include timely
and, to the extent practicable, real-time information
reflecting local, regional, and State differences in drought
conditions. The Act also specifies that NIDIS shall coordinate
and integrate federal research in support of a drought early
warning system. NOAA shall consult with relevant government
agencies, research institutions and the private sector in the
development of NIDIS.
Legislative History
Representatives Ralph Hall and Mark Udall introduced H.R.
5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of
2006, on April 6, 2006, at which time the bill was referred to
the Committee on Science. On May 4, 2006, the Environment,
Technology, and Standards Subcommittee held a hearing on the
state of drought forecasting and monitoring, drought
information needs of water users, and on H.R. 5136 itself.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on May 4, 2006 to consider the bill. One amendment was
adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported
H.R. 5136 as amended, by voice vote. On June 7, 2006, the
Committee on Science considered H.R. 5136. The Committee
adopted one amendment by voice vote. The Committee favorably
reported the bill as amended, by voice vote. On June 15, 2006,
the Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-503, and the bill
was placed on the Union Calendar (No. 280).
The House considered H.R. 5136 on September 26, 2006, and
it passed as amended, by voice vote. The Senate received H.R.
5136 on September 27, 2006, and referred it to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On December 6, 2006, the
Committee discharged the bill. The Senate considered H.R. 5136
on December 6, 2006. No amendments were offered and the bill
passed by unanimous consent.
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
2.1--H.R. 28, HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2005
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. They
are used to solve complex scientific and engineering problems,
to simulate physical systems that are often too big and complex
to study experimentally, and to manage vast amounts of data.
Such computers are, by definition, the most powerful in the
world at a given moment, and they are an essential component of
U.S. scientific, industrial, and military competitiveness.
The Federal Government promotes high-performance computing
in several different ways. First, it funds research and
development 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 computer for a wide variety
of researchers by allowing them to use government-supported
computers at universities and government laboratories.
The purpose of H.R. 28 is to update the authorized
activities of the interagency High-Performance Computing
Research and Development Program, originally codified by the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. It requires the program
to provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-
performance computing; sustained access by the research
community in the U.S. to high-performance computing systems;
computational science and engineering research on mathematical
modeling and algorithms for applications in all fields of
science and engineering; and educating and training of
additional undergraduate and graduate students in fields
relevant to high-performance computing. It also requires the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
to establish the goals and priorities of federal high-
performance computing research and development. Finally, H.R.
28 authorizes specific activities related to high-performance
computing at six federal agencies: the National Science
Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Legislative History
H.R. 28 was introduced by Representative Biggert of
Illinois on January 4, 2005 and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. The Committee held a markup on March 17,
2005 and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice
vote. The Committee filed H.Rept. 109-36 on the measure on
April 12, 2005. On April 26, 2005, the House agreed to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended, by voice vote. It was
received in the Senate on April 27, 2005 and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
2.2--H.R. 50, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 50 is to establish in law the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the
Department of Commerce and to describe the mission and
functions of NOAA. In 1970 President Nixon established NOAA by
Executive Order within the Department of Commerce. Since that
time NOAA has evolved into the central civilian federal agency
for oceans and atmospheric issues. NOAA has approximately
12,000 employees and an annual budget of about $3.9 billion.
NOAA is structured around the following major offices: the
National Ocean Service; the National Weather Service; the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service; and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Throughout much of its
history, NOAA has lacked a clear and consistent mission. In
2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (a non-partisan group
of ocean experts established by the Ocean Policy Act of 2000)
found that the overlap of the more than 200 issue-specific laws
under which NOAA operates causes significant programmatic and
functional confusion, and that the work of the agency's line
offices is not sufficiently coordinated. The Commission also
noted that NOAA's unclear legal standing in some ocean and
atmospheric issues has hampered its ability to form effective
partnerships with other agencies, states, the private sector
and academia. To establish a clear mission and legal status for
the agency, the Commission strongly recommends that Congress
pass an organic act for NOAA.
H.R. 50 is an organic act for NOAA. It establishes NOAA
within the Department of Commerce, and maintains the current
leadership structure at NOAA except that it creates a new
position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and
Education. It maintains the National Weather Service within
NOAA and requires the agency to reorganize around the issues of
research and education, operations and services, and resource
management. The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the adequacy of
the environmental data and information systems of NOAA. It
requires NOAA to provide two strategic plans: one to address
any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information
system assessment and the second for intramural and extramural
research to support the mission of NOAA. The legislation
requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private
relationships once every five years.
It requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public if it
plans to close or transfer a NOAA facility. The legislation
establishes conditions for development of major program cost
baselines and requires notification to Congress when certain
cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs.
Legislative History
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 50, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, on January
4, 2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee
on Science, and, in addition, the Committee on Resources. H.R.
50 is similar to H.R. 4546, which was favorably reported by the
Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee in the
108th Congress.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on March 15, 2005 to consider the bill. One amendment was
adopted by voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the
bill, H.R. 50, as amended, by voice vote.
On May 17, 2005, the Committee on Science considered H.R.
50. One amendment was adopted by voice vote, and one amendment
was adopted by a roll call vote (Y-18, N-17). The Committee
favorably reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote. No
further legislative action was taken on this measure in the
109th Congress.
2.3--H.R. 250, MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology
Competitiveness Act of 2005, is to foster innovation in the
manufacturing sciences by creating a mechanism to coordinate
federal manufacturing research and development and by
strengthening existing programs at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) that support manufacturing
research and development, including an authorization for the
NIST laboratory and construction accounts.
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.
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
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.
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 should introduce some changes in its current
business model to help firms overcome these challenges.
H.R. 250 establishes an Interagency Committee on
Manufacturing Research and Development to coordinate federal
manufacturing R&D efforts, and an Advisory Committee to guide
those efforts. The Interagency Committee would prepare a
strategic plan for manufacturing R&D, produce a coordinated
interagency budget, and write an annual report on the federal
programs involved in manufacturing R&D. The bill also
establishes a three-year cost-shared, collaborative
manufacturing R&D pilot grant program at NIST, as well as a
post-doctoral and senior research fellowship program in
manufacturing sciences at NIST. It reauthorizes the MEP program
with a mechanism for review and re-competition of MEP centers.
It creates an additional competitive grant program from which
MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-
related projects, and allow the MEP program to distribute funds
to MEP centers without a matching funds requirement. The bill
authorizes funding for NIST's Scientific, Technical, and
Research Services account, the Baldrige Quality Award program,
and the Construction and Maintenance account.
Legislative History
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 250, the
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, on January 6,
2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on
Science. H.R. 250 is similar to H.R. 3598, which passed the
House in the 108th Congress.
The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
met on March 15, 2005 to consider the bill. One amendment in
the nature of a substitute was amended by voice vote. The
substitute amendment, as amended, was adopted by voice vote.
The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 250, as
amended, by voice vote.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider
H.R. 250. Seven amendments were offered: three were adopted by
voice vote, two were withdrawn, one was defeated by voice vote,
and one was defeated by a roll call vote (Y-15, N-19). The
Committee favorably reported the bill, as amended, by roll call
vote (Y-19, N-14). The Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-
92 on May 23, 2005.
On May 23, 2005, the Committee filed H.Rept. 109-92, and
the bill was placed on the Union Calendar (No. 49). The House
considered H.R. 250 on September 21, 2005. Five amendments were
offered: two were adopted by voice vote; one was agreed to by a
roll call vote (Y-416, N-8; Roll Call No. 481); two were
defeated by roll call votes (Y-210, N-213, Roll Call No. 482;
Y-210, N-212; Roll Call No. 483). Mr. Honda offered a motion to
recommit which was defeated by a roll call vote (Y-196, N-226;
Roll Call No. 484). The bill passed, as amended, by roll call
vote (Y-394, N-24; Roll Call No. 485). The Senate received H.R.
250 on September 22, 2005, and referred it to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
2.4--H.R. 426, REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The bill establishes a program within the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration 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
2006 through 2010 for the program.
Legislative History
H.R. 426 was introduced by Rep. Udall of Colorado on
January 26, 2005 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On June 27, 2005 the Committee discharged H.R. 426 and
the measure was placed on the Union Calendar.
Provisions of H.R. 426 were incorporated into Title III of
H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Act of 2005. On December 30, 2005, the President signed
S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005, which became Public Law 109-155.
2.5--H.R. 610, ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
Authorizes funding, enumerates goals and establishes new
administrative procedures for energy research, development,
demonstration and commercial application programs at the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Title I authorizes funding for
basic and applied research in the Office of Science for fiscal
years 2006-2010; authorizes and sets a schedule and costs for
the construction and operation of the Rare Isotope Accelerator;
and authorizes and limits U.S. participation in ITER, the
international fusion project. Title II includes several
research management provisions. Title III authorizes funding
for vehicles, buildings and industrial energy efficiency
research and development (R&D); authorizes a solid-state
lighting initiative; and authorizes funding for R&D related to
distributed energy, electricity transmission and distribution,
and energy assurance. In addition, this title authorizes a new
program to provide grants for energy efficient buildings; and
authorizes grants to establish advanced energy technology
transfer centers. Title IV authorizes funding for solar energy,
bioenergy, wind energy, and geothermal energy R&D. It also
authorizes a program of grants to States for the demonstration
of solar energy technology. Title V authorizes funding for
nuclear science and engineering, including R&D on advanced
nuclear fuel recycling and advanced reactors; support for
nuclear science and engineering at universities; and support
for improved nuclear research infrastructure and facilities.
Title VI authorizes funding for advanced coal, oil and gas
technologies, transportation fuels, and fuel cells, and for
carbon dioxide capture R&D. This title also authorizes a new
ten-year program of R&D on ultra-deep drilling technology with
mandatory funding. Title VII authorizes funding for R&D and
demonstration programs for hydrogen production, infrastructure,
and fuel cell vehicles. Title VIII establishes demonstration
programs for alternative-fueled and advanced vehicles,
including clean diesel and fuel cell school buses. Title IX
authorizes funding for R&D on advanced clean coal technology,
and establishes clean coal ``centers of excellence'' at
universities. Title X designates the head of the Office of
Science as an Assistant Secretary and creates an additional
assistant secretary position to enable improved management of
nuclear energy issues.
Legislative History
Energy legislation has been debated in the last two
Congresses, and H.R. 610 includes many of the provisions
related to DOE's science and technology programs from the
conference report for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003,
passed by the House in the 108th Congress. The science and
technology provisions related to DOE in H.R. 6, in turn, were
based in part on negotiated agreements reached in conference on
H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001.
H.R. 610 was introduced on February 8, 2005 by
Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, and was referred to
the Committee on Science. The Committee on Science met to
consider H.R. 610 on Wednesday, February 10, 2005 and ordered
the measure reported as amended, by a voice vote. On July 29,
2005 the Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 108-216 Part I, and
placed it on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 123. Provisions
of H.R. 610 were incorporated into H.R. 6, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. (See Sec. 1.7 on H.R. 6 for further legislative
action.)
2.6--H.R. 798, METHAMPHETAMINE REMEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 798 is to establish a federal research
program to support the development of voluntary guidelines to
help states address the residual consequences of former
methamphetamine laboratories. Methamphetamine, also known as
`meth,' `speed,' or `crank,' is a powerful stimulant that
increases wakefulness and physical activity but can also induce
symptoms ranging from extreme nervousness and hyperactivity to
convulsions and irreversible brain damage. The use and
manufacture of meth without prescription or appropriate
permission is illegal under federal law. The Nation's meth
problem originated in California and the Southwest, but it has
spread considerably, facilitated by the proliferation of small
labs that produce the drug for personal use and local
distribution.
Small meth labs can be set up nearly anywhere--fields,
woods, cars--but roughly two-thirds are found in residential
settings. A typical lab requires little in the way of
materials, and the ingredients used to manufacture meth are
commercially available anywhere in the U.S. The main ingredient
can be either pseudoepherine or ephedrine, two chemicals that
are present in many over-the-counter cold and asthma
medications, and the other chemicals are available in gasoline,
drain cleaners, fertilizer and matches. The manufacture process
requires almost no technical knowledge, and the recipe--as well
as step-by-step instructions--is freely and easily available on
the Internet. Of the 32 chemicals that can be used in varying
combinations to make or `cook' meth, one-third are extremely
toxic and many are reactive, flammable, and corrosive. In fact,
nearly one in five labs is found because of fire or explosion,
injuring or killing those involved in the manufacture of the
drug as well as the law enforcement officers and the
firefighters who respond. Once a meth lab is discovered,
responsibility for cleanup and remediation typically falls to
state and local governments and property owners. Currently
there are no national guidelines or regulations on how to clean
up and remediate a residential meth lab for re-occupation, and
states and localities are struggling to protect the public and
find a solution that is practical for property owners.
H.R. 798 requires the Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to establish a program of research on residues
from the production of methamphetamines and to establish
voluntary guidelines for preliminary site assessment and
remediation of methamphetamine laboratories. The bill also
requires the Assistant Administrator to convene a meeting of
relevant State agencies, individuals and organizations to share
best practices and identify research needs. H.R. 798 also
requires the EPA to enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences to study the status and quality of research
on the residual effects of meth labs, identify research gaps,
and recommend an agenda for the EPA research program. The bill
authorizes $3 million for each of the Fiscal Years 2006 through
2009 for EPA and authorizes $1.5 million for each of the Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2009 for NIST.
Legislative History
Representatives Bart Gordon, Ken Calvert, and Sherwood
Boehlert introduced H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act of 2005, on February 15, 2005, at which time the
bill was referred to the Committee on Science. On March 15,
2005, the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee
met to consider the bill. No amendments were offered, and the
Subcommittee favorably reported the bill by voice vote.
On March 17, 2005, the Committee on Science considered H.R.
798. One amendment was adopted by voice vote. The Committee
favorably reported the bill as amended, by voice vote. The
Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-42 on April 13, 2005,
and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar (No. 23).
The House considered H.R. 798 on December 13, 2005, and it
passed, as amended, by voice vote. The Senate received H.R. 798
on December 14, 2005, and referred it to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. On December 9, 2006, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged the bill
by unanimous consent. The Senate passed the bill with one
amendment by unanimous consent on December 9, 2006.
2.7--H.R. 921, MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
Developing an educated and technologically literate
workforce is crucial to maintaining the Nation's preeminence in
an increasingly competitive, information-based, global economy.
Sixty percent of all jobs require information technology
skills, and jobs in information technology pay significantly
higher salaries than jobs in non-information technology fields.
Unfortunately many Americans--and minorities in particular--do
not have access to computers either at home or in school. While
58 percent of the U.S. population uses the Internet regularly,
only 45 percent of African-Americans and 44 percent of
Hispanics access the Internet regularly, according to a 2003
report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The
college campus is the first place many of these students will
use a computer, but colleges and universities that primarily
serve minority populations lack the basic information and
digital technology infrastructure needed to provide their
students the necessary skills to compete and qualify for
America's best paying jobs.
These minority serving institutions (MSIs) help create a
diverse workforce, awarding 21 percent of all degrees awarded
to African-Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics. MSIs
grant a significant percentage of the degrees to minorities in
science, math, engineering, and technology, fields. (MSIs are
defined by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 to be
institutions of higher education that have a combination of
minority groups totaling at least 50 percent of their
enrollment.) These institutions are often challenged by small
endowments and serving a low-income population.
The purpose of H.R. 921 is to strengthen the digital
capabilities of MSIs and help to close the ``digital divide''--
the disparity in access to technology between Caucasian and
minority populations. The bill would establish the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Program, a grant program within the Department of Commerce's
Technology Administration, to provide funds to MSIs to improve
their access to and use of information technology. Allowable
uses of funds include purchase of computer equipment, wireless
technologies, and software; development of information
technology education programs; and providing of training for
teachers in how to use computer technology in the classroom.
H.R. 921 requires the grants to be awarded via a competitive,
merit review process. The bill also directs the Under Secretary
of Commerce for Technology to: (1) to establish and 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.
H.R. 921 authorizes $250 million for this grant program for
each fiscal year 2006 to 2010.
Legislative History
H.R. 921 was introduced by Representative Forbes of
Virginia on February 17, 2005, and was referred to the
Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. The Committee held a markup on May
4, 2005 and ordered the measure reported by unanimous consent.
The Committee filed report H.Rept. 109-211, Part I on the
measure on July 28, 2005.
2.8--H.R. 1022, GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. NEAR-EARTH OBJECT SURVEY ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The bill directs the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to establish a
program to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize the
physical characteristics of near-Earth asteroids and comets
equal to or greater than 100 meters in diameter in order to
assess the threat of such near-Earth objects in striking the
Earth.
It amends the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to
include a Congressional declaration that the general welfare
and security of the United States require that the unique
competence of NASA in science and engineering systems be
directed to detecting, tracking, cataloguing, and
characterizing near-Earth asteroids and comets in order to
provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard of such
near-Earth objects impacting the Earth.
The bill authorizes $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2006 and 2007 for the program.
Legislative History
H.R. 1022 was introduced by Rep. Rohrabacher of California
on March 1, 2005 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. The bill was then referred to the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics on March 22, 2005. On June 27, 2005 the
Committee discharged H.R. 1022 and the measure was placed on
the Union Calendar.
Provisions of H.R. 1022 were incorporated into Title III of
H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Act of 2005. On December 30, 2005, the President signed
S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005, which became Public Law 109-155.
2.9--H.R. 1023, CHARLES `PETE' CONRAD ASTRONOMY AWARDS ACT
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This bill authorizes the NASA Administrator to establish an
awards program in honor of Charles `Pete' Conrad, astronaut and
space scientist, for recognizing the discoveries made by
amateur astronomers of asteroids with near-Earth orbit
trajectories.
Legislative History
H.R. 1023 was introduced by Rep. Rohrabacher of California
on March 1, 2005 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On March 17, 2005 the Committee met to consider H.R.
1023 and moved, by a voice vote, to favorably report the bill,
as amended, to the House. On April 12, 2005, the Committee
discharged H.R. 1023 and the measure was placed on the Union
Calendar. On May 10, 2005 the House agreed to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 1023 by a voice vote. On May 11, 2005 the bill
was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Provisions of H.R. 1023 were incorporated into Title VI of
H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Act of 2005. On December 30, 2005, the President signed
S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005, which became Public Law 109-155.
2.10--H.R. 1158, TO REAUTHORIZE THE STEEL AND ALUMINUM ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1988
Background and Summary of Legislation
The bill amends the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation
and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. The bill authorizes
appropriations each year for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The bill also updates
priorities to be considered in research planning, repeals a
section related to National Institute of Standards and
Technology programs that have been inactive, and reinstates the
annual report requirement for DOE.
Legislative History
On March 4, 2004, during the 108th Congress, Ms. Hart, Mr.
English, and Mr. Murphy introduced H.R. 3890, To reauthorize
the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology
Competitiveness Act of 1988. The bill passed the House on July
7, 2004, but was not considered by the Senate during the 108th
Congress.
On March 8, 2005, Ms. Hart, Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Ehlers
introduced H.R. 1158, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum
Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Science, which met to
consider H.R. 1158 on March 17, 2005 and ordered the measure
reported without amendment, by a voice vote. On April 26, 2005,
the House considered the bill under suspension of the rules,
and agreed to the bill by voice vote. The bill was received by
the Senate on April 27, 2005, and referred to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. On June 22, 2005, the Committee
on Science filed H.Rept. 109-147. The Senate did not take up
the bill.
2.11--H.R. 1215, THE GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2005, is to establish an interagency
research and development (R&D) program to promote and
coordinate green chemistry research, development,
demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities.
Green chemistry is most commonly defined as chemistry that
involves the design of chemical products and processes that
reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous
substances. Also known as sustainable chemistry or benign
chemistry, green chemistry seeks to prevent the creation of
hazards, instead of focusing on cleaning up waste after the
fact. Many inherent advantages come from green chemistry in the
areas of worker safety, public safety, and national security.
The Federal Government supports activities related to green
chemistry through agencies including the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). Some agencies--EPA, for
example--run programs that are focused directly on green
chemistry. Other agencies, such as DOE, fund green chemistry as
byproducts of efforts to achieve other goals, such as improving
energy efficiency. Because some green chemistry investments are
direct and some are indirect, and because green chemistry is
not broken out in agency budgets, it is difficult to determine
the precise level of federal investment in green chemistry.
H.R. 1215 establishes an interagency research and
development program to promote and coordinate federal green
chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and
technology transfer activities. The bill also establishes an
interagency working group composed of representatives from NSF,
NIST, DOE, EPA, and any other agency that the President may
designate, to oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. The
bill authorizes a program at NSF to award grants to
institutions of higher education to support efforts to revise
their undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical
engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and
strategies. This program is authorized at $22.5 million total
over Fiscal Years 2006-2008. H.R. 1215 requires the Director of
NSF to enter into a contract with the National Research Council
to conduct a study of the factors that constitute barriers to
the successful commercial application of green chemistry R&D.
It also authorizes a program to award grants to institutions of
higher education to establish partnerships with companies in
the chemical industry to retrain chemists and chemical
engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and
strategies.
Legislative History
Representative Gingrey introduced H.R. 1215, the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005, on March 10,
2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on
Science. H.R. 1215 is similar H.R. 3970, which passed the House
in the 108th Congress.
On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider
H.R. 1215. Five amendments were offered and four were withdrawn
and one was adopted by voice vote. The Committee favorably
reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote. On May 16, 2005,
the Committee filed H.Rept. 109-82, and the bill was placed on
the Union Calendar (No. 42).
The House considered H.R. 1215 on September 26, 2006, and
it passed, as amended, by voice vote. The Senate received H.R.
1215 on September 27, 2006. On November 13, 2006, the Senate
referred the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
2.12--H.R. 1640, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
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. 610, 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. 1640 and H.R. 610, became
the basis for H.R. 6, the omnibus energy legislation considered
on the House Floor. (See Sec. 1.7 for a description of H.R. 6.)
Legislative History
Representative Joe Barton introduced H.R. 1640 on April 14,
2005. 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, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On
July 29, 2005 the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed
H.Rept. 109-215, Part 1 and the House Committee on Science
discharged the bill. H.R. 1640 was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 122.
2.13--H.R. 1817, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established
in 2003. The purpose of H.R. 1817 is to authorize fiscal year
2006 DHS programs to prevent and deter terrorist attacks,
protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the
Nation, and ensure safe and secure borders.
Provisions in H.R. 1817 within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science include sections on technology development
and transfer, inter-operable communications, and cyber
security. Specifically, the bill establishes the position of
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security within DHS, authorizes
cyber security research and development programs within the DHS
Science and Technology Directorate, and establishes a program
in which DHS, in conjunction with the National Science
Foundation, will award grants to colleges and universities to
carry out cyber security training programs and purchase related
equipment. The bill also strengthens and provides guidance on
DHS's technology transfer efforts to ensure that homeland
security technologies are evaluated and deployed as quickly as
possible. The bill also instructs DHS to establish a
university-based Center of Excellence to perform research on
border security technologies and systems.
Legislative History
H.R. 1817 was introduced by Representative Cox of
California on April 26, 2005, and was referred to the Committee
on Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland Security held a
markup on April 27, 2005 and ordered the measure reported, as
amended, by a voice vote. The Committee filed report H.Rept.
109-71, Part I on the measure on May 3, 2005. The measure was
referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on Science,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on
Government Reform, the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee
on Ways and Means, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on May 3, 2005. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce held a markup on May 11, 2005 and ordered the measure
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on the
Judiciary held a markup on May 12, 2005 and ordered the measure
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On May 13, 2005, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce filed report H.Rept. 109-71,
Part II on the measure and the Committee on the Judiciary filed
report H.Rept. 109-71, Part III. Also on May 13, 2005, the
Committee on Science, the Committee on Government Reform, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee
on Ways and Means, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence discharged the measure. On May 18, 2005, the House
considered the measure, and it was passed, as amended, by: Y-
424; N-4 (Roll Call No. 189). It was received in the Senate on
May 19, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
2.14--H.R. 2364, TO ESTABLISH A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM TO AWARD SCHOLARSHIPS TO RECRUIT AND PREPARE STUDENTS FOR
CAREERS IN THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AND IN NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION MARINE RESEARCH, ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, AND
SATELLITE PROGRAMS
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 2364 is to promote scientific expertise
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
by establishing a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to
award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for careers
in the National Weather Service (NWS), NOAA marine and
atmospheric research, and satellite programs. There is growing
concern that too few American students pursue science, math and
engineering and that the Federal Government will not be able to
replenish its ranks of scientists as the current cohort
retires. This Act provides incentives to study science, math or
engineering and to work for NOAA by awarding scholarships to
students who agree to work for the agency upon completion of
their degree. This Act is virtually identical to a law enacted
during the 108th Congress for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (P.L. 108-176 and P.L. 108-201). The
legislation is based on the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program at
the National Science Foundation under which students must teach
in return for scholarship aid (P.L. 107-368). H.R. 2364
authorizes the Administrator of NOAA to establish a Science and
Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit
and prepare students for careers in the National Weather
Service and NOAA's marine and atmospheric research and
satellite programs. The bill also requires that scholarship
recipients agree to serve as full-time employees of NOAA for 24
months for every year of scholarship provided. H.R. 2364 also
requires that, to be eligible for a scholarship, a student: (1)
must be enrolled or accepted to be enrolled full time in an
institution of higher education in a degree program in a field
of study acceptable to the Administrator of NOAA; (2) must be a
U.S. citizen or permanent resident; and (3) may not be a
federal employee.
Legislative History
Representative Dana Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 2364 on May
16, 2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee
on Science. On May 17, 2005, the Committee on Science
considered H.R. 2364. The Committee adopted one amendment by
voice vote. The Committee favorably reported the bill, as
amended, by voice vote. The Committee filed H.Rept. 109-151 on
June 23, 2005. The bill was placed on the Union Calendar (No.
91).
2.15--H.R. 3070, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACT OF
2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3070 is to reauthorize the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for Fiscal Years
2006 and 2007. The bill directs NASA to carry out a balanced
set of programs in human space flight, space science, Earth
science and aeronautics. The bill authorizes $16.965 billion
for NASA for FY06, and $17.726 billion for FY07. The bill fully
funds Exploration, the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, as
well as increasing funding for priorities such as science,
aeronautics, the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission, and
the James Webb Space Telescope. H.R. 3070 also creates a new
budget account structure for four distinct areas, which include
``Science, Aeronautics and Education,'' ``Exploration
Systems,'' ``Space Operations,'' as well as an account for the
Inspector General.
The bill establishes a mechanism to help both NASA and
Congress spot potential cost growth and schedule problems early
in the development phase of major programs. In addition, the
bill directs NASA to develop a national aeronautics policy, a
science policy with a list of prioritized science missions, and
a plan for facilities and agency workforce needed to meet these
goals. The bill also includes requirements previously passed by
the Committee addressing remote sensing applications (H.R. 426,
the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2005), the detection and
cataloging of near-Earth asteroids (H.R. 1022, the George E.
Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act) and an award program
for amateur astronomers (H.R. 1023, the Charles `Pete' Conrad
Astronomy Awards Act).
As part of the bill, NASA and NOAA are directed to appoint
a Joint Working Group to ensure maximum coordination between
those agencies in the design, operation, and transition of
missions. The bill also authorizes NASA to establish a prize
program to stimulate innovation in basic and applied research,
technology development, and prototype demonstrations that have
the potential for application in space and aeronautics. In
addition, the bill urges NASA to use commercial services
providers to support human missions to the Moon and Mars, to
support missions to the International Space Station, and to
transfer science research and technology to society.
The bill recognizes that the International Space Station is
a multinational effort which provides NASA with a unique
opportunity to conduct fundamental biological and physical
research in low-Earth orbit. The bill directs NASA to complete
an implementation plan to increase research opportunities on
the Station, and be accessible by the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
As part of H.R. 3070, Congress notes that safety has been
and continues to be a top priority in NASA's mission. The bill
expresses its sense that NASA should return the Space Shuttle
to flight as soon as the Administrator determines that it can
be accomplished with an acceptable level of safety. The bill
also establishes a framework for a Commission to investigate
future U.S. space vehicle accidents, as well as a Task Force to
evaluate and report on ISS safety.
Legislative History
H.R. 3070 was introduced by Rep. Calvert of California and
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert on June 27, 2005. The bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on June
28, 2005. The Subcommittee held a markup session on June 29,
2005, and ordered the measure reported, as amended, to the Full
Committee by a roll call vote: Y-10; Present-6. On July 14,
2005, the Full Committee considered H.R. 3070, and ordered the
measure, as amended, to the House by a voice vote. The
Committee filed H.Rept. 109-173, on July 18, 2005. The measure
was subsequently placed on the Union Calendar on July 18, 2005.
On July 22, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3070, as amended, by a
roll call vote: Y-383; N-15 (Roll Call No. 416). On July 25,
2005, the measure was received in the Senate and referred to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The
text of H.R. 3070 was used as the basis for negotiations with
the Senate for the conference of the Senate version of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 (S. 1281).
On December 16, 2005, conference report of the NASA
Authorization Act (H.Rept. 109-354) was filed. On December 17,
2005, Chairman Boehlert moved to suspend the rules and agree to
the conference report H.Rept. 109-354. The motion to suspend
the rules and agree to the conference report was agreed to by a
voice vote, and motions to reconsider were laid upon the table
without objection.
On December 22, 2005, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by Unanimous Consent, clearing the enrollment of S. 1281
for the President. On December 30, 2005, the President signed
S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005, which became Public Law 109-155.
2.16--H.R. 3929, DANA POINT DESALINATION PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3929 is to amend the Water Desalination
Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
assist in research and development, environmental and
feasibility studies, and preliminary engineering for the
Municipal Water District of Orange County, California, Dana
Point Desalination Project located at Dana Point, California.
H.R. 3929 amends the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to
authorize up to $2.5 million in federal funds to assist the
Municipal Water District of Orange County in conducting
preliminary engineering and environmental studies on the Dana
Point Desalination Project. As amended, this bill also
specifies that the federal cost share of the project cannot
exceed 25 percent, authorizes $2.5 million for federal
assistance, and limits the federal authorization to 10 years.
Legislative History
Representative Ken Calvert introduced H.R. 3929, the Dana
Point Desalination Project Authorization Act, on September 28,
2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on
Science, and, in addition, the Committee on Resources. On
November 16, 2005, the Committee on Resources considered H.R.
3929. One amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The
measure was discharged by the Committee on Science on December
12, 2005. The Committee favorably reported the bill, as
amended, by unanimous consent. The Committee on Resources filed
H.Rept. 109-335, Part I on December 12, 2005, and the bill was
placed on the Union Calendar (No. 185).
The House considered H.R. 3929 on May 2, 2006 and it passed
as amended, by voice vote. The Senate received H.R. 3929 on May
3, 2006, and referred it to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works. On September 13, 2006, the Committee favorably
reported the bill as amended. On September 27, 2006, the
Committee filed S.Rept. No. 109-353, and the bill was placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (No. 647).
2.17--H.R. 4941, HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT
ACT OF 2005
Background and Summary of Legislation
The mission of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) is to harness the
Nation's scientific and technological resources to provide
federal, State, and local officials with the technology and
capabilities to protect the homeland, particularly against
catastrophic terrorist events. DHS S&T supports research,
development, testing, and evaluation of technologies to prepare
for, prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism
and other disasters. DHS S&T was one of the few units of DHS
that was not transferred into the department from another
agency; instead, the organization and its programs were built
from scratch upon the formation of the department in 2003. The
purpose of H.R. 4941 is to strengthen and focus the programs of
DHS S&T.
H.R. 4941 would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security,
acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
to support the development and promulgation of national
voluntary consensus standards for homeland security equipment
and training and would require equipment purchased by DHS or
with DHS funding to conform to such standards, where
applicable. The legislation would require that the Secretary
implement the previously-mandated Technology Clearinghouse
within 90 days and establish a homeland security technology
transfer program to facilitate the identification,
modification, and commercialization of counterterrorism or
emergency response technology and equipment. H.R. 4941 also
extends the termination date of the Homeland Security Science
and Technology Advisory Committee until 10 years after the date
of its establishment.
Additionally, H.R. 4941 would require the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology to: (1) provide technical guidance,
training, and other assistance, as appropriate, to support the
transfer and integration of homeland security technologies and
protocols in urban and other jurisdictions under a high risk of
terrorist attacks; (2) support research and development in
cyber security to improve the ability of the United States to
prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from cyber attacks;
(3) establish a program to support the development and
promulgation of national voluntary consensus standards for
requirements, performance testing, and user training with
respect to critical infrastructure information systems; and (4)
support scholarship and fellowship programs to encourage the
development of an adequate supply of scientists and engineers
trained in fields relevant to homeland security. Lastly, it
directs the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to
conduct an inventory and evaluation of surveillance systems
currently supported or utilized by DHS and authorizes DHS to
establish a demonstration program to test the effectiveness and
privacy and civil liberties implications of utilizing visual
surveillance systems to enhance homeland security.
Legislative History
H.R. 4941 was introduced on March 14, 2006 by
Representative Reichert of Washington and was referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security. A markup was held on June 14,
2006. On December 8, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security
filed report H.Rept. 109-729, Part I, and the measure was
referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on Science
and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, both of whom
discharged the measure that same day.
2.18--H .R. 5143, THE H-PRIZE ACT OF 2006
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 5143, the H-Prize Act of 2006, is intended to create a
new incentive to achieve scientific and technical breakthroughs
required to accelerate the drive to a hydrogen economy. The H-
Prize bill is modeled after the Ansari X Prize, and establishes
three kinds of prizes intended to draw new players to join the
race to break down technical and other barriers to the
advancement of hydrogen technologies. First, four $1 million
prizes are to be awarded every other year to the best
technology advancements in components or systems related to
hydrogen production, hydrogen storage, hydrogen distribution,
and hydrogen utilization. Next, one $4 million prize is to be
awarded for prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles or
hydrogen-based products that best meet or exceed objective
performance criteria. Awards for prototype prizes alternate
years with the technology advancements prize. Finally, one $10
million prize is to be awarded for transformational changes in
technologies for the production and distribution of hydrogen
that meet or exceed far reaching objective criteria. As
amended, the bill sets a private fundraising goal of $40
million to use as matching funds for every dollar of private
funding raised by the winner of the transformational prize for
the continued development and commercialization of their
winning technology.
The bill also includes provisions to sunset the prize
program in 2017; require the Secretary to enter into an
agreement with a private, non-profit entity to administer the
prize competitions; define contestant eligibility, waive
intellectual property rights, waive federal liability, and
require purchase of liability insurance by contestants; and
authorize annual appropriations of $55,000,000 for fiscal years
2007 through 2016 for DOE.
Legislative History
On April 6, 2006 Representative Bob Inglis introduced H.R.
5143, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to establish
monetary prizes for achievements in overcoming scientific and
technical barriers associated with hydrogen energy. It was
referred to the House Committee on Science. On April 27, 2006
the Full Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5143. On
May 3, 2006, the Full Committee held a markup and ordered the
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On May 9, 2006
the Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-456, and the bill
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 254. On May 10,
2006 the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5143,
as amended, by: Y-416; N-6; 1 Present (Roll Call No. 131). On
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5143 was received in the Senate and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
2.19--H.R. 5316, RESTORING EMERGENCY SERVICES TO PROTECT OUR NATION
FROM DISASTERS (RESPOND) ACT OF 2006
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 moved the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an independent agency since
1994, into the newly formed Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The unprecedented disaster wreaked by Hurricane Katrina
in 2004 tested the newly restructured FEMA's ability to respond
to a major catastrophe. Many observers characterized the
government's response at all levels as inefficient and
uncoordinated, and FEMA in particular as unprepared and slowed
by unnecessary bureaucracy. As one of the most visible agencies
responding to the disaster, the public largely blamed FEMA for
further compounding the horrendous toll the hurricane had on
the people of the Gulf region.
In addition, Congress found that the onus for the poor
Hurricane Katrina response did not rest on FEMA and DHS alone.
Many State and local governments were unprepared for a disaster
of Hurricane Katrina's magnitude. The government lacked a
standard for the minimum capabilities for emergency
preparedness, and there was not a comprehensive plan for
response by all levels of government and for the direction and
coordination of resources to fill in gaps in capabilities.
One factor that may have contributed to FEMA's difficulty
in responding effectively to Hurricane Katrina was conflict
between the terrorism prevention mission of DHS and the
disaster management mission of FEMA. Re-establishing FEMA as an
independent cabinet-level agency to coordinate the federal
response and to lead the national preparedness efforts could
improve the preparedness, coordination, and execution of an
all-hazards emergency management system.
H.R. 5316 would remove FEMA from DHS and reestablish it as
an independent, cabinet-level agency. DHS emergency management
functions related to preparing for, responding to, recovering
from, and mitigating against all hazards would be transferred
to FEMA. The legislation would also create national and
regional emergency response centers and teams, require the
agency to establish a comprehensive workforce development
strategy for its employees, and require all agencies to improve
the monitoring and oversight of federal disaster expenditures.
H.R. 5316 would create an emergency equipment grant program at
FEMA to provide grants to State and local governments for the
purchase or improvement of emergency communications systems.
Finally, the legislation would establish a National Emergency
Preparedness System to ensure a consistent approach to domestic
incident management; establish target capabilities for each
level of government; identify resource needs to fill existing
capability gaps; and regularly assess the Nation's preparedness
level.
Sections 105 and 301 of H.R. 5316 are relevant to the
Science Committee's jurisdiction. Among other provisions,
section 105 states the functions of the Department of Homeland
Security established under the laws of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977 and the Federal Fire Prevention Act of
1974 shall be transferred to the Director of FEMA. Section 301
amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, creating a new Title VII. Section 703 (b)(3)
and (b)(4) of the new Title VII would direct the FEMA Director
to develop, publicly announce, and update as necessary national
voluntary consensus standards for first responder equipment,
and develop and update as necessary, national voluntary
consensus standards for the training program.
Legislative History
H.R. 5316 was introduced on May 9, 2006 by Representative
Young of Alaska and was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Homeland
Security, and the Committee on Government Reform. A markup was
held on June 14, 2006. The Committee on Government Reform held
a markup on May 18, 2006, and filed report H.Rept. 109-519,
Part I on June 22, 2006. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a markup on May 17, 2006, and filed report
H.Rept. 109-519, Part II on December 8, 2006. The measure was
then referred sequentially to the Committee on Science, whom,
like the Committee on Homeland Security, discharged the measure
that same day.
2.20--H.R. 5356, RESEARCH FOR COMPETITIVENESS ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The United States is a leader in many key innovation
indicators, such as research and development (R&D) spending,
number of scientists and engineers, and scientific output. This
investment in innovation has kept the U.S. strong in an
increasingly competitive global economy. However, American
investment in these areas is slipping relative to other
countries. These other countries, especially the emerging
economies of China and India, have realized that investment in
scientific and technological infrastructure is vital to
creating a robust and competitive economy. The U.S. must
maintain strong investment in the Nation's research and
development infrastructure to remain competitive in the new
global economy.
In his 2006 State of the Union address, the President
announced his American Competitiveness Initiative, which called
for the doubling of the combined budgets of the National
Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science over the next 10 years. The proposed funding increases
are targeted to high-priority research areas, including
alternative energy technologies, nanotechnology,
supercomputing, manufacturing, cyber security, the performance
of structures during disasters, and improvements in the U.S.
scientific infrastructure, such as research facilities and
government laboratories. These investments are expected to
support the development of the next generation of
transformative technologies.
A number of recent reports have outlined the issues that
the U.S. faces as it tries to maintain a position of leadership
and offered recommendations of what the U.S. should do to
ensure its economic and national security. This bill focuses on
research elements of the recommendations made in these reports
by strengthening federal support for innovative research and
for science and engineering researchers at the early stages of
their careers, authorizing funding for research infrastructure,
and establishing a program for interdisciplinary research.
Support for young researchers is essential because they face
the greatest hurdles in setting up laboratories and obtaining
research grants, yet they are the most likely researchers to
cross traditional disciplinary boundaries and do path breaking
work.
The purpose of H.R. 5356 is to bolster the research base in
the United States by strengthening federal investment in the
basic research that provides the background knowledge necessary
for future technology developments. The bill authorizes
programs at NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The bill authorizes an existing NSF program funding young
faculty, in which NSF provides grants of at least $80,000 per
year for five years to help researchers at the early stage of
their careers establish their research programs and
laboratories and pursue risky research in emerging fields. The
award recipients shall be selected on a competitive, merit-
reviewed basis, based on factors including the innovative or
transformative nature of the proposed research and the extent
to which the proposal integrates research and education. The
bill authorizes funding for this program to grow proportionally
with the overall NSF research budget. The bill authorizes a
similar program at the DOE Office of Science.
The bill also establishes programs at NSF and the DOE
Office of Science to award grants to young faculty to conduct
high-risk, high-return fundamental research with the potential
for significant scientific or technical advancement. In
addition to base funding, the federal agencies are authorized
to provide grantees with additional support to match funds the
awardee raises from industry for the proposed research. The
award recipients shall be selected on a competitive, merit-
reviewed basis, based on factors including the innovative or
transformative nature of the proposed research and the
potential interest to industry of the research.
Additionally, the bill authorizes the existing NSF Major
Research Instrumentation, which provides grants to purchase and
support cross-disciplinary, shared scientific and engineering
equipment, such as electron microscopes, telescopes, and
supercomputers, at institutions of higher education; authorizes
NSF to fund potentially path-breaking basic research designed
to simultaneously advance the physical and non-biomedical life
sciences; allows NSF to support research on the process of
innovation; and amends the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 to allow NSF to accept donations for specific prize
competitions.
Finally, the bill requires DOE and NIST to provide reports
to Congress on their efforts to recruit and retain young
scientists and engineers at the early stages of their careers
and states the sense of Congress that a balanced science
program at NASA contributes significantly to innovation in the
United States and allows NASA to establish a NASA Academy to
provide a scientific and engineering training program for NASA
employees.
Legislative History
H.R. 5356 was introduced by Representative McCaul of Texas
on May 11, 2006, and was referred solely to the Committee on
Science. The Committee held a markup on June 7, 2006 and
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The
Committee filed report H.Rept. 109-525 on the measure on June
22, 2006.
2.21--H.R. 5357, RESEARCH FOR COMPETITIVENESS ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
A critical element of U.S. competitiveness is the culture
of innovation that exists in this country and the ability of
U.S. companies to take advantage of breakthroughs in
fundamental research to create new products, markets, and
wholly new industries. The U.S. successes in the information
technology and semiconductor industries are examples of the
economic impact of investing in building strong research
enterprises. Today, the amount of investment in fundamental
research by companies at industrial laboratories, has declined,
and the connection between university researchers and
businesses is growing.
The purpose of H.R. 5357 is to strengthen the opportunities
for relationships between university researchers, especially
young faculty, and industry and to encourage industry awareness
of fundamental research programs. The bill establishes programs
at NSF and the DOE Office of Science to award grants to young
faculty to conduct high-risk, high-return fundamental research
with potential interest to industry.
Legislative History
H.R. 5357 was introduced by Representative McCaul of Texas
on May 11, 2006 and was referred solely to the Committee on
Science. The Committee held a markup on June 7, 2006, and the
text of H.R. 5357 was incorporated into H.R. 5356. For further
action see H.R. 5356.
2.22--H.R. 5358, SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR COMPETITIVENESS
ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
Over the past several years, a number of industry and
policy organizations have released reports describing the
critical role that science and technology play in U.S. economic
competitiveness and recommending strengthening science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at
all levels--K-12, undergraduate, and graduate--to ensure that
the U.S. has a technologically literate workforce for the 21st
century.
Without strong science and mathematics education at the K-
12 level, efforts to increase the number of Americans training
for, and choosing careers in STEM fields will be severely
handicapped. Many of the reports focused their recommendations
on enhancing teacher training, for both pre-service and in-
service teachers.
Once students reach college and graduate school, even well
prepared students are choosing not to major in, or are dropping
out of STEM fields. Half of all students who begin in the
physical or biological sciences and 60 percent of those in
mathematics will drop out of these fields by their senior year,
compared with the 30 percent drop out rate in the humanities
and social sciences. The attrition rates are even higher for
under-represented minorities. To increase the number of
undergraduate students in STEM fields will require not only
recruiting more students but also improving the quality of
their education.
At the graduate level, the emphasis in many reports is on
ensuring that there is a sufficient quantity of students
studying STEM fields in preparation for research and technical
careers and that the type of graduate education that these
students receive is appropriate preparation for research in
emerging fields and careers in industry, academia, and
government laboratories.
The purpose of H.R. 5358 is to strengthen and extend
existing federal programs to improve U.S. science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education at all levels through
developing and providing teacher training; attracting science,
mathematics, and engineering majors to teaching; improving
undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering courses;
and expanding interdisciplinary graduate work.
Specifically, H.R. 5358 strengthens and expands the
National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Robert Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program which provides money to colleges and
universities to award scholarships to students majoring in
science, math or engineering who commit to teaching two years
in return for each year of aid and to provide programs to help
prepare the students for teaching. The bill amends current law
by specifying some of the programs grantees must provide,
including field teaching experience. The bill specifies that
both faculty from STEM departments and education faculty must
be involved in the program.
The bill also strengthens and focuses NSF's Math and
Science Partnership Program at NSF, which provides grants to
institutions of higher education (or to eligible nonprofit
organizations) to partner with local educational agencies to
improve elementary and secondary mathematics and science
instruction. The bill amends current law to give priority to
proposed projects that include teacher training activities as
the main focus and clarify that STEM faculty must lead the
projects.
The bill also extends the authorization of and expands
NSF's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent
Expansion Program (STEP), which provides grants to colleges and
universities to improve undergraduate science, math and
engineering education. The bill authorizes NSF to fund the
creation of centers at colleges and universities to develop new
approaches to undergraduate education programs, and expands the
focus of STEP beyond its initial focus of increasing the number
of graduating STEM majors to include increasing the number of
non-majors taking STEM courses.
The bill also authorizes funding to increase proportionally
to the overall NSF budget for the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program, which supports
graduate students in cutting-edge interdisciplinary fields. It
also requires the Director of NSF to arrange for an assessment
of the impact of Professional Science Master's degree programs,
to evaluate the NSF broader impact grant evaluation criterion,
and to conduct a study on university donation of used
laboratory equipment to schools.
Lastly, the bill authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Science to conduct education programs, which may
include awarding scholarships or fellowships for study and
research, providing research experiences at National
Laboratories for undergraduates, and operating summer
institutes to improve the content knowledge of science and
mathematics teachers. The bill requires DOE to inventory and
evaluate its current and future education programs.
Legislative History
H.R. 5358 was introduced by Representative Schwartz of
Michigan on May 11, 2006, and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. The Committee held a markup on June 7,
2006 and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice
vote. The Committee filed report H.Rept. 109-524 on the measure
on June 22, 2006.
2.23--H.R. 5450, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 5450 is to establish in law the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within
the Department of Commerce and to describe the mission and
functions of NOAA. In 1970 President Nixon established NOAA by
Executive Order within the Department of Commerce. Since that
time NOAA has evolved into the central civilian federal agency
for oceans and atmospheric issues. NOAA has approximately
12,000 employees and an annual budget of about $3.9 billion.
NOAA is structured around the following major offices: the
National Ocean Service; the National Weather Service; the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service; and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Throughout much of its
history, NOAA has lacked a clear and consistent mission. In
2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (a non-partisan group
of ocean experts established by the Ocean Policy Act of 2000)
found that the overlap of the more than 200 issue-specific laws
under which NOAA operates causes significant programmatic and
functional confusion, and that the work of the agency's line
offices is not sufficiently coordinated. The Commission also
noted that NOAA's unclear legal standing in some ocean and
atmospheric issues has hampered its ability to form effective
partnerships with other agencies, states, the private sector
and academia. To establish a clear mission and legal status for
the agency, the Commission strongly recommends that Congress
pass an organic act for NOAA.
H.R. 5450 is an organic act for NOAA. It establishes NOAA
within the Department of Commerce, and maintains the current
leadership structure at NOAA except that it creates a new
position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and
Education. It maintains the National Weather Service within
NOAA and requires the agency to reorganize around the issues of
research and education, operations and services, and resource
management. The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the adequacy of
the environmental data and information systems of NOAA. It
requires NOAA to provide two strategic plans: one to address
any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information
system assessment and the second for intramural and extramural
research to support the mission of NOAA. The legislation
requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private
relationships once every five years.
It requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public if it
plans to close or transfer a NOAA facility. The legislation
establishes conditions for development of major program cost
baselines and requires notification to Congress when certain
cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs.
Legislative History
Representatives Vernon J. Ehlers, Sherwood Boehlert and
Wayne Gilchrest introduced H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Act on May 22, 2006, at which time
the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and, in
addition, the Committee on Resources. H.R. 5450, as introduced,
is nearly identical to H.R. 50, which favorably reported by the
Committee on Science on May 17, 2005. On June 14, 2006, the
Committee on Science considered H.R. 5450. Five amendments were
offered and three were adopted by voice vote and two were
defeated by roll call vote (Y-13, N-17; Y-15, N-19). The
Committee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 5450, as amended,
by voice vote. The Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-545,
Part 1 on June 29, 2006. On September 11, 2006, the Committee
on Resources discharged the bill and it was placed on the Union
Calendar (No. 385). The House considered H.R. 5450 on September
20, 2006, and it passed as amended, by voice vote. The Senate
received H.R. 5450 on September 21, 2006, and referred it to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
2.24--H.R. 5656, ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACT OF 2006
Background and Summary of Legislation
Affordable energy is essential to the Nation's continued
prosperity. Volatile world oil markets, along with soaring
natural gas and electricity prices, have replaced the
relatively low energy prices enjoyed over most of the two
decades before the turn of the century. World events in recent
years have illustrated once again the important connections
between energy policy and national security policy. In
addition, there are increasing concerns about the environmental
impact of energy use. Consequently, energy is once again on the
front burner of the Nation's agenda.
In February 2006, President Bush announced an Advanced
Energy Initiative that addressed numerous aspects of energy:
clean coal, nuclear, and renewable energy, as well as battery
technologies for vehicles. In addition to those technologies
covered under the Advanced Energy Initiative, there are other
areas that deserve additional attention, such as energy
consumption in buildings. According to Department of Energy
(DOE) 2003 statistics, buildings consume more energy than any
other sector of the economy, including industries or
transportation. In fact, U.S. buildings consume 39 percent of
our nation's primary energy and 70 percent of electricity.
Innovations in energy-efficient building technologies,
materials, techniques and systems combined with advances in
solar photovoltaic and other distributed clean energy
technologies have the potential to dramatically transform
today's buildings. These technologies--coupled with a whole
building approach that optimizes the interactions among
building systems and components--will enable buildings to use
considerably less energy, while also helping to meet our
national goals for sustainable development, environmental
protection, and energy security.
The Energy Research, Development, Demonstration and
Commercialization Act of 2006 would authorize the research and
development (R&D) and technology demonstration programs
included under the President's Advanced Energy Initiative. The
bill endorses the Administration's vision of a near-zero
emissions coal-fired power plant and stipulates environmental
performance requirements for the FutureGen demonstration
facility. The bill also endorses an advanced nuclear power
technology R&D program, but slows development of some
technologies proposed under the Administration's Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP) until a more comprehensive R&D and
demonstration plan is developed by DOE and reviewed by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The bill would also
authorize a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle R&D and
demonstration program, a solar photovoltaic R&D and
demonstration program, a cooperative extension program for
energy technology and energy efficiency information, a program
to provide incentives to design and construct energy efficient
buildings, and energy technology and energy efficiency
education and outreach programs. Finally, the bill would
require the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement
with the NAS to conduct a detailed study of, and make further
recommendations on, the October 2005 NAS recommendation to
establish an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
Legislative History
On June 21, 2006 Representative Judy Biggert introduced
H.R. 5656, a bill to provide for federal energy research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application
activities, and for other purposes. It was referred to the
House Committee on Science. On June 27, 2006 the Full Committee
held a markup and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by
a voice vote. Amendments accepted at this markup included
amendments to make technical changes; an amendment to establish
a program of R&D on coal methanation; an amendment requiring
cost analysis under the nuclear fuel cycle technologies
program; an amendment to expand R&D on biofuels technologies to
include non-liquid motor fuels; amendments to encourage
minority-serving institutions to apply for grants under the
plug-in hybrid and photovoltaic demonstration programs and the
green energy education grant program; an amendment to authorize
R&D on materials to make biobased fuels more compatible with
existing fuel storage and delivery infrastructure; an amendment
to require higher energy efficiency standards for the energy
efficient building grant program; an amendment to authorize R&D
on bioplastics and other bioproducts; and an amendment to merge
the energy extension language with an existing law. On July 28,
2006 the Committee on Science filed H.Rept. 109-611, and the
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 352.
2.25--H.R. 6203, THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 6203 contains most of the same provisions included in
H.R. 5656, as amended. H.R. 6203 would authorize R&D on ethanol
production from cellulosic feedstocks; technologies for
hydrogen storage on-board vehicles; advanced solar photovoltaic
power technologies; and wind. The bill would require that DOE
continue to carry out R&D on geothermal energy, hydropower, co-
generation, and distributed energy production as authorized in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The bill would also authorize a
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle R&D and demonstration program;
a photovoltaic technology demonstration program; a pilot grant
program for the design and construction of energy efficient
buildings; a cooperative extension program for energy
efficiency and distributed energy technologies; R&D on coal
methanation; R&D on materials that can be added to biobased
fuels and ultra low sulfur diesel fuels to make them more
compatible with existing fuel storage and delivery
infrastructure; and R&D on bioplastics. The bill would also
authorize DOE to help fund energy technology and energy
efficiency education programs in cooperation with the National
Science Foundation and would require the Secretary of Energy to
enter into an arrangement with the National Academies of
Sciences to conduct a detailed study of the 2005 NAS
recommendation to establish an ARPA-E.
Legislative History
On September 27, 2006 Representative Judy Biggert
introduced H.R. 6203, a bill to authorize R&D and technology
demonstration activities at DOE to help accelerate the
development and widespread use of a broad portfolio of
advanced, clean energy technologies. It was referred to the
House Committee on Science. On September 29, 2006, the House
agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6203, by voice vote.
On September 30, 2006, H.R. 6203 was received in the Senate.
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on
Science and Passed by the House of Representatives
3.1--H.CON.RES. 96, RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution recognizes the significant contributions
African American women scientists, mathematicians, and
inventors have made to the advancement of scientific knowledge
and supports the establishment of a special day on which these
women can be honored.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 96 was introduced by Representative Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas on March 15, 2005 and was referred
solely to the Committee on Science. The Committee held a markup
on March 17, 2005 and ordered the measure reported, as amended,
by a voice vote. On April 26, 2005, the House agreed to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended, by voice vote. It was
received in the Senate on April 27, 2005 and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
3.2--H.CON.RES. 180, TO SUPPORT INITIATIVES DEVELOPED BY THE
FIREFIGHTER LIFE SAFETY SUMMIT
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution supports the goals and initiatives
developed at the Firefighter Life Safety Summit and the mission
of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the United
States Fire Administration to reduce firefighter fatalities and
injuries. It encourages the implementation of the ``Everyone
Goes Home Campaign'' to make firefighter safety a national
priority and supports the goals of the national ``stand down''
called for by fire organizations on June 21, 2005 to encourage
all fire personnel to suspend non-emergency activities to focus
solely on firefighter safety.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 180 was introduced by Representative Hoyer of
Maryland on June 16, 2005, and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On June 21, 2005, the Committee
discharged the resolution and the House agreed to suspend the
rules and passed H.Con.Res. 180, without amendment, by voice
vote. It was received in the Senate on June 22, 2005 and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
3.3--H.CON.RES. 324, DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE TO MAKE A
TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN THE ENROLLMENT OF S. 1281.
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to make
a technical correction in the enrollment of S. 1281 (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2005).
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 324 was considered as a privileged matter on
December 17, 2005, and the motion to reconsider was laid on the
table without objection.
3.4--H.Con.Res. 366, TO CONGRATULATE THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST FLIGHT OF THE SPACE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, TO HONOR COMMANDER JOHN YOUNG AND THE PILOT
ROBERT CRIPPEN, WHO FLEW SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA ON APRIL 12-14, 1981,
ON ITS FIRST ORBITAL TEST FLIGHT, AND TO COMMEND THE MEN AND WOMEN OF
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND ALL THOSE
SUPPORTING AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THEIR
ROLE IN INSPIRING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution congratulates the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration on the 25th anniversary of the first
flight of the Space Transportation System. It honors Commander
John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen who flew the Space Shuttle
Columbia on its first orbital test flight in April of 1981.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 366 was introduced by Rep. Calvert of California
on March 29, 2006, and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On April 5, 2006, the Committee discharged the measure
and the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Con.Res.
366, without amendment, by: Y-422; N-0 (Roll Call No. 99). It
was received in the Senate on April 6, 2006, considered, and
agreed to, without amendment, and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.
3.5--H.Con.Res. 448, COMMENDING THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE COMPLETION OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE'S SECOND RETURN-
TO-FLIGHT MISSION
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution congratulates the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Discovery crew of STS-121 on the
successful completion of their almost 13 day flight to the
International Space Station in July of 2006.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 448 was introduced by Rep. Paul of Texas on July
13, 2006, and solely referred to the Committee on Science. On
July 19, 2006, the Committee discharged the measure and the
House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Con.Res. 448,
without amendment, by: Y-415; N-0 (Roll Call No. 393). It was
received in the Senate on July 21, 2006, considered, and agreed
to, without amendment, and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.
3.6--H.RES. 441, TO CONGRATULATE THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE DISCOVERY CREW OF COMMANDER EILEEN COLLINS,
PILOT JIM KELLY, MISSION SPECIALIST CHARLIE CAMARDA, MISSION SPECIALIST
WENDY LAWRENCE, MISSION SPECIALIST SOICHI NOGUCHI, MISSION SPECIALIST
STEVE ROBINSON, AND MISSION SPECIALIST ANDY THOMAS ON THE SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF THEIR 14-DAY TEST FLIGHT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE
STATION FOR THE FIRST STEP OF THE VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION, BEGUN
FROM THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA, ON JULY 26, 2005, AND COMPLETED
AT EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, ON AUGUST 9, 2005, WHICH
HISTORICAL MISSION REPRESENTED A GREAT STEP FORWARD INTO THE NEW
BEGINNING OF THE SECOND SPACE AGE
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution commends the entire National Aeronautics
and Space Administration team and community, who provided
invaluable technical support and leadership for the historic
mission of Space Shuttle Discovery STS flight 114.
Legislative History
H.Res. 441 was introduced by Rep. Calvert of California on
September 14, 2005 and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On September 20, 2005, the Committee discharged the
measure and the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass
H.Res. 441, as amended, by: Y-401; N-0 (Roll Call No. 477).
3.7--H.RES. 450, RECOGNIZING SPACE SHUTTLE COMMANDER EILEEN COLLINS,
MISSION SPECIALIST WENDY LAWRENCE, AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ALL OTHER
WOMEN WHO HAVE WORKED WITH NASA FOLLOWING THE SUCCESSFUL MISSION OF
SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY ON STS-114
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Recognizes the various contributions that women at NASA
made to support the successful STS-114 mission.
Legislative History
H.Res. 450 was introduced on September 19, 2005 by Rep.
Maloney of New York and solely referred to the Committee on
Science. On September 20, 2005, the Committee discharged the
measure and the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass
H.Res. 450, without amendment, by a voice vote.
3.8--H.Res. 457, NATIONAL CHEMISTRY WEEK
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution recognizes the important contributions of
chemical scientists and engineers to enhancing the Nation's
economic growth, health, and standard of living and supports
the goals of National Chemistry Week.
Legislative History
H.Res. 457 was introduced by Representative Holt of New
Jersey on September 21, 2005 and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On October 17, 2005 the Committee
discharged the resolution and the House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.Res. 457, without amendment, by: Y-366; N-2
(Roll Call No. 522).
3.9--H.RES. 491, NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution supports the goals and ideals of National
Cyber Security Awareness Month and states that the House of
Representatives will work with federal agencies, national
organizations, businesses, and educational institutions to
encourage the development and implementation of voluntary
consensus standards, practices, and technologies that enhance
the state of computer security in the United States.
Legislative History
H.Res. 491 was introduced by Representative Boehlert of New
York on October 17, 2005 and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On October 17, 2005 the Committee
discharged the resolution and the House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.Res. 491, without amendment, by: Y-389; N-13
(Roll Call No. 523).
3.10--H.RES. 515, OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN
HIS POSSESSION RELATING TO THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON
THE COASTAL REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.Res. 515 requests the President of the United States to
provide to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days
after the date of adoption of this resolution, all documents
(including minutes and memos) in his possession relating to the
effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United
States produced by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the National Weather Service, the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Assessment
Synthesis Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Legislative History
Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 515 on
October 26, 2005, at which time it was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. The Committee considered H.Res. 515 on
November 9, 2005. The Committee adversely reported the
resolution by voice vote.
On November 15, 2005, the Committee on Science filed
H.Rept. 109-296 with the recommendation that the resolution not
be agreed to. The Resolution was placed on the Union Calendar
(No. 119) on November 15, 2005.
3.11--H.RES. 541, HONORING DRS. ROY J. GLAUBER, JOHN L. HALL, AND
THEODOR W. HANSCH FOR BEING WARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR 2005,
AND DRS. YVES CHAUVIN, ROBERT H. GRUBBS, AND RICHARD R. SCHROCK FOR
BEING AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR 2005, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.Res. 541 recognizes and honors Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John
L. Hall, Theodor W. Hansch, Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, and
Richard R. Schrock, and acknowledges the importance of National
Institute of Standards and Technology research and its
contributions to United States industry, academia, and
government.
Legislative History
Representative Brian Baird introduced H.Res. 541 on
November 8, 2005, at which time it was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On April 5, 2006, the House considered
H.Res. 541 and it passed, by voice vote.
3.12--H.RES. 681, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
ENGINEERING WEEK
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution established that the House of
Representatives will work with the engineering community to
ensure that the contribution of that community can be expressed
through research, development, standardization, and innovations
and to support the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week
and its aims to increase understanding and interest in
engineering and technology careers and to promote literacy in
math and science.
Legislative History
H.Res. 681 was introduced by Representative Lipinski of
Illinois on February 15, 2006 and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On March 7, 2006 the Committee discharged
the Resolution and the House agreed to suspend the rules and
pass H.Res. 681, without amendment, by voice vote.
3.13--H.RES. 717, DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TRANSMIT TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A COPY OF A WORKFORCE GLOBALIZATION FINAL
DRAFT PRODUCED BY THE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.Res. 717 directs the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the
date of the adoption of this resolution, a copy of the final
draft report, produced by the professional staff of the
Technology Administration, entitled: Six-Month Assessment of
Workforce Globalization in Certain Knowledge-Based Industries.
Legislative History
Representative Bart Gordon introduced H.Res. 717 on March
9, 2006, at which time it was referred solely to the Committee
on Science. On March 29, 2006, the Committee considered H.Res.
717. No amendments were offered, and the motion to adversely
report the Resolution failed by roll call vote (Y-17, N-17). On
April 5, 2006, the Committee on Science met to consider H.Res.
717. The Committee reported the Resolution without
recommendation, by voice vote. On April 7, 2006, H.Res. 717 was
placed on the Union Calendar (No. 164).
3.14--H.RES. 892, RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATION OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S MICHOUD ASSEMBLY
FACILITY, THE ``MICHOUD HURRICANE RIDE-OUT TEAM,'' WHO RISKED THEIR
LIVES DURING HURRICANE KATRINA'S ASSAULT ON SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, AND
KEPT THE GENERATORS AND PUMPS RUNNING TO PROTECT THE FACILITIES AND
FLIGHT HARDWARE, AND WHOSE DEDICATION KEPT MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY AN
ISLAND OF DRY LAND, WHICH MADE IT POSSIBLE TO RESUME EXTERNAL TANK
PRODUCTION LESS THAN FIVE WEEKS AFTER THE STORM PASSED
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Recognizes the dedication of the employees at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Michoud Assembly
Facility, the ``Michoud Hurricane Ride-Out Team,'' who risked
their lives during Hurricane Katrina's assault on southeast
Louisiana, and kept the generators and pumps running to protect
the facilities and flight hardware, and whose dedication kept
the Michoud Assembly Facility an island of dry land, which made
it possible to resume External Tank production less than five
weeks after the storm passed.
Legislative History
H.Res. 892 was introduced on June 26, 2006 by Rep. Melancon
of Louisiana and solely referred to the Committee on Science.
On July 24, 2006, the Committee discharged the measure and the
House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Res. 892, without
amendment, by a voice vote.
3.15--H.RES. 948, RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATION OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S STENNIS SPACE CENTER
WHO, DURING AND AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA'S ASSAULT ON MISSISSIPPI,
PROVIDED SHELTER AND MEDICAL CARE TO STORM RECOVERY EFFORTS, WHILE
EFFECTIVELY MAINTAINING CRITICAL FACILITIES AT THE CENTER
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Commends the dedication of the employees who stayed behind
at the Stennis Space Center of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, who during and after Hurricane Katrina's
assault on Mississippi, provided shelter and medical care to
storm evacuees and logistical support for storm recovery
efforts while effectively maintaining critical facilities at
the Center.
Legislative History
H.Res. 948 was introduced on July 25, 2006 by Rep. Taylor
of Mississippi and solely referred to the Committee on Science.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee discharged the measure and
the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.Res. 948,
without amendment, by a voice vote.
3.16--H.Res. 993, NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH OF 2006
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution supports the goals and ideals of National
Cyber Security Awareness Month and states that the House of
Representatives will work with federal agencies, national
organizations, businesses, and educational institutions to
encourage the development and implementation of voluntary
consensus standards, practices, and technologies that enhance
the state of computer security in the United States.
Legislative History
H.Res. 993 was introduced by Representative Lungren of
California on September 12, 2006 and was referred solely to the
Committee on Science. On November 14, 2006 the Committee
discharged the Resolution and the House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.Res. 993, without amendment, by 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)_Tsunamis: Is the U.S. Prepared?
January 26, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-1
Background
On January 26, 2005, the Committee on Science held a
hearing to better understand the causes of tsunamis, the risks
they may pose to the U.S. and to the rest of the world, and how
the U.S. should prepare for them.
On December 26, 2004, a magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake
off the west coast of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, unleashed a
tsunami that affected more than 12 countries throughout
Southeast Asia and stretched as far as the northeastern African
coast. Massive tsunami waves hit the Indonesian coast within
minutes of the earthquake, and other deadly waves raced across
the entire 3,000-mile span of the Indian Ocean Basin within
hours. Current estimates indicate that at least 150,000 people
were killed, and millions more were injured, displaced or
otherwise affected. Experts believe that the earthquake which
caused the tsunami was the most powerful in 40 years and the
fourth largest in the last century. The death toll appears to
be the worst on record for a tsunami.
While no tsunami has caused equivalent devastation in the
U.S., tsunamis have hit the U.S. in recent decades, almost all
of them generated in the Pacific Ocean.
To protect the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) operates two tsunami warning centers, one
in Alaska and one in Hawaii. The Hawaiian center dates back to
1948, and the entire current warning system, which includes
ocean buoys, has been in place since 2001. In response to this
recent disaster, on January 14, 2005, the Administration
announced an interagency plan to increase U.S. risk assessment,
detection, warning and disaster planning for tsunamis. The plan
would cost $37.5 million over two fiscal years.
The Committee explored the following overarching questions
at the hearing:
1) LWhich regions of the U.S. and the rest of the world
face the greatest risk from tsunamis?
2) LWhat are the best methods to detect tsunamis and
provide effective warnings? What are the best methods
to educate the U.S. about the risks of tsunamis and how
to be prepared for them? How well does the
Administration's new tsunami plan incorporate these
methods?
3) LWhat should the U.S. do to help the rest of the
world better prepare for tsunamis?
The Committee heard from: (1) The Honorable Jay Inslee,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives; (2) Dr. Charles ``Chip''
Groat, Director of the United States Geological Survey; (3)
Gen. David L. Johnson (ret.), Director of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service;
(4) Dr. John Orcutt, Deputy Director for Research at the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
at San Diego, and President of the American Geophysical Union;
(5) Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of the Columbia Center for
Hazards and Risk Research, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Columbia University; and (6) Mr. Jay Wilson, Coordinator of
Earthquake and Tsunami Programs, Plans and Training Section,
Oregon Emergency Management.
Summary of Hearing
Congressman Inslee testified that the country will
experience future earthquakes and tsunamis and that many areas
in the country are at risk. He stated that the U.S. needs to
deploy significantly more buoys to detect tsunamis. In
addition, he argued that buoys will not be sufficient without a
warning and education system to provide people on the
shorelines with a course of action in the event of an
earthquake or tsunami.
Dr. Groat testified that the Pacific Northwest is at
significant risk to tsunami-causing earthquakes. He said the
USGS plans to significantly improve earthquake data processing
and analysis. Improvement in data processing will increase the
USGS's ability to discriminate likely tsunamigenic sources. In
addition, the USGS will improve its information distribution
capacity as well as its coastal mapping capabilities.
General Johnson stated that NOAA plans to complete the
current Tsunami Warning System for the U.S. by 2007. This
system will include 32 new DART buoys and 38 new sea level and
tide monitoring gauges. Furthermore, NOAA's TsunamiReady
program will provide education and outreach to vulnerable
communities. Finally, NOAA supports the development of a Global
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). This system will
incorporate a real-time international tsunami warning
capability. General Johnson asked for Congress's help to
implement these programs.
Dr. Orcutt stressed that long-term maintenance of the
Global Seismic Network (GSN) and tsunami detection systems is
extremely important. He also argued that current GSN funding is
inadequate. He stated there should be greater emphasis on the
deployment of shore-based pressure gauges and on integration
with Ocean Observatory Initiative plans. Finally, he
recommended increasing our strategic knowledge of high-risk
tsunami areas and stated we should explore investing in
inexpensive monitoring technology.
Dr. Lerner-Lam believes that the Administration's proposal
lacks appropriate engineering R&D funds. In addition, he feels
that the proposal must have a greater emphasis on involving
regional, State and local agencies in the development of a
comprehensive tsunami warning program. Finally, he stated that
the Tsunami Warning System should be a part of GEOSS and that
we must ensure inter-operability among international partners.
Mr. Wilson stated that the most cost-effective means of
protecting U.S. coastlines is providing long-term support for
the state tsunami hazard mapping and mitigation programs. In
addition, he recommended that the National Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Program be funded at an annual level of at least
$7.8 million. Finally, he stressed the importance of educating
the public about tsunami risks and evacuation procedures.
4.1(b)_Options for Hubble Science
February 2, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-2
Background
On February 2, 2005, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing to review options for the Hubble Space
Telescope. Without servicing, Hubble is predicted to cease
operation as early as 2007, though the exact time is uncertain.
The hearing's intent was to allow for discussion of various
alternatives to save Hubble. These alternatives come from a
report developed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
which proposed a Shuttle servicing mission; an analysis from
the Aerospace Corporation, which proposed a rehosting option
(Flying new cameras on a new satellite bus); and an internal
study conducted at NASA, which proposed a robotic servicing
mission. The hearing put to light each option and their
different impacts on the scientific community and the space
program. The hearing also considered the importance of Hubble
research in general.
Summary of Hearing
Questions from the Committee Members focused on how to save
Hubble rather than whether it is worth saving at all. Most
Members focused on the results of the National Academy of
Sciences report led by Dr. Lanzerotti who proposed that a
Shuttle repair mission was the best option for saving the
telescope. This suggestion was in direct conflict with NASA
Administrator O'Keefe who announced that all Shuttle missions
would only service ISS due to safety concerns after the
Columbia accident.
For the Shuttle option, Members were particularly concerned
with the safety of the crew. It was also unclear to the Members
the exact cost of a Shuttle mission.
The other options presented were a robotic repair mission
and a rehosting option. The primary concern regarding a robotic
servicing mission was timing. The predicted schedule for such a
mission could exceed the predicted life of the telescope. With
respect to the rehosting option, questions remained as to
whether a science gap would exist between the time the Hubble
would cease operations, and the time a new telescope would
become operational. Additionally, the panel remained uncertain
as to whether or not they would want a ``Hubble Replacement''
rather than another telescope if the money was available.
Discussion also focused on where funding for a Hubble
repair mission would come from. For example, consideration was
given to how much would come out of the science budget and how
much would come out of the exploration budget. On this topic
Rep. Gordon pointed out, ``We really have two questions here.
One is, what really is the cost, and secondly, how should it be
allocated?'' The panel believed that the Science program should
pay the same amount it has paid in the past for Hubble
servicing, about $350 million.
Finally, discussion turned to whether saving the Hubble is
actually worth it in the first place given current budget
constraints and the need for other priority of telescopes. Dr.
Lanzerotti told Members, ``As a scientist, I would say that if
billions of dollars were going to come out of some other aspect
of NASA's science program, such as Earth science, such as solar
terrestrial science, then I would have a serious question about
that.''
4.1(c)_Improving the Nation's Energy Security: Can Cars and
Trucks Be Made More Fuel Efficient?
February 9, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-3
Background
On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Science held a
hearing on the availability of technologies to improve fuel
economy in cars and trucks and the potential for fuel economy
improvements to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
The witness panel included: (1) the Honorable William
Reilly, former Administrator of Environmental Protection
Agency; (2) Dr. Paul Portney, President of Resources for the
Future; (3) Mr. K.G. Duleep, Transportation Managing Director
of Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.; (4) Mr. Michael
Stanton, Vice President of Government Affairs at the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers; (5) Dr. David Greene, Corporate
Fellow at the National Transportation Research Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Summary of Hearing
The Members in attendance at the hearing expressed concern
over various issues involving fuel economy, vehicle
technologies, and energy independence. Discussion is summarized
below.
Science Committee Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by
emphasizing that fuel economy is an energy issue, an
environmental issue, and foremost, a national security issue.
He highlighted that the U.S. is not doing enough to reduce
reliance on foreign oil, and that almost 60 percent of U.S. oil
consumption is used for transportation; 45 percent of it for
cars and light trucks. He also noted that the Nation's fuel
economy is lower than it was 15 years ago. The witnesses
unanimously agreed with the Chairman that Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards could be increased without
compromising safety.
Mr. Reilly stated that unless the U.S. can slow the rate of
growth in oil demand and add more capacity to produce oil
worldwide, the U.S. economy will continue to suffer from high
and volatile oil prices, and is at risk of more frequent and
serious supply disruptions. He stressed the importance of the
National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) recommendations to
boost ethanol through incentives as a means to combat any
potential energy crunch. Reilly also warned of the potential
harm to U.S. auto manufacturers because foreign firms have made
more technological progress on advanced diesels and hybrid
engines. He cited NCEP's recommendation to give domestic
manufacturer incentives of $1.5 billion over 10 years for
production of advanced technologies within the U.S.
Dr. Portney noted the National Academy of Sciences'
conclusion that significant improvements in fuel economy are
possible at reasonable costs. He noted that fuel economy of a
mid-size sport utility vehicle could be improved by 24 percent
from (21 to 28 miles per gallon), and that over the lifetime of
a vehicle such improvements would save nearly 2,000 gallons of
gasoline. He also emphasized that the quickest way to reach oil
conservation goals would be to increase the gas tax, but that
this might not be a popular or politically feasible solution.
Dr. Greene encouraged the adoption of technologies to
improve fuel economy without leading automakers to make
vehicles less safe, and explained that the aggregate national
traffic fatality and fuel economy statistics provide no support
for the hypothesis that increasing fuel economy leads to
increased traffic fatalities. He said that weight-based
standards can be formulated in various ways, be it to encourage
weight increasing in cars, or discourage it. If formulated to
discourage increasing car weight there would be a move toward
advanced materials that could play a role in making safer and
lighter cars.
Mr. Stanton agreed with Dr. Greene and National Academy of
Sciences' conclusions that CAFE does not have to lead to less
safe vehicles as long as fuel economy technologies are
implemented by manufacturers. He said the automobile industry
was not necessarily opposed to any increase in CAFE standards,
but did not specify a level or schedule that would be
acceptable. He also said that tax credits for advanced-
technology vehicles would be a good way to promote fuel
savings, and that in terms of CAFE any increased flexibility in
the program would be beneficial.
Mr. Duleep discussed technologies that could improve fuel
economy by about 25 percent and pay for themselves in fuel
savings. He noted that under assumptions that consumer demand
will reflect the same mix of vehicles and features in 2015, if
you exclude hybrids or diesels, with existing conventional
technologies manufacturers could get up to 33 miles per gallon
for cars and 24 miles per gallon for trucks. Duleep added that
many fuel economy technologies will come into the market
regardless of Congressional action, and that they will
eventually pay for themselves as increasing consumer demand
addresses any market failure.
4.1(d)_An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for Fiscal Year
2006
February 16, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-4
Background
On February 16, 2005, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to consider President Bush's fiscal year 2006 (FY06)
budget request for research and development (R&D). Five
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 17th to examine the budget request for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger III, Science
Advisor to the President, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy; (2) Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of
Energy; (3) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Science
Foundation; (4) Mr. Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of
Commerce; and (5) Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that while
R&D funding in the FY06 budget has kept pace with non-defense
domestic discretionary spending as a whole, there are proposed
cuts in funding for key science agencies. He was encouraged by
plans to increase the budgets of the National Science
Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, but added
that reductions in funding for the Department of Energy Office
of Science and education programs at NSF were detrimental to
the maintenance of a healthy federal science establishment.
Ranking Member Gordon added that the Administration was short-
sighted in cutting the budget for R&D programs that could have
a far reaching impact in the future.
Dr. Marburger summarized the highlights of the President's
FY06 budget request during his testimony. He noted that the R&D
budget reflects a focus on winning the war on terrorism while
moderating growth in overall spending. The budget requests a
record $132 billion for R&D spending, a $700 million increase
over the FY05 request. Non-defense R&D spending is 5.6 percent
of non-discretionary outlays, greater than the five percent
average of the past three decades. Specific programs
highlighted include (using the FY05 request as a base for
comparison):
LThe Department of Defense receives $5.5
billion for basic and applied research, a decline of
$900 million. Dr. Marburger noted the dual civilian-
military benefits of defense R&D.
LThe National Science Foundation's budget
increases 2.4 percent to $5.6 billion.
LAt the Department of Energy, the Office of
Science receives $3.5 billion, a $60 million decrease
(in addition to a loss of $80 million in earmarks).
LThe National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's budget is increased by 2.4 percent to
$16.5 billion. The agency will face hard choices in its
programs, having to end some high-risk missions.
LThe Administration allocates $1.9 billion to
fund the Climate Change Science Program, leaving it at
a flat funding level.
LThe Hydrogen Fuel initiative receives a 16
percent increase to $260 million, leaving it on track
to reach President Bush's five-year $1.2 billion goal.
Dr. Bodman testified on the FY06 request at the Office of
Science in the Department of Energy (DOE). Many of its proposed
research centers are moving efficiently towards operation. He
added:
LDOE will move forward on FreedomCAR research
and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Office fully
supported the President's initiatives on fusion as
well.
LDOE will move forward with U.S. participation
in the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor. Indeed, high-energy physics continues to
receive strong DOE support.
LThe Department is very excited about the
startup of the Spallation Neutron Source at its Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, with the world's most
intense neutron beam.
LSimilarly, the Linac Coherent Light Source at
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center will provide
drastically brighter x-rays by 2009.
LFour of five nanoscale science research
centers will come on line in FY06.
Dr. Bement noted that the National Science Foundation (NSF)
fared relatively well in light of the tight budget atmosphere,
with a 2.4 percent increase to $5.6 billion. However, education
at NSF will be decreased 12.4 percent to $737 million. Other
significant investments include:
LAn increase of $76 million to $250 million in
funding to major research equipment, though no new
projects are to begin.
LAn increase of $46 million to $326 million
for activities that advance organizational excellence
at NSF. The added employees will augment
accountability, security, and award oversight in NSF
administration.
LAdditionally, NSF will maintain its strong
working relationship with the Department of Education
to implement best practices in their math and science
education initiatives.
Mr. Kassinger testified on 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), falls under the Committee's jurisdiction. He noted that
the Technology Administration received an allocation of $536
million for FY06. The details are as follows:
LThe FY06 request proposes an additional $40
million for three areas of national priority: nano-
manufacturing, measurement and standards for homeland
security, and new measurement horizons.
LNOAA's budget request is $3.6 billion,
including a $95 million increase to support Global
Earth Observation System of Systems to better
understand the complex interactions of Earth's climate.
LThe request allocates $10 million to expand
the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network, deploying 32 new
advanced buoys. The system will be fully operational by
mid-2007.
LSignificant resources, more than $1 billion,
are allocated to support the President's U.S. Ocean
Action Plan for NOAA's coastal programs, fisheries, and
protected species activities.
Dr. McQueary noted that the Science and Technology
Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security requested a
23 percent increase to $1.37 billion. The Directorate's most
important mission is to develop and deploy cutting-edge
technologies and new capabilities in the service of homeland
security. He continued:
LIn addition to required funding, the budget
will provide funds for planning for the National Bio
and Agro Defense Facility, the development of a low-
volatility agent warning system, consolidation of RD-
10E units, and several more priorities.
LThe Directorate's R&D effort is organized
into four portfolios: biological countermeasures,
chemical countermeasures, explosive countermeasures,
and radiological/nuclear countermeasures.
LEfforts to protect the vital infrastructure
are organized into two groups: threat and vulnerability
testing and assessment, and critical cyber security
infrastructure. Many other critical areas, such as
counter-Man Portable Air Defense Systems and university
fellowships, are also addressed by the Directorate.
LThe Home Security Institute plays a key role
in examining overall system architecture and
integrating its separate pieces.
4.1(e)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal
February 17, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-5
Background
On February 17, 2005, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing to examine the Administration's fiscal year
2006 budget request for NASA. NASA Deputy Administrator Fred
Gregory was the sole witness, though other senior NASA
officials joined him. While the hearing focused on the FY 2006
budget, it was also meant to stimulate discussion on the
President's Vision for Space Exploration.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on several questions, which Chairman
Boehlert had on NASA's current activities. Both Mr. Boehlert
and Mr. Calvert said that they viewed the hearing as part of a
series that will culminate in the introduction of a NASA
authorization bill. Chairman Boehlert stressed his view that
NASA was not the most important agency when it comes funding
and that something ``has to give'' from their budget request.
Questions from the Members branched off of Boehlert's line
of questioning which ranged from the number of Shuttle flights
to plans for the CEV. Members learned that the Shuttle is the
only vehicle capable of completing the ISS and that all Shuttle
flights will be designated towards completing the ISS. The
number of Shuttle flights is unknown, though Members were
assured that NASA would fly as few as possible.
Until the Shuttle returns to flight, Members learned about
the need to use Russian vehicles to reach ISS, however the Iran
Nonproliferation Act may prevent NASA from this ability.
Gregory admitted that this is an issue that still needs to be
resolved and is being worked upon by the Agency, the State
Department and the Administration.
Members heard foreboding news about NASA's workforce.
Gregory testified that the NASA budget was stable until 2007.
``We have adequate budget to cover all salaries for the next
year and a half or so. During that time we will be assessing
the Vision to determine the kind of resources that will be
necessary including people and facilities,'' Gregory said. NASA
expects that their workforce will be 2,000 less in 2007. ``NASA
is focusing on shifting activity towards the Exploration
Visions,'' explained Gregory who added that more jobs would
probably open as NASA gets a better idea of what is needed for
the Vision.
4.1(f)_H.R. 798, Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of
2005
March 3, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-6
Background
On Thursday, March 3, 2005, the House Science Committee
held a hearing on H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act of 2005, legislation which would establish a
federal research program and a program to develop voluntary
guidelines to help states clean up and deal with the
environmental consequences of methamphetamine laboratories.
Methamphetamine, also known as ``meth,'' is a highly
additive, powerful nervous system stimulant, and abuse of the
drug is a growing problem throughout the United States. The
availability of meth is particularly hard to control because
the drug can be cheaply and easily manufactured in small
clandestine laboratories, which are located primarily in
motels, rental apartments and other residential settings.
While the greatest and most obvious impacts of meth are on
those who use the drug, meth labs may also harm those who come
in contact with them, even after a lab is abandoned. The toxic
brew involved in manufacturing meth can harm innocent parties,
including first responders (such as firefighters who may become
involved if a lab explodes--due to the volatility of the
chemicals involved in the manufacturing process), future
inhabitants of a former lab site (because chemicals may
contaminate a site), and others through the environment
(because chemicals may be poured down drains or otherwise enter
the environment). According to the National Alliance for Model
State Drug Laws, a federally funded, nonprofit organization,
environmental cleanup and remediation of residential meth labs
is a top issue for many State and local governments. (Cleanup
refers to the initial removal of visible chemicals and
equipment from a meth lab; remediation refers to dealing with
residual contamination.)
On February 15, 2005, Ranking Member Bart Gordon,
Congressman Ken Calvert and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
introduced H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research
Act of 2005.
The Committee received testimony from: (1) Mr. Scott Burns,
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs at the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy; (2) Ms. Sherry Green,
Executive Director, National Alliance for Model State Drug
Laws; (3) Dr. John Martyny, Associate Professor, National
Jewish Medical and Research Center; (4) Mr. Henry Hamilton,
Assistant Commissioner for Public Protection, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation; (5) Mr. Gary Howard,
Sheriff, Tioga County, New York; and (6) Dr. Robert Bell,
President, Tennessee Technological University.
Summary of Hearing
LMr. Burns described the extent of the meth
problem in the U.S., the Federal Government's progress
in reducing the number of meth labs and the findings
and recommendations of the Administration's ``National
Synthetic Drugs Action Plan'' regarding methamphetamine
laboratories.
LMs. Green described state efforts to address
the cleanup and remediation of former methamphetamine
laboratories.
LDr. Martyny and Dr. Bell endorsed H.R. 798
and discussed the research needs related to residential
meth labs.
LSheriff Howard described the challenges faced
by those who seize these hazardous labs and endorsed
H.R. 798.
LMr. Hamilton described the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation's role in
identifying and cleaning up contaminated sites and
described the need for guidance to ensure the effective
use of state resources and uniformity in response to
meth labs.
Testimony, submitted for the record, from the National
Multi-Housing Council and the National Apartment Association
described the challenges of small meth labs in residential,
rental properties and expressed support for H.R. 798.
4.1(g)_The 2004 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching
April 14, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-9
Background
On April 14, 2005, the House Committee on Science held its
annual hearing to hear from teachers on how the Federal
Government can help improve K-12 math and science education.
Five elementary school math and science teachers testified
before the Committee. They were in town to receive the 2004
Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, the Nation's highest commendation for K-12 math and
science educators.
The witnesses were: (1) Joyce Dodd, Bryson Middle School,
Simpsonville, SC; (2) Cynthia Cliche, Homer Pittard Campus
School, Murfreesboro, TN; (3) Cassandra Barnes, Oregon Trail
Elementary School, Clackamas, OR; (4) Pita Martinez-McDonald,
Cuba Elementary School, Cuba, NM; and (5) Lonna Sanderson, Will
Davis Elementary School, Austin, TX.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that he
believes pre-college math and science education is the most
important issue handled by the Science Committee. Educating
students in math and science contributes to national security
and economic development by developing a highly skilled
engineering workforce. Ranking Member Gordon agreed, and added
that he was interested in hearing from the teachers'
perspective on the success of existing government education
programs. Research Subcommittee Chairman Inglis reiterated the
need for education to create workers to fill the growing
domestic engineering job market.
Ms. Dodd testified that mathematics education helps prepare
students for ``life in the future'' by stressing critical
thinking skills. She endorsed the teacher education programs
sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM), saying they helped her transition from a home economics
teacher to a math teacher. She suggested that the Federal
Government could improve math and science education by:
LFunding pre-service and in-service education
training for elementary and high school math teachers,
including certification courses and membership in
professional societies to assist with content and
teaching strategy education;
LProviding training for teachers on the use of
innovative technologies with applications in the
classroom;
LEmphasizing the need for math curriculum that
teaches active learning strategies for development of
critical thinking; and
LEncouraging women and girls to take math and
science courses in high school and college.
Ms. Cliche reiterated the need for ``meaningful learning''
in math classrooms. She noted that current federal education
policies encourage teachers to use textbooks rather than more
effective hands-on techniques. The solution, she said, would be
lifelong learning for teachers to instruct them in more
creative teaching strategies. She advised that the Federal
Government should:
LEncourage the use of hands-on learning to
teach problem solving techniques that children can use
throughout their life;
LFund teacher travel to professional
conferences to keep them up-to-date with innovative
teaching practices;
LUtilize a variety of assessment tools
throughout the year including journals, portfolios, and
interviews instead of tests; and
LProvide computers and other technology to
students and teachers.
Ms. Barnes added that the Federal Government should focus
on improving teacher education programs. She argued that
current programs do not have enough emphasis on active learning
for teachers and described the ideal teacher education program
as including:
LA long-term commitment for teachers that
allows in depth discussion of mathematical concepts and
teaching strategies;
LMentoring relationships with veteran teachers
to provide model lessons and advice on quality
professional development programs; and
LInstruction on how to engage students in
debating mathematical ideas to promote greater
understanding, rather than depending on textbooks.
Ms. Sanderson agreed that hands-on education that
emphasized problem solving was the best way to engage students
in math and science. She suggested that science education could
be improved by:
LProviding science equipment and supplies to
all classrooms, including hands-on learning materials;
LGiving students and teachers access to
technology in classrooms and labs; and
LTraining teachers in science concepts,
including those covered on standardized tests, and the
use of learning technology tools.
Ms. Martinez-McDonald described the unique challenges of
providing science education in a poor, rural district,
including keeping students focused on learning in spite of
economic and social hardship. She endorsed two existing
programs as examples of methods for teacher training in rural
areas, including:
LThe Rural Systemic Initiative, a consortium
of schools that provides professional development
training;
LA long-term, National Science Foundation
supported on-site workshop that identified deficiencies
in science classrooms; and
LNASA online course materials and web
accessible technology.
4.1(h)_NASA Earth Science
April 28, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-12
Background
On April 28, 2005, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on the state of NASA's Earth Science efforts
as the agency focuses towards space exploration. The hearing
examined Earth science programs at NASA and the potential
impact on those programs by the Agency's fiscal year 2006
(FY06) budget request, which would cut Earth science funding by
eight percent below the FY05 appropriation and 12 percent below
the FY04 request.
The witnesses included Mr. Alphonso Diaz, NASA Associate
Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate; Dr. Berrien
Moore, Co-Chairman of the NAS Decadal Survey, ``Earth
Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy
for the Future,'' and Director of the Institute for the Study
of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire;
Dr. Tim Killeen, Director of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado; Dr. Marcia McNutt,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California; Dr.
Sean Solomon, Director of the Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington; and Dr.
Ray Williamson, Research Professor in the Space Policy
Institute at The George Washington University.
Summary of Hearing
A panel of expert witnesses, including the Chairman of a
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee that recommended
Earth science priorities for the next decade, warned Congress
that repeated budget cuts threaten the vitality of Earth
science programs at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), as many Earth science missions have been
downsized, delayed, or outright canceled.
``I'm very pleased that NASA's new Administrator, Mike
Griffin, has very clearly and unequivocally reinforced NASA's
commitment to Earth science,'' Chairman Boehlert said in
convening the hearing. ``The NAS report has to be a red flag
for all of us. We need to stop, examine what's happening, and
make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for NASA--whatever its
top-level number--include adequate funding to keep Earth
science moving forward for the foreseeable future. We need a
vision for Earth science, and priorities for Earth science,
just as much as we do for exploration and aeronautics.''
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Calvert said,
``The insights and observations we heard today were helpful for
the Committee to give appropriate oversight for NASA's long-
term strategic vision for conducting Earth sciences. It is
vital that Congress closely examine the limited budget
resources within the agency to ensure NASA can focus on their
core mission.''
NASA Associate Administrator Diaz said in his testimony
that the Agency's Earth science missions have been refocused to
support the President's Vision for Space Exploration. ``NASA is
committed to making the necessary transformation to ensure our
success in achieving the Vision for an affordable and
sustainable space exploration program.'' Explaining NASA's
emphasis on Earth science programs that support the exploration
Vision, Mr. Diaz told the Committee, ``The technological tools
and scientific skills that NASA continues to develop through
studying Earth. . .are critical in the exploration and search
for life on other planets in our own solar system and beyond.''
In response to a request from NASA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geologic
Survey (USGS), the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academy of Sciences is conducting a decadal survey,
``Earth Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and
Strategy for the Future,'' in which members of the Earth
science community are outlining programmatic and budgetary
priorities related to Earth observation for the next decade.
The final report is due in late 2006, but the NRC committee
released an interim report prior to the hearing.
Citing several examples of the impact of budget cuts to
NASA's Earth science missions, Dr. Moore, Co-Chair of the NRC
committee, testified that the Nation's Earth observation system
is ``at risk of collapse.'' He explained, ``NASA has no plan to
replace its Earth Observing System platforms after their
nominal six year lifetimes end--beginning with the end of the
Terra satellite mission in 2005--and it has canceled, scaled
back, or delayed at least six planned missions, including a
Landsat continuity mission.'' Dr. Moore added, ``These
decisions at NASA appear to be driven by a major shift in
priorities as the agency moves to implement a new vision for
space exploration.''
4.1(i)_The Future of Computer Science Research in the U.S.
May 12, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-14
Background
On May 12, 2005, the House Science Committee held a hearing
to examine the state of computer science research in the United
States and the evolution of federal support for this field.
Specifically, the hearing examined the controversy surrounding
the apparent shift away from basic research in overall federal
support for computer science and the impact of the shift on
federal agencies, academia and industry.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger III,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2)
Dr. Anthony J. Tether, Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA); (3) Dr. William A. Wulf, President,
National Academy of Engineering; and (4) Dr. Tom Leighton,
Chief Scientist and co-founder, Akamai Technologies.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert stated that looking at computer science
funding involves looking at our nation's future prosperity and
security. Innovative information technology facilitates almost
all personal and commercial activity, however it is often taken
for granted. The Chairman then established the purpose of this
hearing; to look at the strategic investments the Federal
Government has made and will continue to make to maintain the
United States' position as world leader on information
technology. He illustrated the ``recipe for success'' which
involves significant funding for long-term, fundamental
computer science research (i.e., cyber security), and
partnerships with universities.
Representative Davis displayed a chart from a 1995 National
Academy of Sciences report on the value of the federal, multi-
agency High Performance Computing and Communications programs.
The chart traces the intertwined government and private sector
research efforts that ultimately led to the development of the
information technology industry including developments like the
Internet. Representative Davis stressed how computer science
research has resulted in substantial payoffs for the United
States economy.
Dr. Marburger spoke to the need of federally sponsored R&D
through the multi-agency Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Program (NITRD) to support advances in
all areas of science and engineering that benefit our growing
economy.
LFY 2006 budget for NITRD is $2.2 billion,
elevating the Administration's cumulative five-year
investment to $10.4 billion.
LThe multi-agency approach of NITRD supports
breadth and diversity of independent programs while
also encouraging collaborative efforts.
LOne example of collaborative work is the
High-End Computing University Research Activity, a new
multi-agency program emerging from OSTP's High-End
Computing Revitalization Task Force of 2003. Funded by
DARPA, Department of Energy, National Security Agency,
and National Science Foundation (NSF), this program
focuses on basic research in support of applications
and software for high-performance computing systems.
LHe agreed with a recent report from the
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
that recommended improved coordination of federal cyber
security R&D activities to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the government's investment in
information technology.
LFinally, he described several NSF information
technology research programs and emphasized NSF's
commitment to and increasing investments in this area.
He also noted DARPA's declining funding for programs
within the NITRD activity.
Dr. Tether spoke of DARPA's mission to bridge the gap
between blue sky research and actual working systems.
LHe described how DARPA's focus on national
security problems tends to lead to funding of multi-
disciplinary research, and provided examples from
DARPA's past: Material Science (1960s), Computer
Science (1960s), Stealth (1970s), Analog, Optical, and
Radio Frequency Electronics (1980s and 1990s), and
Bio:Info:Micro (recently).
LHe stated that he believed that overall DARPA
funding for university research was flat (at
approximately $450 million a year) and hence funding
for other disciplines must be growing at the expense of
computer science.
LHe also mentioned DARPA's growing interest in
cognitive computing, or ``computers that learn.''
Dr. Wulf spoke from the perspective of an academic who has
received federal support from both DARPA and NSF, who has
founded a software company, and who has run an NSF research
directorate.
LInvesting in computer science research
provides an infrastructure for support of other fields
such as science, engineering and commerce. The impact
of computer science research can be seen in more
efficient and effective computing systems in fields
from cosmology to weather prediction to health care and
even in Wal-Mart's ``just in time'' delivery system.
LHe spoke of the decline in NSF grant success
rate and the resulting change in behavior of the
computer science research community: more time is being
spent writing proposals rather than doing research, and
more incremental proposals are replacing those that
seek to advance bold ideas.
LHe also expressed concern about DARPA's shift
in focus to rapid development and near-term topics.
LAt a time of growing global competition,
DARPA's disinvestment in university-based, long-term
computer science research poses a threat to the
competitive edge the United States currently holds in
innovation and hinders the U.S. ability to produce the
next generation of people with expertise in information
technology.
Dr. Leighton primarily focused on how the Federal
Government's support of cyber security research could be
improved. His comments were based on the February report on
this topic by the President's Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC).
LVirtually every sector of the Nation's
infrastructure--including communications, utilities,
finance, transportation, law enforcement, and defense--
is now critically reliant on networking technology. Yet
while cyber attacks have continued to grow, costing the
Nation billions of dollars annually, federal research
and development investment in the area of cyber
security has not kept up.
LRecently, DARPA has shifted information
technology funding away from basic research at
universities in favor of classified work and more
development-related projects. The Department of
Homeland Security spends less than two percent of the
science and technology budget on cyber security. Of
that amount, less than one-tenth ($2 million) is spent
on fundamental cyber security research.
LNSF currently has the only substantial
civilian program for cyber security research, which is
itself under-funded. In 2004, NSF was able to provide
funding for just eight percent of the research
proposals submitted in this area.
LThe PITAC report recommends that the NSF
budget for cyber security be increased by $90 million
annually and that DARPA restore its historical role of
funding basic, unclassified research in cyber security.
It also recommends that DHS expand its funding for
cyber security research.
4.1(j)_Business Actions Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
June 8, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-16
Background
On June 8, 2005, the House Committee on Science, held a
hearing, ``Business Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.'' The hearing focused on what several leading
businesses in a variety of industries are doing to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Bush Administration has initiated a number of programs
to encourage businesses to take voluntary actions to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases. Either as part of the
Administration programs or other efforts, many U.S. companies
are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some companies
have begun simply by taking stock of the emissions they
produce. Others have set targets for reducing their emissions
and are taking steps to meet them by improving energy
efficiency, switching to energy sources that produce fewer
greenhouse gases, or eliminating greenhouse gases from
manufacturing processes.
The motivations of these companies vary. Some find the
scientific evidence of a changing climate compelling. Others
face domestic or international competitive pressure, while
others face pressure from lenders or shareholders. Some see
advantage in creating new products or businesses that may hold
a competitive advantage in future markets. Still others see
financial risk to their businesses should the climate change
substantially.
The Committee explored the following overarching questions
at the hearing:
1. LWhat concrete actions are businesses taking to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions? In what ways are these
actions beneficial to the company?
2. LWhy are businesses taking these actions and what
are the most important drivers for them?
The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. James Rogers, Chairman,
CEO and President, of Cinergy Corporation; (2) Dr. Mack
McFarland, Environmental Manager of the Fluorochemicals
Business for E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; (3) Mr. Ron
Meissen, Senior Director of Engineering, Environment, Health &
Safety for Baxter International Incorporated; and (4) Robert
Hobbs, Director of Operations of the United Technologies
Research Center for United Technologies Corporation (UTC).
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Rogers testified that Cinergy Corporation's position on
climate change has evolved. Cinergy now believes that the world
is warming and that human activities have contributed to this
warming. According to Mr. Rogers, Cinergy has voluntarily
committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to five
percent below 2000 levels by the period of 2010 to 2012.
Furthermore, he testified that if science concludes human
activity does not affect climate, Cinergy will still benefit by
having developed technology and business practices that make
the economy cleaner, more efficient and more self-reliant.
Dr. McFarland testified that science underpins DuPont's
approach to global climate change. In 1991, DuPont set a goal
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990
levels on a global carbon equivalent basis by 2000. DuPont
exceeded this goal and has set a new goal to reduce global
carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent below
1990 levels by 2010. Furthermore, DuPont is committed to
holding carbon dioxide emissions from energy use at 1990
levels. Finally, DuPont is committed to acquiring 10 percent of
its global energy in the year 2010 from renewable sources.
According to Dr. McFarland, DuPont had exceeded its emissions
reduction goal by 2004 and had held energy use flat, while
global production grew over 30 percent.
Mr. Meissen testified that Baxter has taken proactive steps
to track its energy usage, improve its efficiency and eliminate
production waste. Baxter achieved a 35 percent per unit
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1996-2004 and a 22
percent improvement in energy efficiency during the same
period. According to Mr. Meissen, these efforts have yielded
significant savings over the past eight years. In 2004 alone,
Baxter estimated that its energy savings and cost avoidance
exceeded $9 million. Mr. Meissen also stated that in addition
to cost savings, Baxter's emissions reductions initiatives have
yielded higher quality levels, greater productivity, and
improvements in workplace safety. Finally, Mr. Meissen praised
the benefits of collaboration through public and private
partnerships, such as the U.S. EPA's Climate Leaders Program
and the Green Supplier Network.
Dr. Hobbs testified that UTC has reduced its global energy
consumption by 40 percent since 1997. During this same period
UTC revenues have increased by $9.5 billion, showing that
environmental quality and economic growth can go hand-in-hand.
Dr. Hobbs stated that setting goals for reduced energy
consumption, which leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions, has
improved UTC's bottom line performance by lowering production
costs and increasing competitiveness. He cited a UTC Power
product, the PureComfort 240M, which is the industry's first
integrated microturbine and double-effect absorption chiller
system. UTC expects this product to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 40 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 90
percent.
4.1(k)_The Future of NASA
June 28, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-19
Background
On June 28, 2005, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing on the Future of NASA. The hearing's intent
was to examine Administrator Griffin's philosophy and plans for
NASA's programs in human space flight, space science, Earth
science, and aeronautics, as well as plans for the agency's
workforce, organization, and infrastructure.
NASA Administrator Dr. Michael D. Griffin was the sole
witness.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that much
is at stake at NASA and that Dr. Griffin has entered at a
crucial time where NASA faces many significant hurdles. The
Chairman also stated that he is solidly in support of an
authorization bill that includes the President's Vision for
Exploration, but also made it clear that human space flight
should not be the sole mission of NASA.
Questions from the Members touched on a variety of issues
confronting the Administration. On the question of research for
the International Space Station (ISS), Dr. Griffin explained
that a defined research agenda was still under construction;
however he did hint that high priority research would
concentrate on human factors for exploration. This type of
research shows NASA's intent to reorient the Space Station's
mission to focus on human exploration rather than fundamental
life science research.
On the topic of Shuttle flights, Dr. Griffin revealed that
28 flights probably won't happen by 2010. Currently the Agency
is working on a redefined manifest for Shuttle flights that can
be executed with a high degree of confidence within the next
five years to finish assembly of the ISS, but the amount of
flights is still uncertain. He also indicated that the quantity
of Shuttle flights will also affect the research agenda on the
Space Station.
Griffin also revealed several other important developments
to Members including the cancellation of the Prometheus
demonstration mission. Dr. Griffin testified that the $11
billion price tag for the mission was just too much and
explained that the near-term need for nuclear capability will
be on the surface of the Moon in the middle or towards the end
of the next decade.
On the issue of the Hubble Space Telescope, he disclosed
that preliminary work was being done to determine if a Shuttle
servicing mission is viable. If the work turned out favorable,
he acknowledged that he would possibly recommend a Hubble
servicing mission upon successful return-to-flight of the
Shuttle.
Dr. Griffin also testified that the Lunar Architecture was
still being drafted, but he would have more information for
Members in September.
Regarding financial management, Dr. Griffin admitted that
NASA's processes and controls were severely lacking. He vowed
to make the issue a priority and indicated that he had three
main issues to resolve: first, NASA needs to be able to account
for how money is spent; second, NASA needs to resolve issues of
control of distribution; and third NASA needs to standardize
its reporting methodologies. He stated that his major goal
going forward is to reconcile the fund balance with treasury
accounts.
In regards to NASA's workforce, Dr. Griffin assured Members
that there would be no layoffs until 2007. He also expressed an
interest and the need for a new aeronautics strategy.
On his philosophy for NASA, Dr. Griffin showed strong
support for American competitiveness. Dr. Griffin told Members
that he wants to narrow the gap between Shuttle retirement and
the CEV development because of his concern for U.S. dependency.
``The U.S. is in a position where we can not effectively
utilize the ISS without Russian partners. I believe it's
strategically essential that the U.S. have its own access to
space, dependent on no other nation,'' he said.
He also expressed that ``space will be explored and
exploited by humans. The question is which humans from where
and what language will they speak. It is my goal that Americans
will be always among them.''
4.1(l)_U.S. Competitiveness: The Innovation Challenge
July 21, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-24
Background
On July 21, 2005, the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives held a hearing to examine the relationship
between federal science and engineering research and education
investments and U.S. economic competitiveness.
The witnesses were: 1) Mr. Nicholas Donofrio, Executive
Vice President for Innovation and Technology at IBM
Corporation, 2) Mr. John Morgridge, Chairman of Cisco Systems,
Incorporated, and part-time Professor at Stanford University's
Graduate School of Business, and 3) Dr. William Brody,
President of The Johns Hopkins University and Co-Chair of the
Council on Competitiveness National Innovation Initiative.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting that the
growth of the United States' economy is dependent on support
for science, technology, and education, and that increased
investments by foreign competitors in these areas has
strengthened their innovation capacity and ability to compete
with the U.S. on the world stage. He added that Members of
Congress are working to bring more attention to the issue
through the upcoming Innovation Summit and through work with
the Council on Competitiveness on the National Innovation
Initiative. He called on legislators to work to replicate the
conditions that fostered the technology-driven economy of the
1990's in order to maintain Americans' standard of living.
Representative Costello agreed that the United States'
economic competitiveness is due to the excellence of its
science and technology enterprise. He urged the Congress and
Administration to support additional funding for science and
technology in appropriations, noting that the current proposed
budget for science and technology is a reduction from the
previous year and that appropriated increases fall short of
inflation. He said that education should remain a primary focus
in order to increase jobs in the U.S. and remain competitive in
global markets.
Mr. Donofrio discussed the challenges of innovation in the
information technology industry and the role that IT innovation
plays in the U.S. economy. New economic growth is being driven
by new computing technology and the resultant new business
models, but continued competitiveness depends on the
availability of an up-to-date workforce. He said:
LInnovation is driven in large part by federal
supply of research and demand for products.
LEducators must address the need for a
technologically-literate and innovative workforce by
concentrating on problem-based learning. The U.S.
economy is becoming increasingly services-based, and
companies must be able to use technology to solve
problems.
LIT advancements drive innovation among
businesses and educational institutions by providing
improved communication infrastructure.
LMinority participation in STEM fields is
currently inadequate and must be increased to insure a
sustainable innovation workforce.
LCollaboration between industry, government,
and educational institutions is necessary for the U.S.
to remain competitive in the face of rapid innovation
in developing countries.
Mr. Morgridge agreed that a sound educational system is the
foundation for keeping the U.S. a technology and innovation
leader. Policies that support access to technology also foster
innovation by expanding the pool of contributors to the
``innovation ecosystem.'' He argued:
LU.S. high schools are not providing a
curriculum that gives students the necessary background
to succeed in science and engineering fields.
LKeeping U.S.-educated foreign students make
important contributions to innovation in the U.S. and
should be given incentives to stay following
graduation.
LIncreased funding for basic research at
universities can nurture advanced technology
development.
LPhysical infrastructure improvements,
especially providing universal broadband access, will
support innovation at all levels.
Dr. Brody also noted that basic research in universities is
critical for fostering innovation in industry. Basic research
provides the background knowledge necessary for future
technology developments in spite of lacking short-term goals,
and is drastically under-funded in universities because of the
risk of minimal payoffs. He said:
LBasic research at universities provided the
foundation for the Internet and the development of
related technologies, such as routers and personal
computers.
LIncreased funding for NSF to provide
scholarships for math, science, and engineering
students would fill holes in the talent pool for
industry. Doubling the Foundation's budget would help
add needed funds for research in the physical sciences,
mathematics, and information sciences.
LFocusing on long-term goals, especially at
DARPA, will provide increased incentives for graduate
research in critical areas and ensure continuity in
advancing technology.
LThe lack of funding for science and
engineering students at American universities presents
a national security dilemma. Scientists are needed for
defense work, and many of these jobs require security
clearance that can only go to U.S. citizens. The dearth
of qualified U.S. citizens leaves the Department of
Defense either understaffed or forced to take on non-
citizens, which could pose a security risk.
4.1(m)_Cyber Security: U.S. Vulnerability and Preparedness
September 15, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-25
Background
On September 15, 2005, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to examine the extent of U.S. vulnerability to cyber
attacks on critical infrastructure such as utility systems, and
what the Federal Government and private sector are doing, and
should be doing, to prevent and prepare for such attacks. The
hearing also examined what duties should be given to the new
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications
at the Department of Homeland Security.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Donald ``Andy'' Purdy, Acting
Director of the National Cyber Security Division, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS); (2) Mr. John Leggate, Chief
Information Officer, BP Inc.; (3) Mr. David Kepler, Corporate
Vice President of Shared Services and Chief Information
Officer, The Dow Chemical Company; (4) Mr. Gerald Freese,
Director of Enterprise Information Security, American Electric
Power; and (5) Mr. Andrew Geisse, Chief Information Officer,
SBC Services Inc..
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stressing the
importance of cyber security and mentioned the implementation
of the Science Committee's Cyber Security Research and
Development Act and creation of the Assistant Secretary for
Cyber Security position within DHS as examples of progress in
cyber security. He cautioned that there is still a ``very long
way to go'' in the area of preparedness and emphasized that,
since cyber attacks can arise from a variety of sources and
motivations, it is important to focus cyber security
preparedness on more than just cyber terrorism. Chairman
Boehlert then established the goals of the hearing: help
develop a cyber security agenda for the Federal Government to
guide the priorities of the new DHS Assistant Secretary for
Cyber Security.
Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon also stressed the
``urgency and seriousness'' of cyber security and mentioned two
goals for the hearing: (1) assess the progress in improving the
security of computer systems on which critical industries rely
and (2) explore why progress has been so slow. As an example,
Mr. Gordon mentioned a GAO report that found DHS ``has not yet
developed national cyber threat and vulnerability assessments
or government/industry contingencies to recovery plans for
cyber security.'' In addition, he emphasized the importance of
information sharing between DHS and industry in building better
cyber security and the importance of preparedness in cyber
security.
Mr. Purdy described the work that the DHS National Cyber
Security Division (NCSD) has been doing to secure national
cyberspace and infrastructure. In particular he focused on two
priorities for NCSD: building an effective National Cyberspace
Response System and implementing a cyber risk management
program for critical infrastructure protection.
LThe US-CERT Operations Center acts to
facilitate information sharing and a coordinated
response between public and private sectors, and DHS is
working on developing additional ways to facilitate the
transfer of information from the private sector to the
government in a protected way.
LThe National Cyber Response Coordination
Group, a collaboration between NCSD, the Department of
Defense, and the Department of Justice, acts to
facilitate coordinated preparation and response by the
federal agencies for a cyber incident.
LDHS has established an Internet Disruption
Working Group to prepare for and protect against
Internet disruption and aid in the recovery of Internet
functions following a major incident.
LDHS has instituted a Software Assurance
Program to encourage improvements in software quality
and security during the software development cycle and
to address defects in software that could be exploited
in cyber attacks.
LOne of the priorities of NCSD is the Control
Systems Security Program, a partnership with the Idaho
National Laboratory, other national laboratories, and
the private sector. Activities include a test bed to
assess control systems vulnerabilities and potential
fixes and outreach efforts to raise awareness about
control systems issues and encourage security
improvements.
Mr. Leggate offered his testimony on the importance of
cyber security as it relates to the conduct of business,
especially in critical infrastructure sectors.
LIndustry is currently switching from using
private networks to taking advantage of the Internet.
One survey estimates that 30 percent of the revenue
from the energy, chemical, and transport sectors is
dependent on the Internet.
LProtection of the Internet requires a
combination of cyber and physical security and requires
safeguarding of critical physical points as well as
security of information systems.
LHe emphasized that there are two main tasks
related to Internet security--securing the Internet we
have today, and establishing appropriate security in
the next generation of the Internet. In the first task,
one of the challenges is focusing efforts toward the
most serious and disruptive cyber attacks (weeding out
the noise). Going forward, it will be important to
coordinate internationally and to consider a world-wide
strategy, or ``technology development map,'' to ensure
continued inter-operability and support world trade.
Mr. Kepler described the role of information technology in
the chemical industry, the cyber threats faced, and what is
being done to address these threats.
LA chemical industry assessment study
indicates that a breach of cyber security ``would not
cause cascading impact across the chemical industry.''
The highest concern is a combined cyber and physical
attack.
LSpecific areas of concern for the chemical
industry include having a person with malicious intent:
(1) use shipment, product, or site information to
construct a physical attack, (2) illegally obtain
chemicals, or (3) gain inappropriate access to vital
systems.
LTo combat these concerns, Dow has conducted a
comprehensive cyber security risk analysis, including a
review of physical, process, and cyber vulnerabilities,
and developed a company-wide cyber security management
plan.
LHe believes that DHS efforts and money should
focus on issues that have the potential to impact the
cyber security of multiple industry sectors, such as
methods for protecting communication during a national
emergency, threat monitoring and modeling,
authentication methods, and information protection
technologies.
Mr. Freese testified on cyber security issues affecting the
electricity sector.
LThe electricity sector is building toward a
permanent, infrastructure protection standard for cyber
security. Due to the integration of the electricity and
telecommunications sectors, a cyber attack on one would
have serious repercussions for both.
LExisting security solutions cannot be widely
deployed across the electricity sector, due to the
diversity and age of the control systems technologies
currently installed. This old infrastructure needs to
be rebuilt with the next generation of equipment and
technology to create a robust and secure
infrastructure.
LHe believes that the Assistant Secretary for
Cyber Security and Telecommunications should focus on
creating greater awareness of critical infrastructure
interdependencies, strengthening information sharing
between government and the private sector, and
establishing true, non-prescriptive partnerships. While
the sharing of information on critical infrastructure
assets with DHS is important, currently there is a
concern in industry that information shared with DHS
can not be protected from disclosure.
Mr. Geisse addressed cyber security within the
communications industry.
LSBC uses both physical and cyber measures to
ensure the security of both customer-serving network
facilities and internal information services.
LSBC works with government agencies on a daily
basis to receive and share security-related
information. Federal programs could also help educate
and assist consumers to understand their roles and
responsibilities in a connected world.
LThe communication industry depends heavily on
the products provided by information technology
vendors, and hence critical infrastructure's cyber
security depends on the quality and integrity of these
products. Cyber security should be a priority during
the creation of new information technologies.
LHe believes that DHS should continue to
support cyber security research, support organizations
that develop cyber security standards and best
practices, and provide early warnings of cyber security
events. In addition, he believes that cyber security
laws should carry serious penalties for those that
break them.
4.1(n)_NOAA Hurricane Forecasting
October 7, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-26
Background
On October 7, 2005, the Committee on Science, held a
hearing, ``NOAA Hurricane Forecasting.'' The Committee held the
hearing to better understand the prediction of hurricanes and
the outlook for the remainder of the 2005 hurricane season.
In the United States, the Atlantic hurricane season is from
June 1 to November 30. The National Weather Service (NWS),
which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce, has
responsibility ``to provide weather, hydrologic, and climate
forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories,
and adjacent waters, for the protection of life and property
and the enhancement of the national economy.'' The National
Hurricane Center in Miami, which is part of NWS, monitors and
forecasts tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic and
Northeast Pacific oceans.
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions
in their testimony.
1. LWhat are the different responsibilities of the
National Hurricane Center and local weather forecast
offices when a tropical storm or hurricane threatens
the United States?
2. LWhat were the timelines of Katrina and Rita
progressing from tropical depressions to major
hurricanes and when were warnings issued to the public
and to federal, State and local officials? Was there
any difference in how the National Weather Service
forecast and issued warnings for these two major
hurricanes?
3. LWhat is the outlook for the remainder of the 2005
hurricane season and for the next five to 10 years? Are
we in a period of increased hurricane frequency and/or
intensity? If so, what is the likely cause of this
increase?
4. LWhat can be done to improve prediction of
hurricanes, both in the short-term and in the long-
term?
The Committee heard from: (1) Gen. David L. Johnson (ret.),
Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS); and (2)
Mr. Max Mayfield, Director of the NWS's National Hurricane
Center.
Summary of Hearing
General Johnson testified that the National Hurricane
Center (NHC) is ``responsible for predicting the path and
intensity of the storm, issuing coastal hurricane watches and
warnings, and describing broad impacts to the areas impacted,
including projected storm surge levels.'' Following each
hurricane season, NOAA examines its efforts and determines
where improvements can be made. Johnson stated that Local
National Weather Service Office and River Forecast Centers also
play a critical role by using their local expertise to
disseminate hurricane information most effectively.
NOAA collects data from satellites, aircraft and the ocean
surface to improve prediction of hurricane intensity and track.
Johnson stated that storm track forecasts have improved
dramatically, while storm intensity forecasts have shown less
improvement. According to Johnson, NOAA will use programs such
as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) to
improve hurricane analyses. Johnson stated that NOAA is now at
the point for storm intensity prediction that it was at 10
years ago for track prediction. NOAA is developing the
Hurricane Weather and Research Forecasting System to improve
hurricane prediction. This system will combine an advanced wave
model with a dynamic storm surge model to improve prediction of
coastal impacts.
Mr. Mayfield testified that the destruction from Hurricane
Katrina was ``like nothing [he] ever witnessed.'' However,
without NOAA forecasts and warnings, the loss of life from the
hurricane could have been much worse. According to Mr.
Mayfield, NOAA began issuing tropical cyclone forecasts every
six hours when Katrina began as a tropical depression near the
Southeast Bahamas on August 23rd. Mr. Mayfield stated the NHC
accurately predicted that Katrina would become a Category 1
hurricane before making landfall near Miami. He said that the
NHC correctly predicted a re-intensification of the storm as it
moved into the Gulf of Mexico. Katrina intensified from a
Tropical Storm into a Category 2 hurricane within nine hours of
entering the Gulf. It eventually reached Category 5 status. On
Saturday morning, August 27th, the NHC forecast had the track
of the storm curving northward and heading directly towards
Southeast Louisiana and Mississippi, making landfall as a
Category 4 hurricane. At 10:00 AM, August 27th, the NHC posted
a hurricane watch for Southeast Louisiana. Katrina made final
landfall along the Louisiana/Mississippi border on Monday
morning as a Category 3 hurricane.
Hurricane Rita began as a tropical depression on Saturday,
September 17th east of the Turks and Caicos Islands. According
to Mr. Mayfield, the NHC correctly predicted storm to pass
south of the Florida Keys as a hurricane on September 20 and
predicted it to become a major hurricane as it moved over the
warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Rita also strengthened to
Category 5 status. On Thursday, approximately two days before
Rita made landfall, Mr. Mayfield stated that the NHC shifted
its track forecast eastward to just west of the Texas/Louisiana
border. The NHC accurately predicted that Rita would weaken
before making landfall but still come ashore as a Category 3
hurricane.
Mr. Mayfield described the role of the Hurricane Liaison
Team (HLT), a partnership between the NWS and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), made up of federal, State
and local emergency officials. The HLT is deployed by the NHC
to support hurricane response communications between the NHC
and emergency managers of all levels. Once the HLT is
activated, FEMA hosts national audio and video conference
calls, where the NHC provides forecasts. Mr. Mayfield also
recognized the critical role of the media in disseminating
information.
Mr. Mayfield testified that he believes the heightened
hurricane activity will continue due to multi-decadal
variations. He believes the current threat of heightened
hurricane activity could last another 10 to 20 years. He also
stated that we also must prepare for hurricanes in the future.
According to Mr. Mayfield, there are many areas in the country
which are vulnerable to hurricanes, including Galveston/
Houston, Tampa Bay, southwestern Florida, New York City, Long
Island and New England.
During the question and answer session, Mr. Ehlers asked
whether there is a mechanism in place which confirms that other
federal, State and local agencies have heard the NHC warnings.
Mr. Mayfield stated that the local office handles the role
call. He said there is an office role call, rather than an
individual role call.
Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Mayfield if he had told emergency
officials to prepare for a Category Five hurricane during his
August 28 briefing. Mr. Mayfield confirmed that he had.
Mr. Gutknecht asked how many hurricanes we can expect in
the future as well as this year. Mr. Mayfield, citing the
current increase in hurricane activity, said, ``Well, we've got
some not very good news here,'' adding, ``this period will
likely last another 10, 20 years or more.'' Mayfield also told
the Committee that the U.S. can expect at least two more
hurricanes this season.
General Johnson said, ``Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will
not be the last major hurricanes to hit a vulnerable area, and
New Orleans is not the only location vulnerable to a large
disaster from a land-falling hurricane. Houston/Galveston,
Tampa Bay, southwestern Florida, the Florida Keys, southeastern
Florida, New York City/Long Island, and New England, are all
especially vulnerable.''
4.1(o)_Science, Technology, and Global Economic Competitiveness
October 20, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-27
Background
On October 20, 2005, the House Science Committee held a
hearing to receive testimony on the report released by the
National Academy of Sciences on October 12 entitled, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future. The report, which was requested by
Congress, recommends ways to strengthen research and education
in science and technology.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Retired
Chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation (Mr.
Augustine chaired the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
committee that wrote the report), (2) Dr. P. Roy Vagelos,
Retired Chairman and CEO of Merck & Co. (Dr. Vagelos served on
the NAS committee that wrote the report), and (3) Dr. William
A. Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering and
Vice Chair of the National Research Council, the principal
operating arm of the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by praising the
National Academies for seeking effective responses to the
menace to U.S. dominance in the fields of science and
technology. He argued that while the Science Committee and
Congress have pushed for higher funding for programs that
promote innovation and basic and applied research, federal
support for science and technology is inadequate. The purpose
of the hearing, he said, would be to bring to Congress'
attention the connection between funding for scientific
research and education and U.S. economic competitiveness with
newly developing countries that have established strong and
quickly growing technology enterprises.
Ranking Member Gordon agreed that support for increased
amounts of federal funding for R&D is an essential part of
ensuring continued competitiveness in the face of new rivalry
from countries that can supply many more qualified workers for
much lower wages. He added that he hoped the hearing would
address the connection between R&D funding and the creation of
additional jobs in the U.S. as opposed to further offshoring.
Mr. Augustine discussed the findings of the National
Academies committee that authored the report, including that
the American standard of living in the near future will depend
greatly on the quality of available jobs, and that those jobs
will only be available if the Federal Government makes
significant changes to its science and technology policy.
LJob competition in the near future will be
global, not local. A low-cost but highly trained labor
force in developing countries is the primary threat to
domestic employment. However, job growth in developing
countries should not be discouraged because increased
purchasing power and production abroad can create both
new products and customers for American companies and
consumers.
LSolving the problems of global economic
competition requires significant improvements to
America's K-12 and higher education systems. The supply
of qualified teachers should be broadened through
training for those currently teaching and incentives to
encourage students with science and technology degrees
to go into teaching. In addition, younger students
should be encouraged to pursue science and technology
studies early on.
LGreater support for basic research is an
additional component of a competitive national economy.
Federal investments in basic research should focus on
the physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and
information sciences, and federal agencies should set
aside specific funding dedicated to innovative and
risky research in their mission areas.
LThe Federal Government must create an
environment that fosters innovation in industry. Ways
to improve the U.S. environment for innovation could
include increasing the R&D tax credit, ensuring
universal broadband access, and enhancing intellectual
property protections.
Dr. Vagelos focused his testimony on the challenges facing
K-12 education in the United States. He cited the concerns of
the committee and the American public that the quality of the
education available in the U.S. is inadequate compared with
that in many countries with fewer resources.
LThe committee's top recommendation is to
annually recruit 10,000 college students majoring in
math and science to become K-12 math and science
teachers. Incentives would include merit-based
scholarships and bonuses for teachers working in under-
served rural and inner city schools.
LUniversities should be provided with grant
money to fund programs that concurrently offer science
and mathematics undergraduates teacher certification
with their Bachelor's degrees.
LGrant money should also be provided to
support efforts to update the skills of current math
and science teachers through Master's degree programs
and summer institutes for teaching educators new
content and pedagogy skills.
LEfforts should be made to encourage more
students to go into math and science fields. Approaches
could include increasing the number of high school
students taking math and science advanced placement
courses and offering more undergraduate and graduate
scholarships in these areas.
Dr. Wulf outlined the existing and potential problems the
U.S. faces with regards to competing in the global economy. He
noted that the pattern of disinvestment from basic research has
led to a slow, piecemeal decline in U.S. competitiveness.
LThe components of the problem include a
decline in industry-based research and federal funding
for research in the physical sciences and engineering,
the increasingly short-term, risk-averse nature of the
research that is supported, growth in the use of
``sensitive but unclassified'' information that chills
the flow of knowledge, and the discouragement of
foreign students from performing research in the U.S.
through overly restrictive visa policies.
LThe policy community is aware of these
problems, which is the first step towards a broad,
effective solution. Reports on the decline of U.S.
competitiveness have come from the National Academies,
the private sector, the Federal Government, and
academia.
LThe U.S. ability to innovate has been the
source of U.S. prosperity and security. Therefore,
future policy decisions should be aimed at generating
an environment that supports innovation by creating a
vibrant research base, educated workforce, and social
climate that encourages students to pursue science and
technology degrees. Investment-friendly tax policies
and protection of intellectual property should also be
used to promote innovation by industry.
4.1(p)_The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse:
Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps
October 26, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-28
Background
On October 26, 2005, at 11 a.m., the House Committee on
Science held a hearing on the key findings and recommendations
of the National Institute of Standard and Technology's (NIST)
investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center
(WTC), how building and fire code organizations plan to
implement the recommendations contained in that report, and
what barriers exist to the development and adoption of stronger
building and fire codes.
Immediately following the attacks of September 11, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) began planning a building
performance study of the WTC. The week of October 7, as soon as
the rescue and search efforts ceased, an ASCE team under
contract with FEMA known as the Building Performance Assessment
Team (BPAT) went to the site and began their assessment of why
the buildings had failed. This was to be a brief effort, as the
study team consisted of experts who generally had volunteered
their time. In January 2002, FEMA asked the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the next phase
of the investigation of the collapse essentially to build upon
the BPAT recommendations and conduct a more thorough
investigation of the events leading to the collapse.
On October 26, 2005, NIST released its Final Report of the
National Construction Safety Team on the Collapse of the World
Trade Center Towers.
The witnesses addressed the following questions in their
testimony:
1. LWhat are the most important findings and
recommendations of the World Trade Center Investigation
report?
2. LAre the NIST recommendations framed appropriately
so that they can be adopted into national model
building codes?
3. LWhat are the prospects for the adoption of the
recommendations by the code organizations? What is NIST
doing to promote this process? What are the possible
impediments to their adoption?
4. LWhat lessons were learned from this investigation
that could be applied to improve future investigations
of building failures?
The Committee heard from (1) Ms. Sally Regenhard,
Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Commission; (2) Dr. William
Jeffrey, Director, NIST; (3) Ms. Nancy McNabb, Director of
Government Affairs, National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA); (4) Dr. James R. Harris, Member, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); (5) Mr. Glenn Corbett, Asst. Professor
of Fire Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; and (6)
Mr. Henry L. Green, President, International Code Council
(ICC).
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Regenhard testified that she felt NIST's investigation
should have been more aggressive, and that in general the
recommendations made by NIST for improvements in building and
fire codes were vague and would be difficult to translate into
new codes.
Dr. Jeffrey summarized NIST's investigative methodologies
and presented the major findings into why the WTC towers
collapsed. He also outlined 30 specific recommendations to
increase building strength, increase fire resistance, and
enhance evacuation procedures in buildings to improve their
safety.
Ms. McNabb testified that NIST's findings were very helpful
in trying to come up with improved fire safety codes. She noted
that several NIST recommendations have already been adopted,
and that other recommendations should be implemented with
continued input from stakeholders.
Dr. Harris testified that the ACSE supports careful
consideration of NIST's recommendations. He stressed the need
to seek input and participation from stakeholders during the
implementation process, and the need for patience with the
process.
Mr. Corbett testified that he felt that NIST's
investigation should have been more aggressive, and that the
recommendations as presented would be difficult to implement
into new codes because they were not specific enough, or
articulated in language that could be easily adopted by the
codes and standards groups.. . . He also suggested that a
different agency with more experience in investigation rather
than research become involved in future building failure
investigations.
Mr. Green described the process by which the NIST
recommendations might be translated into new building and fire
codes and into revised codes for existing buildings. He
stressed the need for NIST to provide continued leadership in
developing and implementing new codes. He also cited the need
for some mechanism for code enforcement.
Members' questions focused on the specific recommendations
made in the NIST report, and the role various stakeholders
would play in the implementation of those recommendations.
Members wanted to know how codes are adopted and standardized,
and what role federal regulation should play in helping to
adopt new standards.
Members were particularly emphatic that NIST needed to
apply itself to the task of getting its 30 recommendations
translated into meaningful changes to building and fire codes
and standards as soon as possible. NIST Director Jeffrey told
the Committee that NIST already had plans to work aggressively
with the codes and standards groups, in particular with the
International Code Council, to see that this was done. He
promised that NIST would begin this process immediately through
a contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences.
4.1(q)_Status of NASA's Programs
November 3, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-31
Background
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Science held a Full
Committee hearing to review the status of plans and programs at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, was the sole witness for
this hearing.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing opened with Chairman Boehlert expressing his
concern that NASA may be doing more than their budget can
support, and that this is a recurring problem for the agency.
``I don't want to see us go down that path again,'' he said.
``Before NASA promises that it can accelerate [its programs],
it ought to be able to demonstrate where the money will come
from. And right now, it can't.''
The NASA Administrator testified that an additional $3-$5
billion is needed to fund the Space Shuttle through 2010, but
NASA is trying to close that gap. One of the money saving
avenues that the agency has taken is to try and identify
``synergies'' between the Shuttle and Exploration programs.
Members were assured by the Administrator that the Vision for
Space Exploration is not about ``new money for NASA,'' but
rather ``redirecting the money that we have.''
To also save money, the NASA Administrator told Members
that he proposes cutting funding for Space Station research,
technology development and Project Prometheus--NASA's nuclear
propulsion program. In six months, Dr. Griffin said he would
report back to Members about other savings NASA has found. He
also testified that NASA would not suffer a financial shortfall
until FY 2008.
Members learned that another funding request may be issued
from the Administration for hurricane-related expenses. NASA
reported an impact of $760 million as a result of Hurricane
Katrina, while the Administration's request was only $325
million.
On the topic of aeronautics, the Administrator stated that
NASA is coordinating with the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) to develop a national aeronautics policy.
4.1(r)_Ongoing Problems and Future Plans for NOAA's Weather
Satellites
November 16, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-33
Background
On November 16, 2005 at 10:00 a.m., the House Science
Committee held a hearing about ongoing problems and future
plans for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) key weather satellite program, the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System program
(NPOESS). The Committee held the hearing to review how the
program went awry, why Congress was not given more timely and
accurate information on the status of the program, and, most
importantly, how the program should move forward.
The NPOESS program has been deeply troubled and is now
running as much as $3 billion over budget and as many as three
years behind schedule, creating a possible gap in satellite
coverage (if existing satellites fail before NPOESS can replace
them). NOAA and the Air Force recently replaced the lead
program manager, and some of the contractors have also brought
in new people to oversee the program. NOAA and the Air Force
will soon decide how they are going to bring the program under
control. The agencies do not seem to be considering any options
that would require additional funding before Fiscal Year (FY)
2008, but waiting to spend more funds is likely to increase
total program costs and delays.
The witnesses addressed the following questions in their
testimony:
1. LWhat is the current estimate of the cost and launch
date for the first NPOESS satellite compared to the
September 2003 baseline ($7.4 billion and November
2009) and when will an official new baseline be
available?
2. LWhat program options are being considered in
response to the increased cost and schedule delays?
3. LIt is our understanding that no options are being
considered that increase spending in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006 or FY 2007. Why is that the case? Will delaying
action until FY 2008 increase the lifetime cost of the
NPOESS program and increase the risk that the satellite
will not be ready in time to perform its mission?
4. LIf the last satellite from the current NOAA polar
series fails during launch or in orbit, then, given the
schedule delays anticipated for NPOESS, there could be
a 19- to 36-month gap in polar satellite coverage for
NOAA. If a coverage gap were to occur, what are the
implications for NOAA and DOD weather forecasting
capabilities? What are the Federal Government's
contingency plans for a gap in polar satellite
coverage?
The Committee heard from: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Jr. (Ret.), Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Ronald M. Sega, Under
Secretary of the Air Force; (3) Dr. Alexis Livanos, President
of Northrop Grumman Space Technology; and (4) Mr. David Powner,
Director of Information Technology Management Issues,
Government Accountability Office.
Summary of Hearing
Admiral Lautenbacher testified that the NPOESS system is
one of the most complex environmental satellite programs ever
developed. He stated that the ground system is on budget and
that problems have been resolved for most of the sensors.
However, according to Lautenbacher, the Visible Infrared Imager
Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) sensor has caused most of the recent
problems. He stated that NOAA expects a cost increase of at
least 15 percent and a delay of at least two years.
Dr. Sega testified that NPOESS program cost growth would
exceed statutory limits set by the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. He
stated that the Air Force notified Congress and chartered an
Independent Program Assessment (IPA) team to examine
management, budget and technical issues. The IPA delivered its
report to the Executive Committee on November 22.
Dr. Livanos testified that Northrop Grumman submitted 30
scenarios on cost and launch estimates, at the request of
Congress. He stated that ``more than 80 percent of the NPOESS
cost growth and delay is attributable to sensor development by
subcontractors.'' Northrop Grumman concluded that additional
funds before FY 2008 would shorten development schedules and
reduce costs.
Mr. Powner testified that cost overruns have raised the
program's life-cycle cost to approximately $10 billion. He
stated the first NPOESS satellite will not be available for
launch until December 2010. According to Mr. Powner, ``. .
.improved management of this program will be essential to
correct NPOESS's poor historical performance.''
During the Question and Answer period, Committee Members
pressed repeatedly for NOAA and DOD to justify their decision
not to seek additional funding in fiscal years 2006 and 2007,
even though Northrop-Grumman--the prime contractor on the
NPOESS program--testified that increased funds in those years
would significantly reduce life cycle costs, help resolve
looming technical problems sooner, decrease the risk of a gap
in weather satellite coverage, and increase the chances that
the NPOESS development program overall will be successful.
Admiral Lautenbacher and Dr. Sega stated they believed that
planned changes to sensor production schedules would free up
sufficient funds to address the concerns raised by the
Committee Members.
4.1(s)_Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: What
Research Is Needed?
November 17, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-34
Background
On Thursday, November 17, 2005, the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives held a hearing to examine current
concerns about environmental and safety impacts of
nanotechnology and the status and adequacy of related research
programs and plans.
The witnesses were: 1) Dr. Clayton Teague, Director of the
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 2) Mr. Matthew M.
Nordan, Vice President of Research at Lux Research Inc., 3) Dr.
Krishna C. Doraiswamy, Research Planning Manager at DuPont
Central Research and Development, 4) Mr. David Rejeski,
Director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and 5) Dr.
Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stressing that the
Science Committee's 2003 National Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act required research on increasing the
understanding of the potential environmental and safety
implications of nanomanufacturing and nanomaterials. Supporting
research on potential risks during the early stages of
nanotechnology will help prepare for problems the technology
may cause in the future and allow nanotechnology to become
fully integrated into the U.S. economy. He added that there was
a remarkable consensus in the written testimony on the need to
invest more right now in understanding what problems the
technology might cause.
Ranking Member Gordon added that commercialization of
nanotechnology is outpacing research into possible risks.
Federal and private research initiatives into environmental and
safety research are chronically underfunded, and researchers
need to focus on developing the necessary tools to determine if
nanotechnology products are harmful. He added he hoped all
stakeholders in nanotechnology research would be involved in
identifying research goals and priorities.
Dr. Teague discussed the role that the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is taking in addressing the
environmental and safety issues in nanotechnology research. The
NNI is committed to fostering nanotechnology research to help
strengthen the economy, improve homeland security, and raise
the quality of life in the U.S., and encourages participating
agencies to include work on the environmental and safety
implications of nanotechnology in their programs.
LThe Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications (NEHI) working group of the National
Science and Technology Council's Nanoscale Science,
Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee is
developing a document for NNI agencies and individual
researchers that identifies and prioritizes
nanotechnology environmental and safety research needs.
LIdentified gaps in the body of knowledge
concerning nanotechnology safety include: methods for
determining nanoparticle exposure in workers and the
environment, methods for controlling exposure in the
workplace, methods for characterizing nanomaterials'
behavior, and understanding of biological risk.
LThe NNI will support $39M in FY 2006 for
research and development with the primary purpose of
understanding environmental and safety risks from
nanoparticle exposure.
LThe NNI will also participate in an
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) meeting on the safety of manufactured
nanomaterials in December 2005.
Mr. Nordan said there should be particular concern over
environmental and safety issues in nanotechnology because of
the unique material properties of nanomaterials. The industry
should be prepared to address both real and perceptual risks in
order to earn public acceptance of nanomaterials in the
economy.
LNanoparticles are a special concern because
they have unique physical, chemical, and biological
properties; have been shown to cause environmental and
safety problems when unintentionally produced through
traditional manufacturing processes; and have raised
alarms among researchers involved in early studies of
the environmental and safety implications of
nanoparticles.
LThere are well established frameworks that
can guide nanomaterial manufacturers in assessing their
environmental and safety risks, and researchers can
model their efforts on risk analysis methods
historically used for new materials.
LCurrently, adequate data on the possible
effects of exposure to nanoparticles does not exist.
There are a number of studies that suggest toxicity
problems may exist, but the information is insufficient
to create regulations.
LTo aid nanotechnology's integration into the
economy, the Federal Government should coordinate
public and private sector toxicology research efforts,
allocate funding to those efforts, and eliminate
regulatory ambiguity for businesses interested in
manufacturing nanotechnology products.
LTotal federal research funding for
nanotechnology should be increased to $100M to $200M
from the current levels in order to support innovation
in the field.
Dr. Doraiswamy concurred that understanding environmental
and safety implications of nanomaterials is integral to
successful emergence of nanomanufacturing. He added that
private industry was and would need to continue to sponsor
cooperative efforts to resolve questions about the safety of
nanomaterials.
LCertain nanoscale materials, such as
pigments, magnetic storage media, and photographic
chemicals, have been available commercially for
decades, but new techniques to manipulate the structure
of materials at the nanoscale will give rise to an
array of new nano-enabled products which may have an
adverse effect on human safety and on the environment.
LGovernment and private sector stakeholders
should collaborate in the development of safety
standards and test methods. DuPont has coordinated a
consortium of government, academic, and industry groups
in a two-year research project that will study the
behavior of airborne particles in the workplace and the
performance of related personal protective equipment.
LTargeted research efforts on environmental
and safety issues in nanotechnology should address
critical physical, biological, and chemical properties
of nanomaterials; the presence and effect of
nanomaterials in the workplace and environment; the
life cycle of nanomaterials; and the development of
toxicity tests.
Mr. Rejeski said that the policy response to environmental
and safety concerns is not keeping pace with innovation in
nanotechnology. While the public is interested in learning more
about the possibilities of nanotechnology, the lack of trust in
federal authorities to properly regulate nanomaterials may
affect their marketability.
LBecause nanotechnology is still in an
emergent stage, the Federal Government still has an
opportunity to make sure that nano-enabled products are
introduced into the economy in a safe manner. U.S.
consumers are optimistic that nanotechnology will
advance medicine. The Federal Government should respond
by engaging in civic forums around the country to raise
public awareness and confidence.
LThere is not enough information to make
definite statements on the toxicity of nanomaterials.
New tests must be developed to determine toxicity
because: 1) bulk chemistry tests do not reflect the
unique properties of nanomaterials; 2) nanomaterials
may be capable of penetrating human skin or otherwise
breaching human systems; 3) little is known about the
hazard of engineered nanomaterials ingested as a food
additive or by accident; and, 4) very little is known
about the impact of engineered nanomaterials on the
environment through their lifetime.
LTo address public concerns, coordinated
environmental and safety research efforts should focus
on toxicity, epidemiology, characterization of
nanomaterials, control of exposure, risk management,
and product life cycle analysis. The Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies is participating in this
effort by creating a publicly accessible inventory of
government-supported research in these areas (a summary
of which has been submitted for the hearing record).
LResearch must focus more strongly on complex,
state-of-the-art nanomaterials. Most of the existing
body of work only examines first generation
nanomaterials.
LPublic information campaigns should also
include efforts to reach out to small business
manufacturers of nanotechnology to ensure that they
have access to technical assistance. There should also
be a government-administered mechanism for reporting
nanotechnology safety concerns in order to track
possible risks.
Dr. Denison argued that the government should take a
stronger role in researching and regulating nanomaterials and
nanomanufacturing.
LFederal funding for research into
environmental and safety risks should increase to at
least $100M annually. In FY 2004, less than one percent
of federal funding for nanotechnology was directed
towards environmental and safety research. To ensure
that sufficient and appropriate federal research is
performed in this area, one federal agency, or the
NSET, should oversee and direct federal risk-related
research.
LThe Federal Government should also take the
lead in developing tools that can track the effect of
nanomaterials on humans and the environment throughout
their life cycle. The research should be supported by
industrial stakeholders, and companies that create
nanomaterials should have responsibility for funding
basic research that supports development of
regulations.
LWithout substantive federal involvement in
environmental and safety research, there may be little
public acceptance of nanomaterials. There is
significant public mistrust of industrial self-
regulation, and without government involvement,
consumers may believe that materials were sent to the
market without adequate testing and refuse to purchase
them. This would mitigate the possible benefits to
society that nanotechnology could offer.
4.1(t)_An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for Fiscal Year
2007
February 15, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-35
Background
On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives held a hearing to consider
President Bush's fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget request for
research and development (R&D). Five 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 16th to examine
the budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger III,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; (2) Dr.
Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy; (3) Dr. David A.
Sampson, Deputy Secretary of Commerce; (4) Dr. Arden Bement,
Director, National Science Foundation (NSF); and (5) Dr.
Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, Department of Homeland Security.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert began the hearing by stating that it
should be viewed as a celebration because of the FY07 budget's
renewed emphasis on research in the physical sciences, science
and math education, and energy policy. While generally
encouraged by the FY07 budget, Chairman Boehlert was concerned
that the proposed funding for education programs at the
National Science Foundation was inadequate, and that the
proposed Advanced Energy Initiative would be a necessary but
hardly sufficient step towards energy independence.
Ranking Member Gordon also voiced concerns about the
decrease in NSF education funding. He was also concerned that
the increase in overall federal R&D proposed for FY07 was less
than the rate of inflation, and that the budget request
proposed decreasing the overall federal science and technology
budget for FY07 by one percent.
Dr. Marburger noted that the FY07 budget priorities are the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative and Advanced
Energy Initiative, and then summarized the highlights of the
FY07 budget. The overall federal R&D spending increases 2.6
percent over FY06, to an ``all-time high'' request of $137
billion. He agreed with Ranking Member Gordon that while the
top-line federal science and technology category is down one
percent, that number is actually an increase of 3.7 percent
when earmarks are set aside. Specific programs highlighted
include (using the FY06 request as a base for comparison):
LThe National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy Office of Science, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
core programs are requested to receive a collective
increase of 9.3 percent, and a commitment to double
their total over the next decade. This would require an
average increase of seven percent per year.
LThe National Institute of Health will see its
budget request constant at $28.4 billion for FY07,
after its recent doubling.
LThe top-line budget for NASA will be
maintained at $86.4 billion. NASA science increases 1.5
percent with or 2.1 percent without earmarks.
Dr. Bodman testified that the Office of Science in the
Department of Energy would see its FY07 budget increase by $505
million (14 percent) to $4.1 billion. He noted the programs
affected by the Administration's newly announced Advanced
Energy Initiative, which include:
L$149 million for biomass and biofuel
programs, an increase of about $50 million; $148
million for solar energy programs, an increase of $50
million; $228 million to support implementation of the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative; $60 million for U.S.
participation in the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER); and $250 million in the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Dr. Sampson testified on R&D in the Department of Commerce
budget request, including programs at NIST and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which fall under
the Committee's jurisdiction. Specific highlights include:
LA request for an increase of $104 million (24
percent) for NIST's core laboratory programs, which
would include $72 million for nanotechnology, hydrogen
fuels, and quantum information research. $32 million of
the budget would go to maintaining and upgrading NIST
labs.
LNOAA would receive an increase of $345
million for its base programs, including $112 million
for next-generation weather satellites.
Dr. Bement testified that the budget proposal for NSF would
be an increase of 7.9 percent over FY06 to $6.02 billion--the
first year of a ten-year doubling of their budget. The budget
would be allocated in the following manner:
LFunding for research activities sponsored by
NSF would increase 7.2 percent to $4.7 billion,
allowing for 500 more research grants and 6,400 more
researchers.
LNSF's investment in the Networking
Information Technology Research and Development
Initiative would increase by $93.4 million (11.5
percent).
LNSF's investment in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative would increase by $26.4
million (8.6 percent) in FY07.
LThe FY07 request includes $597 million, an
increase of 15 percent, for new cyberinfrastructure.
LThe NSF's education and human resources
account would increase by $19 million (2.5 percent) but
after accounting for various changes in the base, K-12
investments actually increase by 10 percent and
undergraduate investments increase by six percent.
Dr. McQueary noted that the Science and Technology
Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security requested a
budget of approximately $1 billion and 383 full-time equivalent
employees for FY07. Some of the Directorate's recent
accomplishments include:
LImplementation, with local partners, of the
second-generation enhancements to BioWatch, a
bioaerosol monitoring system operating in more than 30
U.S. urban areas.
LCommencing operations of the National
Bioforensics Analysis Center.
LEstablishment of the Cyber Security Testbed
Program to explore threats to network security without
jeopardizing the Internet.
LDesignation of 57 technologies as qualified
anti-terrorism technologies, making them eligible for
Safety Act protections and encouraging the development
of countermeasures in the fight against terrorism.
4.1(u)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal
February 16, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-36
Background
On February 16, 2006, the Science Committee held a full
committee hearing to examine the administration's fiscal year
2007 budget request for NASA. NASA Administrator Dr. Mike
Griffin and NASA Deputy Administrator Ms. Shana Dale were
witnesses. The hearing focused on differences between the NASA
Authorization Act (P.L. 109-155), past projections of the FY
2007 budget, and the current budget proposal.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by outlining his
concerns for NASA's budget in the coming fiscal year. ``This
budget is bad for space science, worse for Earth science,
perhaps worse still for aeronautics.'' NASA received less money
from the budget request than expected and thus already
difficult decisions over which programs to fund and how became
even more complicated. Boehlert outlined his fears that science
would become secondary at NASA, a pattern that could be
difficult to change in the future. Ranking Member Bart Gordon
echoed the Chairman's concerns and added that NASA's budgetary
issues are being labeled as ``temporary'' until the Shuttle is
retired but are in fact permanent and need to be dealt with
accordingly.
Administrator Griffin responded to the Chairman's concerns
about science when he testified about the tough choices that
NASA is making as a result of budgetary constraints. ``The
plain fact is that NASA simply cannot afford to do everything
that our many constituencies would like the Agency to do. We
must set priorities, and we must adjust our spending to match
those priorities. NASA needed to take budgeted funds from the
Science and Exploration budget projections for FY 2007-11 in
order to ensure that enough funds were available to the Space
Shuttle and the ISS.''
Questions ranged from specifics about future missions to
general queries about how best to implement the Vision for
Space Exploration. Congressman Gordon questioned alternatives
to the Vision, including slowing or ending the Vision until the
NASA was given a larger budget. Griffin answered that line of
questioning by explaining that a gap between the shuttle and
the CEV would be devastating. ``I lived through the gap in
human space flight between the end of the Apollo program to the
first flight of the Shuttle in 1981, and I know firsthand that
our nation's space program suffered greatly from the unintended
loss of critical expertise. Our nation's space industrial base
withered. A longer gap in U.S. human space flight capabilities
will increase risk and overall costs and lead to even more
delays.''
4.1(v)_NASA's Science Mission Directorate: Impacts of the
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal
March 2, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-38
Background
On March 2, 2006, the Science Committee held a Full
Committee hearing to review the proposed fiscal year 2007
(FY07) budget for the Science Mission Directorate of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and to
examine how that budget would affect research in space science
and Earth science.
The witnesses were Dr. Mary Cleave, the Associate
Administrator at NASA for the Science Mission Directorate; Dr.
Fran Bagenal, a member of the National Academy of Sciences
Decadal Survey for Sun-Earth Connections, ``The Sun to the
Earth and Beyond'' (2003) and a Professor of Astrophysical and
Planetary Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder;
Dr. Wes Huntress, a member of the National Academy of Sciences
Decadal Survey for Solar System Exploration, ``New Frontiers in
the Solar System'' (2003) and the Director of the Geophysical
Laboratory at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and was
Associate Administrator for Space Science at NASA from 1992 to
1998; Dr. Berrien Moore, the Co-Chairman of the National
Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey for Earth Sciences, ``Earth
Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy
for the Future'' (expected fall 2006) and the Director for the
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the
University of New Hampshire; and Dr. Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., the
Co-Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey
for Astrophysics, ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New
Millennium'' (2001) and a Nobel Laureate and Distinguished
Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing offered the Science Committee an opportunity to
sit down with the head of NASA Science Mission Directorate and
representatives from the four decadal surveys that were
conducted to list priorities for NASA funding. Chairman
Boehlert opened the hearing by emphasizing that he was looking
for an open and honest conversation about changes in NASA's
Science funding. He continued with a more specific directive
for the hearing. ``But perhaps most important, we need to hear
whether, given the proposed level of funding, NASA has made the
right choices about what to cancel or defer. In the written
testimony, all four of our non-NASA witnesses indicate that
NASA has gotten it wrong by trying to preserve flagship
missions while cutting smaller missions and research grants
because of the impact that will have on retaining and
attracting scientists to the field. I want to pursue that issue
thoroughly.''
Ranking Member Bart Gordon echoed the Chairman's concerns
about science programs at NASA. ``I am concerned that science
has become an afterthought in the Agency's exploration
initiative--largely decoupled from the exploration initiative
and vulnerable to being cut back as necessary to pay for the
human exploration hardware.'' He declared his interest in
asking Dr. Cleave various questions about the current and
future status of science missions.
Dr. Cleave responded by assuring that programs were being
delayed, not canceled. She explained that NASA was doing its
best to both fulfill the President's Vision for Space
Exploration as well as maintain a healthy Science Mission
Directorate. ``The charge that Administrator Griffin has given
to me is to deliver a robust and executable program that can be
implemented in this resource-constrained environment. By
``executable,'' we mean selecting, developing, and launching a
slate of Science missions within cost and schedule targets.''
The other witnesses, all authors of Decadal Surveys that
prioritized programs for NASA funding agreed that NASA was
placing an emphasis on flagship missions at the expense of
smaller research missions. They feared that the loss of smaller
missions would have a harmful effect on NASA's relationship
with universities and scientists that would take years to
redevelop.
4.1(w)_Should Congress Establish ``ARPA-E,'' the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy?
March 9, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-39
Background
On March 9, 2006 the Committee on Science held a hearing on
whether Congress should establish an Advanced Research Projects
Agency in the Department of Energy, or an ARPA-E. The National
Academies of Sciences (NAS), in its fall 2005 report on
enhancing American competitiveness, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, recommended the creation of an ARPA-E to fund
transformational research that could lead to new ways of
fueling the Nation and its economy.
The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Steven Chu, Director,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; (2) Dr. David Mowery,
William A. and Betty H. Hasler Professor of New Enterprise
Development, Haas School of Business, University of California
at Berkeley; (3) Ms. Melanie Kenderdine, Vice President for
Washington Operations, Gas Technology Institute; (4) Dr. Frank
L. Fernandez, President, F.L. Fernandez, Inc.; and (5) Dr.
Catherine Cotell, Vice President for Strategy, University and
Early Stage Investment, In-Q-Tel.
Summary of Hearing
Science Committee Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by
noting that the biggest barrier to new energy technologies is
not supply, but rather demand. He added that until the
government is willing to institute policies to stimulate
demand, it is going to be very hard for new technologies to
enter or dominate the market. As an example of market failure
he pointed to the automobile fuel economy technologies that are
just ``sitting on the shelf.''
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert noted that it is
not clear what problems we are trying to solve with the
creation of an ARPA-E; that the proposal to create an ARPA-E is
largely based on the mythology of the agencies--namely the
myths that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) can't do anything wrong, and that DOE can't do anything
right. She added that the Department of Homeland Security's
effort to replicate DARPA, according to most accounts, did not
work; questioned where funding for ARPA-E would come from; and
pointed out that ARPA-E was the only recommendation in the NAS
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report that did not receive
unanimous support of the panel.
Most witnesses were open to the notion of creating a new
research entity at DOE, but they cautioned that the funding for
it should not be taken from the increases proposed for DOE's
existing basic research programs. The witnesses also cautioned
that an ARPA-E would face different challenges than DARPA
because the government would not be a primary customer for the
technologies advanced through an ARPA-E.
Testifying on behalf of the NAS panel that issued the ARPA-
E recommendation, Dr. Chu told the Committee that ARPA-E is
intended to be a research agency that will focus on
transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot
or will not support due to its high risk, but where success
would provide dramatic benefits for the Nation. To accomplish
this goal, he said, the NAS conceived a DARPA-like agency that
would have a nimble structure and would fund the development of
completely new energy technologies. He warned that funding for
ARPA-E must not come at the expense of DOE's existing science
programs. The NAS panel's top research-related recommendation
is to increase basic research funding by 10 percent over the
next seven years. To fund ARPA-E, the NAS panel recommended an
initial investment of $300 million that would eventually grow
to $1 billion annually.
Ms. Kenderdine testified that Congress should pursue
alternative funding sources for ARPA-E such as oil or gas
royalty payments. She noted that a one cent per gallon gasoline
tax would pay for the entire ARPA-E program at levels
recommended in the NAS report, and that such a policy has been
supported in polls of the U.S. public.
Dr. Mowery said that the development of new technologies is
important to addressing our nation's energy challenges, but
that the lack of a market for the technologies could impede the
success of ARPA-E. He also noted that the need for widespread
adoption highlights an important issue for ARPA-E that DARPA
did not face: the creation of a market for the new
technologies.
Dr. Cotell added that in contrast to DARPA's reliance on
DOD for the procurement of the technologies it develops, the
market for the products of energy research ranges from the
individual consumer who buys an alternative fuel vehicle to the
large utility companies that provide power to the grid. She
pointed out that there is no single procurement mechanism, and
that this market can be significantly impacted by policy and
regulation that may provide incentives or disincentives to
early adoption.
Former DARPA Director, Dr. Fernandez, disagreed that a
clear customer base would be essential to the success of ARPA-
E, and said that a DARPA-like model makes sense even if the DOE
is not the customer for the technology because this is not
necessary for the transition of revolutionary technology.
4.1(x)_K-12 Science and Math Education Across the Federal
Agencies
March 30, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-43
Background
On Thursday, March 30, 2006, the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives held a hearing to examine how
federal agencies can improve their individual and collective
efforts to strengthen K-12 science and math education.
The five witnesses were: (1) Ms. Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education; (2) Dr. Arden
Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF); (3)
Ms. Shana Dale, Deputy Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); (4) Brigadier
General John Kelly, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); and (5) Dr. James Decker, Principal
Deputy Director of the Office of Science at the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE).
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert began by expressing his belief that all
five of the agencies represented were important to K-12 science
and math education but that they needed to coordinate their
approach. He asked that the agency representatives address how
they view their role in math and science education, how they
coordinate that role with other agencies, and how they evaluate
their programs.
Ranking Minority Member Gordon stated that he was concerned
that the Administration's plans for improving K-12 science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) curriculum did not
reflect the suggestions of the National Academies' report
Rising Above the Gathering Storm. He also encouraged the
Administration to give greater recognition to the capabilities
of NSF in the area of K-12 STEM education.
Secretary Spellings testified that the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative would do much to address science and
math deficiencies present in the Nation's educational system.
The President's budget request would devote $380 million in new
federal support to strengthen K-12 science and math education,
increasing the Department of Education's funding for STEM
education programs by 51 percent. She then described the
Department of Education's proposed and ongoing programs and its
relationship with other agencies:
LHighlighted programs from the fiscal year
2007 request included $250 million for a Math Now
Initiative to prepare elementary and middle school
students for rigorous high school math classes, $122
million to train 70,000 teachers to teach advanced
placement and international baccalaureate classes in
math and science, and $25 million to recruit math and
science professionals to become teachers.
LIn addition, the President has formed a
National Math Panel to determine the most proven and
effective methods for teaching K-12 math.
LThe Academic Competitiveness Council, a
commission led by the Department of Education is
charged with evaluating federal STEM education programs
and addressing possible redundancy in this area.
LShe recognized the role of NSF and the other
agencies in preparing new STEM teachers and developing
new programs and explained that the Department of
Education scales-up successful NSF programs to suit the
needs of all students.
Dr. Bement stated that, because of the need to keep America
economically competitive, bolstering K-12 education was one of
four NSF stated goals for fiscal year 2007. NSF's approach to
this goal will include research on STEM learning for both
teachers and students, development of challenging STEM
instructional materials, assessment of student and teacher
knowledge, evaluation of project and program impacts, and
implementation of proven STEM interventions in the Nation's
schools. He added:
LThe NSF's K-12 STEM education programs are
primarily administered through the Education and Human
Resource Directorate. Examples of these programs
include:
LThe Robert Noyce Scholarship program to
encourage talented STEM majors and
professionals to go into K-12 science and math
teaching.
LThe Math and Science Partnership program, a
program to support partnerships between higher
education and local schools.
LThe NSF and the Department of Education are
linked from the project level to the agency level.
LThe NSF uses proven assessment tools to
ensure that education programs meet their stated goals
and provide useful results to teachers, school systems,
students, and other stakeholders.
Ms. Dale was particularly concerned with how the quality of
science and math education affects NASA's ability to carryout
its scientific and exploration missions as its current
workforce moves into retirement. She argued that NASA's
exciting mission and research activities can inspire students
to pursue STEM fields. She added:
LNASA has three primary objectives in
improving STEM education:
LTo identify and develop the critical skills
and capabilities needed to ensure NASA's space
exploration and scientific research goals.
LTo attract and retain STEM students through
science and math educational opportunities for
students, teachers, and faculty.
LTo engage all Americans in its missions
through hands-on, interactive, educational
activities in ways that will increase the
public's scientific literacy.
General Kelly stated that NOAA needed a well trained STEM
staff and a scientifically literate public to be able to
effectively use the tools and products the agency develops.
They aim to educate the public in oceanic and atmospheric
sciences by providing development opportunities and
scholarships to teachers and students at all levels.
Additionally, NOAA's priorities include increasing the public's
environmental literacy. Ongoing efforts for students, teachers,
and the public include:
LThe John A. Knauss Policy Fellowship Program,
which has placed more than 500 graduate students at
federal science agencies and Congressional offices to
learn about policy issues affecting ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes resources.
LThe Teacher at Sea Program, which has given
430 teachers the opportunity to do science on a NOAA
research vessel.
LThe Educational Partnership Program, which
provides financial assistance to Minority Serving
Institutions to support and encourage minorities and
women pursuing advanced degrees in STEM fields relevant
to NOAA's mission.
Dr. Decker noted that his decision to go into science after
the Sputnik Challenge stemmed from excellent science and math
teachers, the challenging nature of the career, and a desire to
serve the country. Equally important in his decision, though,
was the promise of jobs, which is a key factor in the choice of
major by most students. DOE has a vested interest in the U.S.
maintaining a well-trained STEM workforce, as it depends on
these professionals to run the organization. He added:
LDOE's main contribution to STEM education is
its support and training of graduate students through
its funding of research at universities and its
research laboratories that are accessible to graduate
students under the auspices of different agencies.
LDOE also directly works to improve K-12 STEM
education programs through a research experience
program for current and in-training K-12 teachers.
LDOE has sponsored the National Science Bowl
for the past 16 years. Students from over 1,800 high
schools compete annually in the competition.
4.1(y)_H.R. 5143, the H-Prize Act of 2006
April 27, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-45
Background
On April 27, 2006 the Committee on Science held a hearing
on a bill introduced by Research Subcommittee Chairman Bob
Inglis (R-SC) that would establish a prize competition to
encourage the research and development necessary to overcome
the technical barriers that currently stand in the way of
hydrogen becoming a practical alternative to oil in fueling our
transportation sector.
The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Peter Diamandis, Chairman,
X Prize Foundation; (2) Dr. David Bodde, Director of Innovation
and Public Policy, International Center for Automotive
Research, Clemson University; (3) Dr. David L. Greene,
Corporate Fellow, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and (4) Mr.
Phillip Baxley, President, Shell Hydrogen, L.L.C.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting the promise
of a hydrogen economy, as well as the great hurdles that must
be overcome to achieve it. He highlighted the challenges to
developing hydrogen as a fuel source, from knowing how to
create, store, distribute the fuel, to being able to use
hydrogen cleanly and efficiently. The Chairman commended the
legislation for encouraging ongoing work that can lead to
incremental improvements in hydrogen technology, and for
drawing more scientists and engineers into efforts to remove
the highest hurdles on the hydrogen highway.
Chairman Inglis elaborated on the bill by explaining that
the goal of the prize is to capitalize on a promising non-
governmental tool to encourage innovation and invention. He
noted that a hydrogen economy can be closer than we think if we
inspire some innovation; that such innovation could free the
U.S. of dependence on unstable suppliers of energy like Iran,
Nigeria, Chad and Venezuela; help improve air quality; and
create new job opportunities.
Dr. Greene noted that major technical barriers stand in the
way of achieving such goals, but that H.R. 5143 would increase
the likelihood of overcoming these technical barriers by
mobilizing creative minds that might not otherwise tackle them.
Mr. Baxley agreed with Dr. Greene's assessment and
highlighted the legislation's ability to stimulate involvement
and innovation across a much broader community than is possible
even with DOE funding, including universities, small labs,
startup companies, and even inventors working out of their
garages.
Dr. Diamandis said that prizes can leverage significant
private investment many times greater than the prize itself,
and that prizes can generate significant investment from the
private sector because victory often leads to highly desirable
prestige and publicity. He also noted that prize teams are able
to attract risk-taking capital which is put up by corporate
sponsors or wealthy individuals who actually encourage risk-
taking because they seek the publicity and desire to win.
Dr. Bodde praised the H-Prize as an innovative policy that
could accelerate the Nation's transition toward more secure and
sustainable energy, but expressed concerns that the $100
million grand prize might prove redundant. He also mentioned
that entrepreneurs and venture capital investors seek
opportunities with demonstrable potential for exponential
growth--exactly the kind of venture that appears to be
contemplated in the prize description.
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert questioned the
size of the $100 million grand prize, and questioned whether
market rewards would not be sufficient to encourage scientists,
engineers, entrepreneurs, and energy companies large and small
to invest in the development of fuel cells and new and
innovative ways to produce and store hydrogen.
4.1(z)_The Role of the National Science Foundation in K-12
Science and Math Education
May 3, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-46
Background
On Wednesday, May 3, 2006, the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives held a hearing to review the
effectiveness and value of the National Science Foundation's
(NSF's) past and present programs in support of improvement of
K-12 science and math education and to examine what role the
Foundation should play in future federal initiatives for
strengthening K-12 science and math education.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Dennis Bartels, Executive
Director of the Exploratorium, a science museum in San
Francisco; (2) Dr. Joseph Heppert, Professor and Chair of
Chemistry and Director of the Center for Science Education at
the University of Kansas and Chair of the American Chemical
Society Committee on Education; (3) Ms. Rebecca Pringle,
science teacher, Susquehanna Township Middle School,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and member, Executive Board of the
National Education Association; (4) Ms. Judy Snyder, math
teacher, Eastside High School, Taylor, South Carolina.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis began the hearing by stating that he
believed NSF played a vital role in guiding K-12 science and
math education and that its prominence in this area should be
preserved. Several factors contribute to the success of NSF's
programs in this area, including the selection of projects via
a competitive process and the external review of ongoing
projects. He also noted that NSF is uniquely positioned to keep
its educational programs consistent with the latest research.
It concerned him that the newly proposed programs for K-12
science and math education in the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) fall under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Education.
Ranking Member Gordon also expressed concerns over the
programs in the ACI and NSF's education budget. He noted that
the proposals put forth in the ACI differ from those called for
in the National Academies' report on competitiveness, ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.'' He wanted to know the whether
Congress should put the bulk of new funding into the
development of new math curriculum for middle school students,
as suggested by the President, or into improvements in science
and math education and teacher professional development, as
suggested by the National Academies.
Dr. Bartels spoke of NSF's key role in bridging the gap
between educational research and usable classroom tools and
stressed that it was important for the Department of Education
to utilize NSF's research results. He also wanted to see NSF
maintain its historically effective role in science and math
teacher development and continue with its support for informal
science education as part of both teacher and student
development. He added:
LNSF programs have created effective learning
tools from science and math education research, but in
recent years these programs have not been adequately
funded. This has slowed the progress from science and
math learning theory to practice and also hampered the
evolution of technology in the classroom.
LBoth NSF and the Department of Education have
a role in science and math education. Ideally, NSF
should draw on its unique position to research and
develop effective science and math teaching methods,
while the Department of Education should be responsible
for the implementation of these methods across the
country and adapting them to meet the needs of all
students.
LThe most cost-effective professional
development programs are those that focus on teachers
in their first two years of teaching.
LSince many teachers of color begin their
post-high school studies at two-year colleges, the NSF
must focus resources at such institutions to attract
more teachers of color to math and science, and in turn
attract more students of colors to technical fields.
Dr. Joseph Heppert argued that the NSF is one of world's
premier institutions for innovation in science and math
education, and retaining this distinction should be part of its
mission. He recommended that the Science Committee continue
efforts to develop bipartisan legislation that strategically
addresses the Nation's innovation and competitiveness
challenges and that this legislation gives NSF a major role in
improving science and math education and increasing the number
of science and math teachers. He added:
LLegislation regarding NSF's role in education
must specifically address how the NSF Education and
Human Resources Directorate will work with the
Department of Education to improve K-12 science and
math education and ensure NSF's role in educational
research and in science and math teacher development.
LSchools and departments of science, math, and
engineering on university campuses need to forge
relationships with the education schools and programs.
Teacher programs that have a strong science component,
including a research experience, are effective at
attracting and retaining teachers, as are those that
pair science and math teachers with mentors. NSF is
active in supporting both of these types of programs.
LMentoring for new and continuing teachers
should be a priority.
Ms. Rebecca Pringle stated that, based on her experience as
a science teacher and board member of the National Education
Association, the most important factor in improving K-12
science and math education is having teachers highly trained in
their chosen technical field and very well versed in
pedagogical methods. She was dismayed that the ACI did not
prioritize teacher training. She added:
LNSF has a long history of developing and
funding effective programs for science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) teachers, such as
workshops that help train teachers in how to explain
complex scientific principals.
LPartnerships between teachers and local
universities or industries would greatly benefit STEM
teaching. Mentoring programs for STEM teachers would be
similarly beneficial.
LThe role of the Department of Education in K-
12 STEM education should be as a clearinghouse,
gathering effective programs developed by the NSF and
adapting them to wider use. They also have a large role
to play in ensuring all students, regardless of race or
location, have equitable access to effective STEM
education.
LTeachers' pay should not be linked to what
subject they teach. In the long run, this could
compromise the entire education system.
Ms. Judy Snyder said that pedagogy and content should not
be considered separate entities, and that NSF programs do a
good job of teaching these in concert. As an agency, NSF is
less subject to short-term political movements, and its funding
goes directly to education projects without a state or local
intermediary. She also stated that the mentoring of teachers by
university and industry science professionals is beneficial for
teachers at all levels. She added:
LGifted students should have the opportunity
for immersion experiences in university classrooms, as
well as research experiences.
LNSF should continue to fund teacher
enhancement programs at universities that deepen
knowledge for K-12 teachers and open up new ways for
them to teach.
LTeachers should receive compensation for time
spent with students outside the classroom (like special
labs on weekends). With extra compensation, more
teachers might be persuaded to extend the science and
math learning hours.
About a dozen recipients of the 2005 Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching were also
present at the hearing. They each provided brief remarks on the
rewards and challenges they face as science and math teachers
and on actions policy-makers could take to help them be more
effective.
4.1(aa)_Innovation and Information Technology: The Government,
University, and Industry Roles in Information Technology
Research and Commercialization
May 5, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-48
Background
On Friday, May 5, 2006, the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives held a field briefing in Austin, Texas
to examine how information technology (IT) research and
development (R&D) sponsored or performed by government,
industry, and universities contributes to U.S. competitiveness
in the global IT market.
The witness were: (1) Dr. Peter Freeman, Assistant Director
for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National
Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Mr. Pike Powers, Partner,
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.; (3) Dr. Juan Sanchez, Vice
President for Research, The University of Texas at Austin; (4)
Dr. Randal Goodall, Director, External Programs, SEMATECH; (5)
Dr. Neil Iscoe, Director, Office of Technology
Commercialization, The University of Texas at Austin.
Summary of Hearing
Representative Smith, presiding as Chair of the briefing,
began by stating the vital role intellectual property
industries play in keeping the American economy competitive. In
order to secure American economic leadership, government,
industry, and the universities must work together to protect
American intellectual property and enhance the ability to
innovate in these fields. Increased attention to math and
science education is a key component to these efforts.
Representative Smith also noted the appropriateness of holding
the field briefing in Austin, Texas, a city renowned for its
high-tech industries.
Representative McCaul emphasized that university research
programs, like those at the University of Texas, funded by
federal agencies like NSF and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, have led to many of the technologies that
enable modern, electronic commerce and have kept the U.S.
economically competitive. In the face of increasing global
competition in high-tech industries, the U.S. must continue its
commitment to fund the R&D and educate the workforce that make
high-tech industries work.
Dr. Freeman focused his remarks on the ways in which NSF
investment in IT research promotes innovation and helps
commercialize new applications. For example, Google's founders
were recipients of an NSF grant who later commercialized their
application with great success. In addition to funding 86
percent of the computer science research on university
campuses, NSF works with the IT industry, both directly, and in
programs that complement on-going research supported by
industry and other government agencies. One way in which NSF
does this is through support for Industry/University
Cooperative Research Centers; current centers cover areas
ranging from wireless technologies to cyber security.
Mr. Pike Powers discussed the commercialization process for
university research and claimed that issues ranging from a lack
of commercialization experience to a lack of seed funding were
preventing universities from making the most of the research
performed at their institutions. He also mentioned programs
under NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of
Commerce whose continued support by Congress were important for
maximizing the success of the transfer of university research
to commercial applications.
Mr. Sanchez described how programs using the simulation
capabilities of advanced cyberinfrastructure (advanced
computing technologies, such as supercomputers and high-speed
networking) enable developments in emergent technologies from
medicine to geology. U.S. leadership in simulation-based
engineering and science relies on federal investment,
specifically through NSF. He called for federal support in
three areas: cyberinfrastructure, development of applications
to run on advanced cyberinfrastructure, and research on the
next generation of software and hardware.
Mr. Goodall stated that federal funding for basic computer
science R&D is the base of the entire U.S. IT industry.
However, universities that perform this research often face
challenges to the successful commercialization of new
technologies. These challenges include: the timelines of
graduate research (which are often much longer the industry's
own timeline for introducing and developing new technologies);
the typically narrow scope of university research; and the
difficulty universities have in maintaining intellectual
property portfolios. He recommended that, in the future, the
Federal Government, in addition to supporting emerging fields
such as nanomanufacturing and nanofabrication, should form
partnerships with States to support State development efforts
targeted at the semiconductor industry and technology
development.
Mr. Iscoe noted that the interplay of federal funding,
university exploration, and industrial application is vital to
keeping the U.S. IT industry competitive, and that university
research is necessary to help create disruptive new
technologies when industries become too entrenched in the last
set of innovations. He also mentioned the importance of state
programs in supporting innovation and fostering technology
transfers from local universities to local industries.
4.1(bb)_Inspector General Report on NOAA Weather Satellites
May 11, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-49
Background
On May 11, 2006, the House Committee on Science held a
hearing to discuss the report released by the Inspector General
(IG) entitled ``Poor Management Oversight and Ineffective
Incentives Leave NPOESS Program Well Over Budget and Behind
Schedule.''
The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) satellites are under development and
are designed to become the Nation's key weather satellites,
replacing the current generation of both civilian and military
weather satellites as they reach the end of their useful lives.
Yet the program is more than 25 percent or as much as $3
billion over budget and anywhere from 17 months to three years
behind schedule, creating a possible gap in weather satellite
coverage (if current satellites fail before new ones can be
launched).
The IG report examines how the NPOESS program got so off
track. The first finding is that the top officials at the
agencies responsible for NPOESS did not exercise sufficient
oversight and did not seek sufficient information from sources
who were independent of the NPOESS program. The second is that
the way the contract for NPOESS is written and the way it was
implemented enabled the contractor to receive sizable award
fees even when the program was not performing well.
The agencies in charge of NPOESS are the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of
Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The IG report only examines actions by
NOAA (which is the only NPOESS agency within the Commerce
Department IG's jurisdiction). NOAA is responsible for overall
program management of NPOESS and, during most of the period
under review, a NOAA employee was the day-to-day official in
charge of the NPOESS program.
The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. Johnnie E. Frazier,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) Vice
Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher (ret.), Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Frazier outlined the two major findings from the
Inspector General's audit of the NPOESS program, stating first
that EXCOM did not ``effectively challenge optimistic
assessments of the impact of VIIRS [Visible Infrared Imager
Radiometer Suite] problems on NPOESS.'' Mr. Frazier also
discussed flaws in the incentive fee plan and mentioned the
underlying fact that the incentive fee, though distributed, did
not promote exceptional work. Mr. Frazier called for routine,
independent reviews and evaluation of the progress on NPOESS.
Admiral Lautenbacher described the background of the NPOESS
program and the difficulties with the VIIRS sensor. Admiral
Lautenbacher explained how NOAA has been addressing the
recommendations. He said that he agreed with restructuring the
award process, and that he receives monthly status reports on
the NPOESS program. Regarding the future of the NPOESS program,
Admiral Lautenbacher stated that they will wait to receive the
final Nunn-McCurdy decision before making changes. He also
described the Program Management Council that he formed to
regularly evaluate other NOAA programs and projects,
specifically NOAA's other main satellite program, GOES-R.
Additionally, he described the GOES-R Independent Review Team
that has been established.
4.1(cc)_The Future of NPOESS: Results of the Nunn-McCurdy
Review of NOAA's Weather Satellite Program
June 8, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-53
Background
On June 8, 2006 the House Committee on Science held a
hearing to discuss the results of the statutorily required
review, known as a Nunn-McCurdy review, of the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).
This program, key to building new weather satellites for both
military and civilian forecasting, is jointly run by the
Department of Defense (DOD), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), with DOD and NOAA evenly
splitting the costs, except for the costs of providing one
preliminary satellite, which are being borne by NASA.
Under the law, any DOD-funded program that is more than 25
percent over budget must be reviewed to see if it should be
continued and, if so, in what manner. The review, which was
carried out under the auspices of DOD by all three NPOESS
agencies, determined that the program should be continued, but
the number of satellites and their capabilities will be scaled
back. The NPOESS agencies argue that the scaled back program
will be able to capture all weather data collected by current
satellites and will minimize the chance of having gap periods
when a full complement of satellites is not flying.
The revamped program is estimated to have acquisition (as
opposed to operational) costs of $11.1 billion ($11.5 billion
if launch costs are included). That is an increase of about 50
percent, or $3.7 billion over the most recent official baseline
of $7.4 billion issued in 2004. The original cost estimate for
the program as configured before the Nunn-McCurdy review, which
was issued in 2000, was $6.5 billion. No additional funds
beyond those already projected will be needed until fiscal year
(FY) 2010, according to the three NPOESS agencies. The first
NPOESS satellite would be launched in 2013. The 2004 estimate
assumed a first launch in 2010; the 2000 estimate assumed a
launch in 2008. The Committee is seeking background materials
to better evaluate and understand these estimates.
The Committee heard from: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Jr. (ret.), Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Michael Griffin,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(3) Dr. Ronald M. Sega, Under Secretary of the Air Force, U.S.
Department of Defense.
Summary of Hearing
Admiral Lautenbacher discussed the results of the Nunn-
McCurdy certification from NOAA's point of view, including data
continuity and minimizing the potential for a gap in coverage;
the status of all sensors and satellites in use; and the
scheduled launch of the NPOESS satellites with respect to the
duration of the program. He also emphasized NOAA's commitment
to meeting expectations concerning cost and schedule margins,
management reserves and oversight, and the performance
requirements of the technology used in weather forecasting
systems.
Dr. Griffin outlined NASA's commitment to supporting the
development of technology that allows for long-term climate
measurement. He affirmed that the continuity of existing
environmental monitoring sensors is a priority for NASA, and
that personnel there are doing their best to set priorities
within the provided resources.
Dr. Sega emphasized the Department of Defense's (DOD)
commitment to preserving the operational capabilities of NPOESS
and the military's dependence on the system. Dr. Sega added
that determining the number and type of sensors used in weather
forecasting systems is contingent on assuring core capability
and continuity while minimizing technology risks.
4.1(dd)_Voting Machines: Will the New Standards and Guidelines
Help Prevent Future Problems?
July 19, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-56
Background
On July 19, 2006, the House Committee on Science and the
Committee on House Administration held a joint hearing to
review new federal voluntary standards for voting equipment,
which were issued late last year, to see if they are likely to
improve the accuracy and security of voting, and to see if
states are likely to adopt the standards.
The new standards, known as the Voluntary Voting Systems
Guidelines (VVSG), were required by the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), which was enacted in 2002. Under the Act, the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) promulgates the standards, based on
recommendations from the Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC), which is chaired by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). The language in the Act
regarding the standards was written by the House Science
Committee and the House Administration Committee. The EAC
approved the first edition of these standards, the 2005
Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG), in December 2005,
but made the new standards (the 2005 VVSG) officially effective
as of December 2007.
The 2005 VVSG standards are voluntary and states are free
to adopt them, wholly or partially, as they see fit. In a
recent GAO report, The Nation's Evolving Election System as
Reflected in the November 2004 General Election, the GAO noted
widespread inconsistency in the use of federal technology
standards. In addition, the same GAO study noted that the
performance of the voting systems--such as accuracy,
reliability, and efficiency--was not consistently measured by
states.
The Committees heard from: (1) Ms. Donetta Davidson,
Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission; (2) Dr. William
Jeffrey, Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology; (3) Ms. Mary Kiffmeyer, Secretary of State for
Minnesota; (4) Ms. Linda Lamone, Administrator of Elections,
Maryland State Board of Elections; (5) Mr. John Groh, Chairman,
Election Technology Council; and (6) Dr. David Wagner,
Professor, University of California at Berkeley.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Davidson testified that the EAC's program to verify the
voting system is in the first phase of development, and that it
will be ``more rigorous. . .than ever before.'' She emphasized
the importance of voter education, which she said is just as
important as the machine's ability to function without error.
Dr. Jeffrey testified that NIST is on track to help achieve
the three main responsibilities that HAVA assigned to the
institute--prepare a report addressing the human factors in
voting error; chair and provide support to the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC); and recommend a
testing laboratories accreditation process to the EAC. He
clarified that the NIST process of accrediting and verifying
these machines is a new one, and still under work; he described
NVLAP, a program within NIST that establishes a process to
accredit testing labs. He also emphasized that the 2007
guidelines will need to be clarified and made more precise
before they can really assure security.
Ms. Kiffmeyer described how Minnesota selected its new
voting system, and emphasized that current security guidelines
are not sufficient to ensure voting accuracy. She said
improvements to guidelines for the use of wireless components
and the establishment of a paper trail are two areas in states
could use assistance.
Ms. Lamone outlined the four main aspects of the voting
process--the actual machines, the people voting, the
examination of the process, and then voting security itself.
She also discussed the problems with paper trails, including
how they contain the possibility of stifling the development of
other verification technologies, and how they relate to
disabled voters, especially the blind.
Dr. Wagner testified that in general, the federal process
to ensure voting accuracy and security is not working--the
laboratories cannot ``weed out'' machines that are not
functioning properly, occasionally approve faulty machines, and
that the federal guidelines are not addressing these issues. He
also underlined his belief that a voter-verified paper trail is
the only real way to assure accurate voting.
Mr. Groh described how the Information Technology
Association of America, and its partner groups, like the
Election Technology Council, are working to provide accurate
and secure voting--firstly, ensuring ``fiscal and operational
feasibility;'' secondly, the impact of testing and
certification on voting; thirdly, the need for continued
funding streams; and finally, the need for phased-in
implementation of any future changes.
4.1(ee)_Science and Technical Advice for the U.S. Congress
July 25, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-57
Background
On Tuesday, July 25, 2006, the House Science Committee held
a hearing to examine how Congress receives advice about
science, and whether and how the mechanisms for providing that
advice need to be improved.
The five witnesses were: (1) The Honorable Rush Holt,
Representative from the 12th District of New Jersey; (2) Dr.
Peter Blair, Executive Director of the Division on Engineering
and Physical Sciences at the National Academies; (3) Dr.
Catherine Hunt, President of the American Chemical Society and
the Leader for Technology Partnerships (Emerging Technologies)
at the Rohm and Haas Company; (4) Dr. Jon Peha, Professor in
the Departments of Engineering and Public Policy and Electrical
and Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; and (5)
Dr. Al Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by saying that though
he did not agree with the defunding of the Congress' Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995, he also thought that its
proponents have overstated the effect the OTA's loss has had on
the quality and impact of the scientific and technical (S&T)
information advice used by Congress. He hoped that the
witnesses today would give ideas and suggestions on how the
mechanisms by which Congress receives such advice could be
improved.
Ranking Member Gordon recalled the forty year history that
lead to the creation of the OTA. Created with bipartisan
support, OTA was relied upon by Congress for reports on S&T
issues for twenty years. Rep. Gordon stated his belief that
Congress could use OTA today as many issues before the
legislature are technical in nature and few Members have
technical backgrounds.
Rep. Holt stated his view that Members do not suffer from a
lack of S&T information; they are actually inundated with too
much information. However, they lack the tools to gauge the
validity, credibility, and usefulness of that information. He
argued that reviving OTA would alleviate this problem, adding:
LMembers voted in 1995 to de-fund OTA,
claiming dissatisfaction with the tardiness of reports.
However, this was due to the fact that the office was
under funded and over requested (in the last year of
its existence, fiscal year 1995, OTA's budget was
slightly over $20 million).
LSince the OTA's dissolution, Congress has not
received the quality scientific advice from outside
sources that they assumed would replace the S&T
information coming from the OTA.
Dr. Peha testified that Congress needs an organization to
frame S&T issues instead of appealing to organizations or
groups offering their own recommendations. One problem with the
current situation is that experts may give misleading
simplifications to Members. As non-experts, Members cannot
decipher substance from rhetoric. Peha recommended that:
LFor many complex issues, like communications
technology, there is no organization to synthesize all
the information.
LTo provide synthesis of technical information
and issues, Congress needs a new program or agency or
needs to establish such an agency in an existing
organization.
LTo be successful this program must be
responsive to the needs of Congress, credible in
technical communities, impartial, bipartisan and
sufficiently independent from Congress. With sufficient
independence, the agency could release controversial
studies without being concerned that its funding would
be eliminated.
Dr. Teich discussed the role of organizations, like AAAS,
in addressing complex scientific issues for Congress. He
identified the interpretation of available information as the
main hurdle that Members face when trying to effectively
utilize scientific and technical information. He added:
LThe National Academies take up to 12-18
months to produce reports--too long when information is
needed quickly.
LAdditionally, input from scientists tends to
focus on data and not large scale policy analyses;
Members need the historical, sociologic and comparative
aspects of S&T information.
LAAAS's Congressional Science Fellows program
places approximately 35 Ph.D. level scientists and
engineers in professional staff positions in
Congressional offices. This program is an effective way
to improve the S&T expertise available to Members, but
as this program is paid for by the fellows' supporting
scientific societies, the number of scientists and
Member offices participating has been limited by
funding.
LThe advantage of re-establishing OTA is that
Congress would not need to draft new legislation.
However, the re-established organization would need to
produce a product relevant to Members to ensure its
existence through consecutive Congresses.
Dr. Blair agreed with other panelists that the problem for
Congress is not the quantity of information but how to gauge
the validity and usefulness of available information. He
focused on the resources Congress already has, noting:
LCongress already receives information from
universities, think tanks, professional societies,
trusted constituents, existing congressional agencies,
and the National Academies.
LThe National Academies have a long history of
credibility, expertise, and objectivity and regularly
provide reports to Congress with findings and
recommendations that reflect the consensus of the
scientific community. However, the Academies' expertise
and processes do not readily extend past technical
analysis to provide recommendation on broader policy
implications which may require value judgments or
tradeoffs on which it may be difficult or impossible to
achieve consensus.
LCongress needs an S&T organization that can
evaluate policy options. This need could be fulfilled
by re-establishing and restructuring OTA, modifying an
existing Congressional office or agency to take on new
responsibilities, or even adapting the processes and
products of an outside organization.
LIf OTA were re-established, it would need to
be structured differently, including having a
bipartisan staff that gave both sides of the aisle a
sense of ownership of the office. Advances in
technology since 1995 have the potential to allow a new
OTA to function more efficiently and to react faster to
the requests of Members.
Dr. Hunt discussed the use of the organizations and
agencies already in place and the potential benefit of
establishing a new unit for interpreting S&T information. She
added:
LOutside experts can provide Congress with
nonpartisan analysis of complex issues. The Government
Accountability Office and the Congressional Research
Service can also provide this type of analysis.
However, neither group is equipped to meet all of
Congress' frequent and extensive needs.
LCongress should also charter an in-house S&T
unit characterized by bipartisanship, with sufficient,
skilled, professional staff and strong links to outside
experts. Re-establishing OTA could be done quickly, but
first Congress would need to address the concerns about
its performance that existed when Congress de-funded
OTA in 1995.
4.1(ff)_How Can Technologies Help Secure Our Borders?
September 13, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-60
Background
On Wednesday, September 13, 2006, the House Science
Committee held a hearing to consider the role of technology in
securing the country's land borders. Five witnesses testified
on the availability and practicality of technologies like
surveillance cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and
sensors to monitor and secure the borders. The witnesses also
discussed on-going programs and priorities for future research
and development of technology for border security.
The witnesses were: (1) Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS); (2) Mr. Gregory Giddens, Director of the Secure
Border Initiative Program Executive Office, DHS; (3) Dr. Peter
R. Worch, Independent Consultant and Member of the U.S. Air
Force Science Advisory Board; (4) Mr. G. Daniel Tyler,
Department Head of the National Security Technology Division,
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; (5) Dr.
Gervasio Prado, President of SenTech Inc.; and (6) Dr. Gregory
Pottie, Associate Dean for Research and Physical Resources,
Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of California Los Angeles.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert began the hearing by noting the important
role technology can play in carrying out the missions of DHS,
including the potential deployment of technology to thwart
illegal border crossings. He felt, to date, there was no
established and adequately funded plan for the research,
development, and deployment of technology for border security.
Chairman Boehlert stated that he hoped to hear the witnesses'
views on the direction the DHS Directorate of Science and
Technology (DHS S&T) should take.
Ranking Member Gordon wanted the witnesses to explore the
question of what detection, surveillance, communication, and
computer-aided analysis and control techniques are appropriate
and cost-effective, and how they can be integrated into an
effective border security system. He was also interested in how
DHS S&T would be assisting the Border Patrol in its procurement
stage for the Secure Borders Initiative (SBI).
Admiral Jay M. Cohen delivered testimony for DHS,
representing himself and Mr. Giddens. He explained that the SBI
will integrate the Department's efforts, from systems through
policies, against activities that threaten border security. DHS
S&T is supporting SBI by providing systems engineering tools,
processes and staff to evaluate technologies and analyze the
risks, gaps and trade-offs involved in various potential
investment strategies. DHS S&T will provide this technical
information to DHS staff making decisions about SBI
acquisitions and investment strategies, but DHS S&T does not
have responsibility for making the decisions or overseeing the
contracts. Admiral Cohen provided examples of the work DHS S&T
has supported for the SBI:
LA Border Watch Program which includes the
evaluation of technologies for border surveillance and
the development of tools for enhanced communication in
the field to facilitate apprehension and situational
awareness and technologies for pattern discovery and
prediction to improve intelligence collection.
LUnmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): In fiscal
year 2004, DHS S&T led an extensive interagency
evaluation of existing UAV technologies to determine
which UAVs should be purchased for use at the borders.
Currently, DHS S&T is working with the Department of
Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration to
improve technologies and determine policies to allow
UAVs to be used in commercial airspace.
Mr. Tyler testified on several major projects, like AT&T's
switch of the telecommunications infrastructure from analog to
digital technology, which serve as examples where systems
engineering was used to successfully tackle a massive and
complex technical issue. As a similarly large-scale and complex
problem, securing the borders is thus a prime candidate for a
systems engineering approach, which relies on solving problems
in phases with a disciplined methodology. He added:
LA two-year timescale for this problem should
first ensure the existence of major hardware and
infrastructure. Second, an open architecture would be
necessary to allow many organizations to freely
participate. Third, to avoid lengthy delays, program
coordinators should ensure contractors are already in
place before the implementation phase. Fourth, critical
technology needs to be in the pipeline so that it is
available when needed, thus necessitating an active
research and development (R&D) program.
LTechnical research priorities for DHS S&T
should be the development of algorithms for automated
detection and elimination of false alarms from
unattended ground sensors.
Dr. Peter Worch testified that the problem of securing the
border was a layered ``systems'' problem. He stated that
developers should insist on the integration of information, not
systems, and also on the implementation of an evolutionary
approach to the acquisition of new technologies. He added:
LThe first layer of the system is
``intelligence'' on the habits of people crossing the
borders, as well as on the topography and terrain of
the area. The next is a ``tripwire'' in the form of
either ground sensors or UAVs, followed by
investigation by UAVs. Then people, with real-time,
integrated information, can make the decision on
whether and how to respond.
LThree critical areas for border security R&D
are: sensors (basic ground sensors, improved processing
techniques to allow people to be more clearly
identified using radar, and automatic target
recognition), UAVs (more closely match the human user's
experience with that of flying a manned plane, programs
for air safety), and information management (to put
output from sensors in a form that allows the border
patrol agents to quickly and easily judge and act on
the information). The parties doing this research
should work in conjunction with military laboratories.
Dr. Prado testified as to the capabilities of the
unattended ground sensors his company develops and works to
integrate into systems that can produce usable intelligence for
an end-user. He also stated that investment in international
development could decrease the number of people attempting
illegal immigration into this country, thus contributing to
border security. He added:
LIn order to be effectively deployed in the
field, unattended ground sensor systems will have to
have extremely low power consumption, operate in
extreme weather, be designed to operate in concert, and
provide usable information to an end-user who may be
hundreds of miles away.
LTop priorities for DHS S&T should be to give
companies doing security technology R&D feedback from
agents using the sensors in the fields, allowing them
to appropriately direct future research.
Dr. Pottie testified on his research and that of the Center
for Embedded Network Sensing at UCLA on wireless sensor
networks. He noted that detecting ground vehicles, which make a
lot of noise and cause vibrations is relatively easy, but
detecting people is considerably more difficult, especially
since the environment in which they are moving can change the
characteristics of the signals the sensors detect. He noted
that information integration is extremely important and
cautioned against creating a system where personnel spend more
time supporting the system than the system spends supporting
them, adding:
LDHS contracts tend to have short-term
objectives. When looking for funding an academic has to
ensure long-term funding for his/her Ph.D. students.
4.1(gg)_Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: What Are the Federal Agencies Doing?
September 21, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-63
Background
On Thursday, September 21, 2006, the House Committee on
Science held a hearing to examine whether the Federal
Government is adequately funding, prioritizing, and
coordinating research on the environmental and safety impacts
of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, the science of materials and
devices of the scale of atoms and molecules, has entered the
consumer marketplace. Today, there are over 300 products on the
market claiming to contain nanomaterials (materials engineered
using nanotechnology or containing nano-sized particles),
generating an estimated $32 billion in revenue. There is
significant concern in industry that the projected economic
growth of nanotechnology could be undermined by either real
environmental and safety risks of nanotechnology or the
public's perception that such risks exist.
There is an unusual level of agreement among researchers,
and business and environmental organizations that the basic
scientific information needed to assess and protect against
potential risks does not yet exist. In October 2003, the White
House National Science and Technology Council organized an
interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications (NEHI) Working Group, composed of agencies with
research and regulatory responsibilities for nanotechnology, to
coordinate environmental and safety research. The NEHI Working
Group is charged with ``facilitate[ing] the identification,
prioritization, and implementation of research. . .required for
the responsible'' development and use of nanotechnology. The
Food and Drug Administration serves as the current Chair of the
NEHI Working Group.
One of the NEHI Working Group's initial tasks was
developing a report describing research needs for assessing and
managing the potential environmental and safety risks of
nanotechnology. In March 2006, the Administration informed the
Science Committee that this report would be completed that
spring. The report was released on the day of the hearing. The
report was a list of research needs and not a prioritized
strategy.
In July 2006, the Wilson Center's Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies released a report proposing a research
strategy for ``systematically exploring the potential risks of
nanotechnology.'' The report highlights critical federal
research that urgently needs to be carried out in the next two
years. The report also finds that current federal coordination
does not yet have an effective mechanism to set research
priorities, distribute tasks among the agencies, and ensure
that adequate resources are provided for the most urgent
research.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Norris E. Alderson, Chair
of the interagency NEHI Working Group, and Associate
Commissioner for Science at the Food and Drug Administration;
(2) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. William Farland, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Science, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA); (4) Dr. Altaf H. (Tof) Carim, Program Manager, Nanoscale
Science and Electron Scattering Center, Department of Energy
(DOE); (5) Mr. Matthew M. Nordan, President, Director of
Research, Lux Research, Inc.; and (6) Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief
Science Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Alderson outlined the purpose of the NEHI Working
Group, which he said was to ease the exchange of information
among the agencies which support nanotechnology research, and
those organizations which provide regulations and guidelines
for the implementation of research. He also described a report,
entitled ``Environmental Health and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials,'' which he identified as the
``first step'' in addressing upcoming nanotechnology research
needs. He also clarified that the NEHI was not responsible for
reviewing the environmental, health, and safety budgets of the
agencies participating in the NNI.
Dr. Bement described the NSF's research into
nanotechnology, which is divided into three main groups:
environmental health and safety, education, and ethical and
legal issues. He explained that the NSF sets its internal
annual priorities for nanoscale research based on input from
several organizations, including the NSF's nanotech working
group, the National Academies, and industry.
Dr. Farland emphasized the importance of understanding the
impacts of nanoparticles on the environment and on human
health. As more and more products on the market contain
nanoparticles, the EPA ``has an obligation to ensure that
potential environmental risks are adequately understood.'' He
also described that programs and research initiatives at the
EPA to better understand nanotechnology, including Science to
Achieve Results Program, and the Small Business Innovation
Research programs.
Dr. Carim described how the DOE prioritizes core research,
saying that only a few solicitations have concentrated
specifically on nanotechnology. Decisions, he said, are based
on peer review and merit evaluations. The five Nanoscale
Science Research Centers which the DOE operates work indirectly
on environmental, safety, and health issues raised by
nanotechnology.
Dr. Maynard emphasized the importance of top-down research
strategy for nanotechnology, and identified the Federal
Government as a good tool by which to do that. He estimated
that, at a minimum, the Federal Government will need to invest
$100 million in targeted research to get a ``strong science-
based foundation for safe nanotechnology.'' He recommended,
among other things, that the National Academy of Sciences be
called upon to develop an overarching research strategy for
environmental, health and safety issues.
Mr. Nordan outlined the three main concerns that private
industry has with nanotechnology: real risk, perceived risk,
and regulatory risks. Even if no real, tangible harm comes from
nanotechnology, Mr. Nordan described how a perceived risk by
the public could cripple the use of nanotechnology. He also
emphasized that corporations actually want increased regulation
to get rid of ambiguity and lack of guidelines. He identified a
``specific game plan for accomplishing research'' as the most
important factor in achieving sound nanotechnology research.
4.1(hh)_Implementing the Vision for Space Exploration:
Development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
September 28, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-65
Background
On Thursday, September 28th at 2:00 p.m. the House
Committee on Science held a hearing to review the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's efforts to develop the
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), which NASA has recently
announced will be called Orion. NASA selected Lockheed Martin
as its industry partner for the development and production of
Orion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report critical of NASA's contracting approach for the
acquisition of Orion. The report, entitled ``NASA: Long-Term
Commitment to and Investment in Space Exploration Program
Requires More Knowledge,'' faults the agency for committing to
a long-term contract for Orion before reaching an appropriate
level of understanding of the design and risks of the program.
Following discussions with the GAO and the Science Committee,
NASA revised its then pending contract with Lockheed Martin to
address some of the GAO's concerns.
This hearing sought to explore NASA's development schedule
and costs and provide a basis for ongoing oversight of this
program. Witnesses were Dr. Scott J. Horowitz, Associate
Administrator, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, NASA;
and Mr. Allen Li, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, Government Accountability Office.
Summary of Hearing
The Members' began questioning by asking how Congress
should monitor Orion development. Mr. Li explained the NASA
Authorization Act requires NASA to report on the program's
progress and technical risks to the Science Committee. NASA is
required to provide reports to the Committee and promised open
communication. Dr. Horowitz stressed that he plans on keeping
Congress well informed so that no one will ``have to wait for a
report to know what is going on.''
Members also asked how well NASA responded to the GAO
report. Mr. Li felt the report prompted Congress to investigate
the Orion program, which in turn caused NASA and GAO to meet
and discuss their differences. Mr. Li did feel NASA
underestimated what NASA considers to be low risk technology.
He expressed the fear NASA will succumb to the ``pressures of
both money and time, and maybe bypassing and shortchanging what
I would consider to be some basic, sound systems engineering
practices, and that is making sure that you do the testing,
making sure that there are certain reviews that are done.''
Despite uncertainties, Dr. Horowitz told the Members that
the program will avoid overruns with adequate oversight and
stable funding. Members asked how NASA would respond to a
formal cost cap on the CEV program. Dr. Horowitz noted the
budget is essentially a cost cap. NASA is motivated to keep the
CEV program within the budget to achieve later goals, like
going to the Moon. He explained if the program is short-funded
in the near-term then it will stretch out and increase costs in
the long-term.
GAO, however, recommended that Congress restrict annual
appropriations and limit NASA's obligations to the project's
preliminary design. Mr. Li felt NASA should follow a knowledge-
based acquisition strategy and currently NASA did not have
enough knowledge to proceed. He cited programs, such as NPOESS
and SBIRS, which misjudged their technological risks and
exceeded their costs. Dr. Horowitz responded that NASA had
reached a point where they could not learn more about the
designs without choosing a contractor.
Discussion also focused on potential complications during
the transition from the Shuttle to Orion and Aries. According
to NASA, they plan to address potential layoffs and make use of
their workers as much as possible.
Finally, discussion turned to controlling cost and
performance for Orion. Members asked how NASA plans to control
performance margin. Dr. Horowitz reassured Members that the
planned margins are sufficient and workable. He plans on
maintaining stability by restricting excess requirements that
ask the program to do more than they have the margin to
protect.
4.1(ii)_GAO Report on NOAA's Weather Satellite Program
September 29, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-66
Background
On September 29, 2006, the House Committee on Science held
a hearing about the status of a critical weather satellite
program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)
system. NOAA is beginning the process of purchasing the next
generation of the GOES system, which has been designated GOES-
R. Cost estimates for the system have escalated, and NOAA has
already announced the elimination of one new sensor that was to
be part of the satellite. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) recently completed a report about GOES-R, ``Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellites: Steps Remain in
Incorporating Lessons Learned from Other Satellite Programs.''
Government satellite programs have a history of technical
problems and major cost overruns. Most recently, NOAA and its
government partners (the Department of Defense and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) have experienced massive
cost overruns on another weather satellite program, the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS). The GOES-R program is at a much earlier stage
than NPOESS is at this point. NOAA has nearly completed the
preliminary design of GOES-R. Original estimates for GOES-R
placed the total cost at $6.2 billion, but as of May 2006 the
program office estimated costs could be as high as $11.4
billion. In an effort to lessen these costs, NOAA is currently
looking at options to reduce the scope and capabilities of
GOES-R.
The GAO report, requested by the Committee, examines the
status of the GOES-R program and reasons for the cost increases
and problems to date, and identifies program management actions
NOAA should take to ensure past problems with satellite
programs are not repeated with GOES-R. GAO identified four
major lessons from previous satellite programs and found that,
while NOAA has some plans to address those lessons, actions
remain for NOAA to fully implement the lessons and decrease the
risk of future cost overruns and technical problems.
The Committee heard from: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher (ret.), Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and (2) Mr. David Powner, Director
of Information Technology Management Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Summary of Hearing
Vice-Admiral Lautenbacher spoke extensively on the changes
made to the management of the GOES-R program, based on lessons
learned from the NPOESS program, the reviews from the GAO, and
the Department of Commerce Inspector General. These changes
include the creation of a NOAA program management council,
quarterly briefings to the Department of Commerce, and
consulting a former NASA program manager on the GOES-R program.
He identified a potential cost of ultimately $11.4 billion to
complete the GOES-R program and explained that NOAA decided to
remove one sensor, the Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES),
from GOES-R to reduce the cost and technical risk of the
program.
Mr. Powner explained the current cost and schedule
estimates for GOES-R, which he placed at $11 to 12 billion,
with the first satellite expected to launch in 2014 (with
coverage lasting until 2028). Despite an increase in the
expected cost, Mr. Powner explained that the GAO's findings
shows that NOAA's management team has taken some important
steps towards improving the execution of the GOES-R program,
but still has more to do.
During questions, members of the Committee emphasized that
Congress should maintain close oversight of GOES-R to ensure
NOAA continues to execute the program in a cost-effective
manner.
4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
4.2(a)_Priorities in the Department of Energy Budget for Fiscal
Year 2006
April 27, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-11
Background
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2006 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. Ray Orbach, Director of
the Office of Science, DOE; (2) Mr. Douglas Faulkner, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, DOE; (3) Mr. Mark Maddox, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, DOE; (4) Mr. Robert Shane Johnson,
Deputy Director for Technology in the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, DOE; (5) Mr. Kevin Kolevar, Director of
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Summary of Hearing
The Members in attendance at the hearing expressed concern
about various issues involving DOE and its research and
development activities. The discussion is summarized below.
Demonstration and Commercialization
Mrs. Biggert asked the panel about the criteria that DOE
uses to graduate activities from the laboratory to the
demonstration phase. Mr. Johnson described the process as
beginning with a laboratory demonstration, then a pilot-scale
demonstration, and eventually, assuming it has merit, an
engineering-scale demonstration. A project remains at the
laboratory scale until it is sufficiently mature for a larger
scale operation. For example, in the Nuclear Energy Office, the
labs are looking at thermo-chemical reactions, which are
characterized on a watt scale. Scaling the project up to the
kilowatt scale would be equivalent to a pilot demonstration. An
engineering scale demonstration would be in the megawatt range.
Mr. Honda questioned what role the government could play in
helping private industry to bring their research projects to
commercialization. Mr. Kolevar answered that the task of
bringing these projects to commercialization would be so varied
that the model would probably have to be changed in each
individual case. Mr. Kolevar also noted that the success of
these projects would rely heavily on their public-private
partnerships.
Nuclear Construction
Dr. Schwarz asked the panel when they believe a new nuclear
power-generating plant will be built in the United States and
what impediments stand in the way. Mr. Johnson stated that new
power plant construction depends on industry. He also stated
that DOE's nuclear power 2010 program is partnering with
industry to look at regulatory processes at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for identification of reactor
technologies, the identification of new sites to build upon,
and the issuance of combined construction operation licenses.
Mr. Johnson believes that a decision could be made by industry
to move forward with a plant order in the 2009 to 2010 time
frame.
Hydrogen
Mr. Inglis asked what the Department is doing with regard
to solving the problems of hydrogen storage and distribution.
Dr. Orbach discussed some of the major technical challenges for
the hydrogen economy: production, storage, and fuel cells. Dr.
Orbach stated that the Department is using modern tools to
research better catalysts to lower the temperature for the
cracking process of hydrogen. Also, the Department is looking
at open structures that can be artificially created for
hydrogen storage with just the right amount of absorption. For
fuel cells, the Department is looking at new membrane materials
that will be cheaper and more efficient.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency
Dr. Ehlers asked the panel if they could assure him that
DOE is putting full efforts into leading the way for energy
independence through energy conservation and energy efficiency.
Mr. Faulkner replied that DOE is working on educating the
public to be more energy efficient in their homes and offices.
Dr. Orbach said that the Department has been working on
developing new light sources that are solid state and much more
efficient than incandescent and fluorescent.
Coal
Mr. Costello inquired into the progress of FutureGen, the
clean coal demonstration project. Mr. Maddox said that he is
confident that the Federal Government will meet its commitments
on funding going forward. The Federal Government has joined the
DOE in negotiations for the legal agreements, and Mr. Maddox
stated that DOE has begun looking for other countries to join
FutureGen.
Nuclear Waste
Mrs. Biggert asked about the possibility of recycling spent
nuclear fuel and reusing it rather than storing it. Mr. Johnson
answered that DOE is pursuing separations technology for spent
nuclear fuel as part of the Advanced Fuel Cycle program. The
focus of that program is to see how they can safely and
securely treat the spent fuel from the current fleet of
reactors. DOE is looking into separating spent fuel
constituents and refabricating spent fuel into new fuel to be
recycled back into existing reactors or Generation IV fast
reactors.
4.2(b)_Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
June 16, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-18
Background
On June 16, the Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on
Science held a hearing to examine the status of nuclear fuel
reprocessing technologies in the United States.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Shane
Johnson, Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology and the Deputy Director for Technology,
Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. Phillip J. Finck, Deputy
Associate Laboratory Director, Applied Science and Technology
and National Security at Argonne National Laboratory; (3) Dr.
Roger Hagengruber, Director of Office for Policy, Security and
Technology and Director of the Institute for Public Policy at
the University of New Mexico; (4) Matthew Bunn, Senior Research
Associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing examined the status of reprocessing
technologies and the impact reprocessing would have on nuclear
waste management, weapons proliferation and efficiency of
nuclear fuel use.
Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert (R-IL) commented on
misperceptions about spent nuclear fuel, noting that the
nuclear `waste' coming out of a power reactor actually contains
much of its original energy content and can still be used as
`fuel.' She argued that current policy is wasting uranium
resources because of this missed opportunity. She also noted
that without a change in policy, a second repository, or an
expanded Yucca Mountain, will be required. She urged a closer
examination of these issues on the assumption that better use
of emissions-free nuclear power could help greatly with energy
demand.
Mr. Bunn said that there is no need to rush to make any
decision on nuclear fuel reprocessing by 2007. He stated that
while research and development on advanced concepts may offer
promise for the future, any near-term decision to reprocess
U.S. commercial spent nuclear fuel would be a serious mistake,
with costs and risks far outweighing its potential benefits.
Bunn continued by noting that dry storage casks offer the
option of storing spent fuel cheaply, safely, and securely for
decades, and that during that time, technological developments
and economic and political circumstances may very well shift in
favor of reprocessing.
Dr. Roger Hagengruber stated that having a 2007 deadline
would serve to ``motivate'' research and development, but
cautioned that science may not be able to deliver
proliferation-resistant and cost-effective technologies by
2007. Dr. Hagengruber suggested that, rather than forcing DOE
to recommend a specific technology in 2007 for implementation,
the Department should instead be required to identify the most
promising technology at that juncture and include in its report
a detailed discussion of the relationship of the technology to
the prospect of proliferation. He emphasized that DOE should
keep a reprocessing decision as a goal it but shouldn't rush
the decision.
Dr. Finck was more optimistic about the 2007 deadline given
the present state of development for reprocessing technologies.
He said that the level of development of at least one
reprocessing technology, UREX+, is satisfying program goals,
and by 2007 will be advanced to the stage where pilot-scale
testing is warranted. At that time it should also be possible
to evaluate whether any of the other promising technologies
currently being studied have proven capable of meeting program
goals, and are also near to pilot-scale testing.
Mr. Johnson did not take a position on the 2007 deadline,
but cited advanced fuel cycle technologies, such as UREX+, that
could be ready for deployment in the near future. He told the
Subcommittee that commercial scale-up of spent fuel
technologies can, based on our recent analysis, be performed
relatively rapidly, if existing domestic facilities could be
substantially modified and utilized.
4.2(c)_Economic Aspects of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
July 12, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-22
Background
On July 12, the Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on
Science held a hearing to examine whether it would be economic
for the U.S. to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, and what the
potential cost implications are for both the nuclear power
industry and the Federal Government. This hearing was a follow-
up to the June 16th Energy Subcommittee hearing that examined
the status of reprocessing technologies and the impact
reprocessing would have on nuclear waste management, weapons
proliferation and efficiency of nuclear fuel use.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Richard K.
Lester, Director of the Industrial Performance Center and a
Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (2) Dr. Donald W. Jones,
Vice President of Marketing and Senior Economist at RCF
Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc; (3) Dr. Steve Fetter,
Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of
Maryland; (4) Mr. Marvin Fertel, Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Summary of Hearing
The purpose of the hearing was to examine various views
held by economists, public policy experts, and a representative
of the nuclear industry, on the economic viability of
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the impact that
reprocessing would have on the future of the nuclear power
industry.
Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert (R-IL) opened the
hearing by stating that economics alone should not dictate a
decision to close the fuel cycle, and emphasized the importance
of understanding the relationship between costs and benefits in
order to make informed decisions about managing the growing
stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. She said that understanding
the economics of the advanced fuel cycle will allow
prioritization of research and development (R&D), which reduces
cost and improves economic feasibility of closing the fuel
cycle.
Dr. Lester focused on the competitiveness of the nuclear
industry, and stated that nobody on the panel disagrees that
electricity generation using reprocessing is more expensive
than generation using a once-through fuel cycle and disposal of
the waste. He added that opinions differ as to how large the
cost penalty would be. He said that unfavorable economics has
been one of the main barriers to nuclear energy investment for
decades, it remains a major issue today, and any proposed
course of action that would result in an increase in nuclear
generating costs should be viewed with caution.
Dr. Fetter commented on the current technologies and how
they may make reprocessing economically impractical today, but
that new technological advances could change the economics of
reprocessing in the future. He said that it is conceivable that
at some point in the long-term future, R&D could lead to a
fundamentally different approach that might have lower costs,
but it does not appear likely that costs associated with
reprocessing will be reduced to levels that would be
economically competitive with direct disposal in the
foreseeable future.
Dr. Jones testified that reprocessing would not have a
significant impact on the development costs of new nuclear
power plants and would not undermine the competitiveness of
nuclear power vis-a-vis fossil fuel sources. He said that the
first new nuclear plants would not be competitive with fossil
generation without some form of temporary assistance, and that
reprocessing would have little influence on the assistance
required to make it competitive. He added that if carbon
sequestration were to be required for fossil-fired generation
plants, new nuclear power plants, even with reprocessing, would
be competitive.
Mr. Fertel said that reprocessing holds great promise to
address such issues as nuclear fuel supplies and waste
disposal, but that additional R&D is needed to make
reprocessing economically viable. He added that future
reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is a worthy goal, but must
overcome several challenges before it can be used in the United
States, citing cost and nuclear proliferation concerns.
4.2(d)_Fueling the Future: On the Road to the Hydrogen Economy
July 20, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-23
Background
On July 20, 2005, the Energy and Research Subcommittees of
the Science Committee held a joint hearing to examine the
progress that has been made in hydrogen research since the
launch of the President's Hydrogen Initiative and the next
steps the Federal Government should take to best advance a
hydrogen economy.
The witness panel included: (1) Mr. Douglas Faulkner,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. David Bodde,
Director of Innovation and Public Policy at Clemson
University's International Center for Automotive Research; (3)
Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President for Advanced Vehicle
Engineering at the DaimlerChrysler Corporation; (4) Dr. George
Crabtree, Director of the Materials Science Division at Argonne
National Laboratory; (5) Dr. John Heywood, Director of the
Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Summary of Hearing
In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush
announced the creation of a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which
built on the FreedomCAR initiative he announced in 2002.
Together, the initiatives aim to provide the technology for a
hydrogen-based transportation economy, including production of
hydrogen, transportation and distribution of hydrogen, and the
vehicles that will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell cars running on
hydrogen would emit only water vapor and, if domestic energy
sources were used, would not be dependent on foreign fuels. The
Members in attendance at the hearing expressed concern about
various issues involving this initiative and DOE execution of
the program in particular. Discussion is summarized below.
Subcommittee on Energy Chairman Biggert opened the hearing
by stressing the importance that hydrogen and fuel cells hold
for a cleaner and more efficient nation that is less dependent
on foreign sources of oil. She noted that many of the benefits
of a hydrogen economy, such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, are not currently accounted for in the marketplace,
which will make it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to compete
with conventional technology.
Subcommittee on Research Chairman Bob Inglis advocated the
transition to a hydrogen economy for the sake of cleaner air,
and to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil. He added that
hydrogen entrepreneurs will be making money and employing
people, and that the U.S. will be winning our energy
independence. He admitted technology and cost challenges ahead,
but countered that the U.S. is up to the challenge.
Mr. Faulkner cited significant advances that DOE has made
in helping realize the President's hydrogen initiative, and
that fuel cell activities recently achieved an important
technology cost goal--the high-volume cost of automotive fuel
cells being reduced from $275 per kilowatt to $200 per
kilowatt. He stated that this accomplishment is a major step
toward the Program's goal of reducing the cost of
transportation fuel cell power systems to $45 per kilowatt by
2010.
The non-government witnesses urged the government to adopt
incentives to encourage additional research and development in
hydrogen technologies and urged a dual-path approach that would
focus on developing more immediate technologies that could
improve fuel efficiency, while continuing research into
alternative energy forms such as hydrogen, electricity and
biomass.
While citing hydrogen's benefits as a fuel that can be made
from a variety of sources and it's lack of emissions of
pollutants and greenhouse gasses, witnesses told the
Subcommittees that before a hydrogen economy can become reality
significant obstacles related to the production and storage of
hydrogen must be resolved. Dr. Bodde discussed the challenge in
hydrogen storage, noting that the most important long-term
research goal is to provide a more effective means of storing
hydrogen on vehicles than the compressed gas or cryogenic
liquid now in use.
Most hydrogen today is produced from natural gas, which
does not resolve the issue of U.S. reliance on foreign energy
or greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Crabtree emphasized that
advances in the production of hydrogen are imperative for the
fuel to become a practical solution. He added that to power
cars and light trucks in the coming decades we will need 10 to
15 times the amount of hydrogen we now produce, and that
hydrogen cannot continue to come from natural gas, as that
production route simply exchanges a dependence on foreign oil
for a dependence on foreign gas, and it does not reduce the
production of environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases. He
said that we must find carbon-neutral production routes for
hydrogen.
Mr. Chernoby discussed the advances his company has made in
developing hydrogen powered vehicles, stating that
DaimlerChrysler has been working on fuel cell technology for
transportation utilizing hydrogen for over ten years and they
have invested over $1 billion in R&D and have developed five
generations of vehicles. He said that they have 100 fuel cell
vehicles participating in various international demonstration
projects in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
Citing the significant technical barriers that must be
overcome, Dr. Heywood told the Subcommittees that hydrogen will
not become a widely used fuel for a number of years. He urged
improving fuel efficiency in the short-term, and continued
development of alternatives to fossil fuels, such as hydrogen,
electricity, and biomass fuels. He also recommended that the
U.S. Government play a more active role in increasing fuel
efficiency standards, as well as in R&D for alternative fuels;
and that there are many ways to improve current vehicle
technology to increase efficiency.
4.2(e)_Winning Teams and Innovative Technologies From the 2005
Solar Decathlon
November 2, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-30
Background
On Wednesday November 2, 2005 the Energy Subcommittee of
the House Committee on Science held a hearing to discuss the
2005 Solar Decathlon competition, an event that challenges the
Nation's colleges and universities to construct livable homes
that are energy efficient and completely powered by solar
energy. Sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE), the
competition was held on the National Mall and drew 120,000
visitors; the first, held in 2002, drew 100,000. Competing
homes in the Decathlon are judged in 10 categories:
architecture, dwelling, documentation, communications, comfort
zone, appliances, hot water, lighting, energy balance, and
getting around.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Richard F.
Moorer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Development,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE; (2) Mr.
Robert P. Schubert, Professor and Team Faculty Coordinator,
College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute; (3) Mr. Jeffrey R. Lyng, Graduate Student and Team
Project Manager, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural
Engineering, University of Colorado; (4) Mr. Jonathan R.
Knowles, Professor and Team Faculty Advisor, Department of
Architecture, Rhode Island School of Design; and 5) Mr. David
G. Schieren, Graduate Student and Energy Team Leader, Energy
Management, New York Institute of Technology.
Summary of Hearing
The purpose of the hearing was to examine how the Solar
Decathlon can help move new solar technologies into the
marketplace by showcasing real, working solar-powered homes to
the general public, and to discuss some of the barriers
involved.
Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert (R-IL) opened the
hearing by highlighting the positive effects solar energy and
energy efficient design in buildings could have on our energy
outlook. She noted that through the Solar Decathlon, young
scientists, engineers, and architects are offered a great way
to learn about the latest energy technologies, and inspire
their peers, the public, and policy-makers to think in new ways
about how energy is consumed.
Richard Moorer gave background on the competition, stating
that it is specifically designed to help teams integrate solar
energy and energy efficient building technologies and practices
into their designs, and that it was accomplished by fully
involving DOE's Solar Program and Building Technologies program
in Solar Decathlon team activities, including materials
development, pre-competition meetings, and contest designs.
Moorer also emphasized that sponsors like the American
Institute of Architects and BP Solar were intended to improve
outreach capability with professional builders, architects and
solar equipment manufacturers in the U.S.
Robert Schubert testified that the relationships built
between competing academic institutions and private industry
are important for facilitating technology transfer. He
explained that collaboration was essential between Virginia
Tech and GE Specialty Film as well as Sheet and Cabot
Corporation to come up with new innovations on sustainable,
environmentally friendly designs. He suggested that the main
technical and other barriers to greater use of solar energy
are: public perception, conservatism of the building industry;
cost, time of return on investment; and the paucity of new
architectural ideas relative to new technology. Schubert added
that the most important initial step for homeowners concerned
with energy consumption is to invest in conservation.
Jeffrey Lyng of Colorado (UC), the winning team in both
2005 and 2002, focused on the Decathlon guidelines and how they
could limit successful outreach; he added that UC's house would
not be very attractive to the mainstream market because it was
designed for a specific client and with the objective of being
transported over long distances. According to Lyng, the
competition's design limitations, which result in model homes
quite unlike a home that would be occupied by the general
public, will have a hindering effect on widespread adoption of
the technologies. He suggested that DOE consider increasing the
800 square foot size maximum, establish a mini grid from which
the houses could draw power--as they would in a real-world
application--and replace the current energy balance contest for
a life cycle contest that would more accurately reflect true
operational costs of the houses. Lyng also discussed the
importance of the Decathlon as a rare learning experience for
students.
Jonathan Knowles pointed out that nothing presented at the
Decathlon is out of the public's reach, but that while many
states, especially in New England and New York, offer generous
incentives to build energy efficient, solar-powered homes, each
state has different rules; and that in places like New York
State it can be difficult to elicit help from some
organizations that manage these programs. Because of this he
recommended that the Federal Government streamline rules
governing these programs, and embark upon a nationwide public
awareness campaign.
David Schieren discussed his team's use of hydrogen fuel
cells. He stated that the demonstration of fuel cells and other
innovative technologies featured in the Solar Decathlon helps
further advancements in the technologies and has a positive
impact on moving solar and efficiency technologies into the
mainstream building market. Schieren went on to suggest that
distributed generation with systems such as the hydrogen fuel
cell will redefine the energy paradigm in the U.S. In addition
to listing some of the barriers to a hydrogen economy, Schieren
cited the main barriers to mass market penetration of solar
technologies as: lack of public awareness about benefits of
solar energy and true costs of current fossil fuel-based
systems; high cost of solar materials and raw materials;
inconsistency of government incentives for homeowners and
developers; and a lack of engineer, construction worker, and
architect training.
4.2(f)_Assessing the Goals, Schedule, and Costs of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership
April 6, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-44
Background
On April 6, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
to examine the goals, schedules and costs of the advanced fuel
cycle technologies research and development program in the
Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
proposal.
The witness panel included: (1) Mr. Shane Johnson, Deputy
Director for Technology, Office of Nuclear Energy Science and
Technology, DOE; (2) Dr. Neil Todreas, Kepco Professor of
Nuclear Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (3) Dr. Richard Garwin,
IBM Fellow Emeritus, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown
Heights, NY; and (4) Mr. David Modeen, Vice President for
Nuclear Power and Chief Nuclear Officer, Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI).
Summary of Hearing
Noting that domestic electricity demand will grow by 50
percent in the next 20 years, Chairman Biggert asserted that
nuclear energy production must keep pace with this increasing
demand. She reminded the witnesses that there must be a
strategy for reducing the volume of waste destined for geologic
disposal in order for nuclear energy production to increase.
She outlined two potential options for reducing waste:
recycling spent fuel using current technology, which would
result in a 10 percent volume reduction; and developing an
advanced fuel cycle that included fast reactors, which would
result in a ten-fold reduction in volume. Although supportive
of GNEP, Chairwoman Biggert expressed concern that no systems
analysis had been completed and that the timetable was too
aggressive.
Mr. Johnson described the current status of the GNEP R&D
program, including an overview of the technology demonstration
timeline and an estimate of the total cost associated with the
construction and operation of the demonstration facilities.
Dr. Todreas agreed that GNEP is worthy of pursuit but
expressed concern in his testimony about the aggressive
timeline proposed under GNEP, suggesting that rapid
implementation of technology choices could threaten successful
execution of GNEP. He testified that simulation capability must
be the first step underlying all subsequent technology and
process selections. He added that there are insufficient funds
to support the necessary technical expertise and infrastructure
in the academic community.
Dr. Garwin compared the costs, proliferation-resistance,
and feasibility of the once-through versus advanced fuel cycle,
suggesting that GNEP would be much more expensive than building
several geologic repositories. He also stressed the need for a
systems analysis tool to guide decisions.
Mr. Modeen summarized EPRI's report on industry's nuclear
R&D agenda. He indicated that EPRI supports long-term R&D
leading to the recycling of spent fuel, but expressed concern
about that lack of alignment between government and industry on
goals, priorities and timelines.
Ranking Member Mike Honda (D-CA) asked Mr. Johnson if the
decision to choose uranium extraction (UREX) reprocessing
technology had been peer reviewed, and Mr. Johnson answered
that it had been. Dr. Todreas, while defending the use of UREX,
answered that there had not been enough R&D on the cost and
safety of UREX to determine if it was the best technology and
that no demonstration project had been completed. However, he
voiced concern over the proposed DOE demonstration project,
stating that it was ten times too large. Mr. Johnson explained
to the Members that despite mixed messages from the Department,
DOE would not be undertaking a demonstration project of this
scale. In addition, he answered Rep. Davis's (D-TN) concerns
about the locations of projects, stating that no sites had yet
been selected. Mr. Johnson assured Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) that
DOE was taking action to help with the construction of new
nuclear power plants in the near future, citing the Nuclear
2010 program, a cost-share initiative with industry.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked witnesses about the high-
temperature helium gas reactor technology, citing that this
reactor had been built in Japan and that it produced less waste
to begin with. All four witnesses had a favorable impression of
the reactor, though Mr. Modeen added that it would be decades
before such a reactor would be widely used.
4.2(g)_The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006
(Discussion Draft)
May 17, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-50
Background
On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
on a discussion draft of legislation to promote research and
development on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and related
advanced-vehicle technologies. The Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Act of 2006 was proposed by Representative Lamar Smith
(R-TX) to spur the commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, through R&D on batteries and other enabling
technologies, and through a demonstration program to study the
performance of plug-in hybrid vehicles under real-world driving
conditions. Unlike today's hybrids, plug-in hybrids are
designed to be driven for extended periods solely on battery
power, thus moving energy consumption from the gasoline tank to
the electric grid--batteries are charged overnight on the
grid--and emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant,
where, in theory, they are more easily controlled.
The witness panel included: (1) Dr. Andrew Frank, Professor
of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of
California, Davis; (2) Mr. Roger Duncan, Deputy General
Manager, Austin Energy; (3) Dr. Mark Duvall, Technology
Development Manager for Electric Transportation and Specialty
Vehicles, Science and Technology Division, Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI); (4) Mr. John German, Manager of
Environmental and Energy Analyses, American Honda Motor
Company; (5) Dr. Cliff Ricketts, Professor of Agricultural
Education, School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle
Tennessee State University; and (6) Dr. Danilo Santini, Senior
Economist and Section Leader for Technology Analysis, Center
for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory.
Summary of Hearing
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert opened the
hearing by noting that plug-in hybrid vehicles would allow us
to power our cars with clean energy, including from renewable
sources such as solar and wind. Rep. Smith added that for
economic, environmental and strategic reasons, it makes sense
to encourage automakers to go beyond their already popular
hybrid vehicles to produce plug-in hybrids. Rep. Smith said
that the proposed legislation would allow cities across the
Nation to take advantage of plug-in hybrid technology.
Witnesses expressed unanimous support for the discussion
draft provided to them by Rep. Smith, although they had some
suggestions on other needs that could be addressed in
legislation. Witnesses told the Subcommittee that the size and
cost of the battery are significant technical challenges and
that limited demonstration of existing technologies has kept
plug-in hybrids from penetrating the market-place--no plug-in
hybrids are currently offered to consumers. The witnesses
agreed that the programs proposed in Rep. Smith's draft bill
would help overcome these hurdles and advance the
commercialization of plug-in hybrids.
Dr. Frank testified that plug-in hybrid technology pre-
production and development of standards should be given a
higher priority than R&D, because a lot of the R&D has already
been done. He discussed the need to obtain feedback from
customers and manufacturers on a demonstration fleet, and
expressed the importance of figuring out how plug-ins would be
integrated with the electric grid.
Mr. Duncan praised the proposed demonstration program
because it would directly address what he sees as the most
pressing need--providing demonstration vehicles to State and
local governments, businesses and other Plug-in Partners. He
said that his organization would help in matching the great
consumer demand that could be uncovered with the demonstration
program proposed in this legislation. He also suggested that
Members consider adding federal fleet commitments to any
legislation.
Mr. German testified that hybrids, including plug-in
hybrids have a great deal of promise and that potential
challenges, especially energy storage, should be actively
investigated for solutions. He said that the proposed research
program is the best way for the Federal Government to
accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
Mr. Duvall testified that EPRI believes that the draft
legislation addresses the most critical technical challenges to
the development and adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles. He
added that there is a high degree of correlation between the
draft bill and the six priorities outlined by EPRI to advance
plug-in hybrid technology: establish a program with major auto
manufacturers to create prototype demonstrations; acquire a
fleet of plug-in vehicles to demonstrate throughout the United
States; collect and share data from consumers and fleet
operators about the benefits of plug-in hybrids; develop a
certification test protocol for plug-in hybrid drive systems;
establish a program to educate the public about plug-in hybrid
technology; and focus federal R&D efforts on increasing
performance of batteries, drive systems and power electronics.
Dr. Rickets focused his testimony on flex-fuel plug-in
hybrid vehicles, and suggested that the proposed legislation
could do more to address the flex-fuel aspect of plug-ins to
get away from gasoline altogether.
Dr. Santini discussed the specifics of battery
technologies, in particular lithium-ion batteries, and the
benefits they would offer with more R&D. He also discussed some
of the issues with all-battery vehicle operation versus
intermittent engine operation. He added that the current
electric grid infrastructure is adequate to support a larger
market penetration of plug-in hybrids than in likely over the
next few decades.
4.2(h)_Ending Our Addiction to Oil: Are Advanced Vehicles and
Fuels the Answer?
June 5, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-52
Background
On June 5, 2006 the House Science Committee's Energy
Subcommittee met for a field hearing in Naperville, Illinois to
examine advances in vehicle and fuel technology that could
strengthen U.S. energy security. Chairman Biggert was joined by
Energy Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Michael Honda (D-
CA) and Representative Daniel Lipinski (D-IL).
Testifying before the Subcommittee were: (1) Dr. Daniel
Gibbs, President, General Biomass Company; (2) Mr. Philip G.
Gott, Director for Automotive Custom Solutions, Global Insight;
(3) Mr. Deron Lovaas, Vehicles Campaign Director, Natural
Resources Defense Council; (4) Mr. Jerome Hinkle, Vice
President for Policy and Government Affairs, National Hydrogen
Association; (5) Dr. James F. Miller, Manager of the
Electrochemical Technology Program, Argonne National
Laboratory; (6) and Mr. Al Weverstad, Executive Director for
Mobile Emissions and Fuel Efficiency, General Motors Public
Policy Center.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Biggert opened the hearing by noting the
importance of examining new vehicles that can reduce fuel costs
and consumption of oil, which in turn, would improve our
national security, our economic security, and our environment,
not to mention the family budget. She then highlighted some of
the most pressing questions to be asked: what are the technical
or cost-competitiveness issues with important components, such
as batteries, fuel cells or power electronics? What major
hurdles stand in the way of the production or distribution of
advanced biofuels? What technical challenges have not received
sufficient attention? She added that one of the most
significant potential benefits of plug-in hybrids is that they
do not require a whole new ``refueling'' infrastructure, and
that the U.S. needs to be working towards cars that can run on
whichever energy source is available at the lowest cost--be it
electricity, gasoline, biofuel, hydrogen, or some combination
of these.
Ranking Member Honda expressed concerns over the
possibility of missing hidden obstacles after significant
initial investments have already been made. Because of this
concern he noted the importance of demonstration projects. He
also highlighted the projects in his district such as the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority's Zero Emission Bus
program, and the use of natural gas vehicles at the San Jose
airport, both of which have helped to demonstrate the
feasibility of alternative fuel vehicles.
Addressing questions regarding market barriers, Mr. Gott
explained that consumer values are focused on attributes other
than fuel efficiency, and that policy based on any assumption
otherwise is not going work. He added that transparency is the
primary condition that must be met for the consumer to adopt a
new technology in today's marketplace. He also stated that
cost, reliability, durability, range, refuel time and
convenience all need to be equal or better than the current
technology. Mr. Lovaas testified that the price signals are
there for consumers to look at new technologies, but the
problem is a lack of choices in terms of fuel and vehicles.
In terms of biofuel production, Dr. Gibbs pointed out major
hurdles in hauling low density biomass with diesel trucks over
long distances to production plants, including the fact that
trucks come back empty. He added that new technologies are
needed to resolve the inherent conflict between the need to
build larger plants and the need to deal with low density
biomass. He also expressed the need for critical components for
converting biomass, and gave the example that just one billion
gallons of cellulosic ethanol would require an amount of enzyme
that is about twice the annual production for all industry
enzymes in 1994.
Mr. Miller discussed plug-in hybrid vehicles, testifying
that a solution to the battery problem is to install public
charging stations at places where one might go for an hour,
such as a restaurant or parking lot. He said that it would cost
much less to install an electric charging station that it would
a fuel station for alcohol or hydrogen. Mr. Hinkle added that
because hydrogen is not going to be fungible worldwide, it is
like an electricity grid and will vary from region to region.
As a result hydrogen could work with individual states and
regions that have a renewable portfolio standard.
Mr. Weverstad pointed out that lithium-ion batteries are
the most promising, but that overall plug-in hybrids are very
complex and that simpler is better. He also said that GM needs
to do a better job of explaining that they have the most
vehicle models that get over 30 miles per gallon. As an example
he claimed that the GM Yukon would save 133 gallons in
comparison to Toyota's Prius over the course of a year of
operation.
4.2(i)_Renewable Energy Technologies_Research Directions,
Investment Opportunities, and Challenges to Commercial
Application in the United States and the Developing World
August 2, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-59
Background
On August 2, 2006 the Energy Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the potential of
renewable energy technologies to reduce dependence on foreign
energy sources, lower the cost of energy to consumers and boost
U.S. competitiveness. Testimony was taken by experts in the
field, including two Nobel Prize winners in physics. The
hearing was held at the San Jose, California, City Hall Council
Chambers.
The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Steven Chu, Director,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; (2) Dr. Arno Penzias,
Venture Partner, New Enterprise Associates, Palo Alto, CA; (3)
Christian Larsen, Vice President for Generation, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA; (4) David Pearce, President
and CEO, Miasole; and (5) Ron Swenson, co-founder, ElectroRoof
and EcoSage.
Summary of Hearing
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Biggert opened the hearing by
noting that Americans want affordable energy and a clean and
safe environment; however, because renewable energy research
has been undervalued, the United States acts as though the two
are mutually exclusive. She added that in order to address the
threat of climate change, we must reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. This requires not only improved energy
efficiency, but also greatly expanded use of renewable and non-
greenhouse gas-emitting energy technologies, including nuclear
power. Chairman Biggert asserted that, because of population
growth and economic expansion, it is essential to expand use of
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies faster than
the growth in energy consumption.
Ranking Member Honda observed that, throughout history,
wars have been fought over non-renewable natural resources, and
in a world focused on using renewable energy, these conflicts
could be avoided and greater stability achieved. The big
challenge he highlighted was being able to convince consumers
to adopt renewable energy. In order to do so renewables must be
cost effective. According to Honda the United States was once
the leader in solar technologies, but last year, only 11
percent of the photovoltaic generating capacity was
manufactured here. He went on to explain that the United States
has fallen behind global competitors, such as Germany and
Japan, which saw solar installation increase as a result of
significant incentive programs.
Mr. Swenson, who works on renewable energy systems in
developing nations, testified that fossil fuel subsidies
penalize the economics of renewable energy as much around the
world as in the United States. He noted that, according to the
International Energy Agency, energy subsidies total about $200
billion worldwide each year, and wondered what would happen to
energy markets if that money was invested in long-term
solutions instead of propping up a failing fossil fuel
infrastructure. Swenson also pointed to the benefits of
creating a government-industry education partnership, through
which students could receive support for training in management
of renewable energy systems. Such a partnership with
universities could help the United States politically and
economically, through collaboration with developing nations
that need to supply growing energy demands with carbon-neutral
sources.
Dr. Chu testified that energy efficiency remains the
``lowest hanging fruit.'' He went on to discuss the gains made
in energy efficiency standards since the 1970's and how
increased efficiency standards for refrigerators alone has
saved nearly double the amount of electricity from all U.S.
hydropower and comparable to that of all nuclear. Chu praised
the work being done in synthetic biology, a new field which can
be used to engineer organisms to produce ethanol, methanol, or
other hydrocarbon fuels. When it comes to developing renewable
infrastructures he underlined the rarely mentioned but
important factor of transmitting electricity. He noted that,
once electricity can be transmitted over 2,000 miles
efficiently, renewables can be a larger part of the energy
portfolio.
Mr. Pierce focused on the evolution of the solar cell
industry and the promise of ultra thin films for solar cells.
He observed that, due to such high demand for solar cells, the
basic silicon material based on crystalline silicon technology
is scarce. He noted that this 50-year-old technology represents
94 percent of the market. Pierce testified that thin films
represent a class of semiconductor material 1/100th the
thickness of standard silicon solar cells, which allows for
easier installation, upgrades, and eventually lower costs.
Pierce recommended expanded federal tax credits for solar
energy, and a federal loan guarantee program for distributed
generation for commercial buildings.
Mr. Larsen underlined the importance of the United States
keeping all energy options open by improving the economics of
electricity, and integrating renewables and energy efficiency,
as well as ensuring the continued use of coal, nuclear and
natural gas. He noted that a major technological barrier to
renewable energy implementation is related to dispatching and
controlling those resources, which presents a significant
integration challenge to the grid.
Dr. Penzias also linked U.S. energy independence and world
security to international renewable energy collaboration. He
explained how developing nations can use U.S. technology to
harvest crops that could be useful as biofuels. Through
partnerships the U.S. economy can benefit and the developing
world can fundamentally link their nascent economies to
renewable, carbon-neutral energy sources. Penzias also
suggested that, by separating pieces of the electricity grid,
the grid would not only be more secure and reliable, but also
more compatible with renewable energy generating systems.
4.2(j)_Department of Energy's Plan for Climate Change
Technology Programs
September 20, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-62
Background
On September 20, 2006 the House Science Committee's Energy
Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the scope of the
Administration's Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)
Strategic Plan. Established by President Bush in 2001, CCTP is
a multi-agency research and development (R&D) coordination
activity led by the Department of Energy (DOE) to focus R&D
activities more effectively on the President's near- and long-
term climate change goals. The CCTP Strategic Plan was
originally slated for public release by July 2002. The first
draft of the plan was not made available until September 2005.
The final plan was released on September 20, 2006, following a
public comment period in which approximately 30 individuals and
organizations commented on the plan.
The witnesses included: (1) Mr. Stephen Eule, Director,
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, DOE; (2) Ms. Judi
Greenwald, Director of Innovative Solution, Pew Center on
Global Climate Change; (3) Mr. Chris Mottershead, Distinguished
Advisor on Energy and the Environment, BP; and (4) Dr. Martin
Hoffert, Emeritus Professor of Physics, New York University.
Summary of Hearing
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Biggert opened the hearing by
noting that the hearing should be examining progress in year
three of the plan, which was released four years and two months
past the deadline former DOE Under Secretary Robert Card set
for release of the draft technology plan. She pointed to key
questions that needed to be addressed such as: whether the
strategic plan can be used to guide R&D investment decisions;
whether it will enable the United States to achieve the
Administration's stated goals; and how the CCTP plan and DOE
planning process can be improved.
Ranking Member Honda highlighted that there is no mention
of cross-cutting enabling technologies or integrated approaches
to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and no timelines or
technology roadmaps. He also asked why the plan places a low
priority on measurement and monitoring technologies, makes no
mention of adaptation to climate change, and lacks any policy
framework for technology transfer and use.
Mr. Eule testified that the plan provides a comprehensive,
long-term look at the nature of climate change challenge and
its potential solutions. He explained that it defines clear and
promising roles for advanced technologies by grouping
technologies for near-, mid- and long-term deployment, which
together will facilitate meeting CCTP goals. He also stated
that the plan outlines a process and criteria for setting
priorities by organizing and aligning federal climate change
R&D, and discusses in detail the current climate change
technology portfolio, with links to individual technology
roadmaps and goals. He added that CCTP would conduct and
support strategic planning exercises to identify gaps and
opportunities in climate change technology and realign the
portfolio as appropriate.
Ms. Greenwald agreed that the draft Strategic Plan provides
a fine overview of greenhouse gas (GHG)-reducing technologies
and the opportunities each could present over the long-term,
but criticized the plan for not charting how to deploy these
technologies, or provide a path for stabilizing GHG
concentrations. Greenwald testified that compiling information
about the technologies in the plan is not sufficient to ensure
their widespread penetration into the marketplace, and that the
plan ought to encourage a combination of ``pushing'' and
``pulling'' activities that would force carbon-reducing
technologies into the marketplace through the use of both R&D
incentives and mandatory carbon caps.
Mr. Mottershead viewed the CCTP Strategic Plan as
comprehensive, but expressed concern that the plan gave
insufficient attention to technology deployment. He noted that
many technologies already exist, and that there should be
greater focus upon deployment and diffusion of such
technologies, particularly engineering cost reduction, removal
of institutional barriers and the building of material new
markets.
Dr. Hoffert told the Subcommittee that the plan should
focus on a broader array of technologies and the infrastructure
needed to enable those technologies. He explained that, in
order to address climate change and energy security, the right
infrastructure for renewable energy must be built. He
elaborated that the greatest potential for a solution is from
solar and wind, which are intermittent, dispersed and low power
density sources, but that the right kind of electric utility
grids to accommodate those energy sources is still needed. He
also mentioned that if renewable sources are part of the answer
to energy security and climate change there needs to be a
discussion about what types of grids will provide the
transmission and storage capabilities to allow renewable energy
to provide roughly thirty percent of our nation's energy.
4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
4.3(a)_China, Europe, and the Use of Standards as Trade
Barriers: How Should the U.S. Respond?
May 11, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-13
Background
On May 11, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards held a hearing to review the
increasing use by U.S. trading partners of technical standards
and other standards-related requirements as barriers to trade,
and what U.S. companies, standards development organizations,
and the Federal Government are doing, and could do, to overcome
or reduce these barriers.
A standard is a technical specification for a product,
process, or service. Standards are used to ensure uniformity
and inter-operability. Standards play a powerful role in
domestic and international markets. If a standard achieves
broad acceptance in a market, it may lead to the abandonment of
technologies supported by alternative standards and the
domination of a market by a specific technology.
Countries can use standards as trade barriers by setting
domestic standards that are different from those which foreign
manufacturers would have normally used. (This can happen
inadvertently as well as deliberately.) This increases the
costs of exporting to the country in question because the
companies trying to export there must change their product
lines to meet the special standards requirements of that
country. Companies worldwide are worried that such measures
could escalate into ``standards wars,'' with countries closing
their markets to imports with technical requirements, rather
than tariffs.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Hratch Semerjian,
Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); (2) Mr. Robert Noth, Manager of Engineering
Standards for Deere & Company; (3) Dr. Don Deutsch, Vice
President for Standards Strategy and Architecture for Oracle;
(4) Mr. Joe Bhatia, Vice President for International Operations
at Underwriters Laboratory; and (5) Mr. David Karmol, Vice
President of Public Policy and Government Affairs at the
American National Standards Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Semerjian testified that the U.S. standards system
reflects the country's diverse, demand-driven economy. He said
that in the United States, standards are generally developed in
response to specific concerns and issues expressed by both
industry and government. He stated that this bottom-up, grass-
roots approach to standards development contrasts with the top-
down, government-driven approach used by many of our trading
partners. Dr. Semerjian stated that both the private and public
sectors of the United States should move quickly to strengthen
the interface between the U.S. standards system and the
international system to ensure that U.S. interests receive
consideration in international processes.
Mr. Noth called for better communication between the
private sector and government to ensure an equal playing field
for U.S.-based industry. He urged Congress to consider
endorsement of the United States Standards Strategy, which is
being developed under ANSI management. And, he argued that the
Federal Government must promote U.S.-based standards and
technology with our trading partners as an alternative to the
European approach. Finally, Mr. Noth called for the creation of
a policy-level council responsible for coordination of
standards at a strategic level.
Dr. Deutsch testified that the development and use of
market-led, voluntary standards played a significant role in
the growth and success of the U.S.-led global IT industry. The
Information Technology Industry Council's standards committee,
which Dr. Deutsch chairs, recommends that the government do the
following: strengthen Department of Commerce standards liaison
programs; continue to promote the use of global, voluntary,
market-led standards; and develop metrics to analyze the global
economic impact of standards.
Mr. Bhatia testified that the U.S. standards system works
effectively for all stakeholders. However, he stated that
certain international governments often exclude non-native
entities from conducting testing and certification, increasing
the costs associated with compliance. Mr. Bhatia called upon
the government to ensure that trade partners comply with
agreements that they have signed; link standards and conformity
issues to broader dialogue and agreements with trade partners;
negotiate new trade agreements that allow recognized domestic
certifiers to offer marks which are accepted in international
markets; and adequately fund U.S. outreach, promotion and
technical assistance programs internationally.
Mr. Karmol testified that China should be persuaded to
embrace the globally-accepted principles of standardization
endorsed by the World Trade Organization, and should adopt
existing, globally-accepted voluntary standards. He also said
that the American National Standards Institute believes that
European standards organizations should allow U.S. stakeholders
to participate in the development of EU standards. He stated
the government should work with the private sector to improve
standards education and outreach activities as well as
technical support and assistance. In addition, he requested
more resources to assure a strong U.S. presence at
international standards meetings. Finally, he called on
Congress to offer a resolution endorsing the U.S. Standards
Strategy, when it is completed.
4.3(b)_Small Business Innovation Research: What Is the Optimal
Role of Venture Capital?
June 28, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-20
Background
On June 28th, 2005 the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the Science Committee held a
hearing, ``Small Business Innovation Research: What Is the
Optimal Role of Venture Capital?'' The hearing focused on the
issues associated with awarding Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) grants to small businesses owned, or partly
owned by venture capital firms. The hearing also addressed the
different roles that SBIR grants and venture capital (VC) play
in the development of new technologies, and ways to improve the
SBIR program to more efficiently promote the development of new
technologies and help bring them to market.
A spirited debate is underway in the research and venture
capital communities on whether it is appropriate for SBIR
awards to be given to small companies that are majority-owned
by venture capital (VC) companies.
On December 3, 2004, the Small Business Administration
(SBA) issued a final rule saying that to be eligible for an
SBIR award, an entity must be a for-profit business at least 51
percent owned and controlled by one or more U.S. individuals,
or 51 percent owned and controlled by another small business
owned and controlled by Americans. Typically, VC firms are not
controlled by individuals, but rather by entities such as
private and public pension funds, financial and insurance
investors, and endowments and foundations.
Proponents of changing the current rule argue that VC firms
are a major source of financing in certain industries, such as
biotechnology, and that VC support can help a firm continue
research and commercialize products. Opponents contend that VC
firms are often run by large corporations. Therefore, opponents
argue, small businesses that are controlled by VC firms should
not be seen as independent small businesses in need of special
research funding, but rather as arms of large corporations that
do not merit SBIR support.
The Subcommittee heard from (1) The Honorable Sam Graves,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives; (2) Ms. Ann Eskesen,
President of Innovation Technology Institute; (3) Dr. Ron
Cohen, CEO of Accorda Technologies; (4) Mr. Jonathon Cohen,
President and CEO of 20/20 Gene Systems; (5) Dr. Carol Nacy,
CEO of Sequella Inc.; and (6) Dr. Frederic Abramson, President
and CEO of AlphaGenetics Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Congressman Graves testified about a recent ruling by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) that makes businesses that
are majority-owned by venture capital ineligible for SBIR
grants. He argued that the prohibitive costs of doing
biotechnology research require that small companies be allowed
to seek both SBIR grants and venture capital funds.
Ms. Eskesen presented data about the SBIR program and the
involvement of VC-funded companies in the SBIR program
throughout the program's history. Using this data, she
suggested the discussion should be shifted away from the
current controversy and should focus instead on developing
rules which would distinguish firms based on the state and
stage of the firm and the technology being developed, rather
than on the level of VC participation. This would effectively
shut the door to SBIR funding for later-stage pre-market
technologies but would allow SBIR participation by those VC-
funded companies that most criteria would be considered ``small
businesses.''
Dr. Ron Cohen testified that excluding VC-backed companies
from SBIR grants will result in lower quality science due to
decreased competition in the award process. He also noted that
in companies with both VC and SBIR funds, the VC money is
earmarked for the later-stage product development, and SBIR
money is used to develop new ideas that are deemed too risky be
venture funded. He supports SBIR eligibility for VC-backed
companies.
Mr. Jonathon Cohen testified that writing SBIR grant
proposals is extremely resource intensive, and VC-backed
companies have an unfair advantage. He also believes that the
SBIR program should be a set-aside for companies that are doing
important work but are unattractive to VCs because the products
these companies are developing serve a limited market or have
low profit potential. He supported the current SBA ruling.
Dr. Nacy testified that the reality of the drug development
process requires VC money, and that her company would not have
been able to develop tuberculosis diagnostic and treatment
technologies without both SBIR and VC funding. She also noted
that SBIR and VC money and SBIR grant monies do not co-mingle;
rather that they are used sequentially in research (SBIR) and
then clinical trials (VC). She felt that VC-backed companies
should be eligible for SBIR funding.
Dr. Abramson testified that allowing VC backed firms to
obtain SBIR grants would reduce the money available to small
companies in the earliest stages of development. He supported
the current SBA ruling.
4.3(c)_Health Care Information Technology: What Are the
Opportunities For and Barriers to Inter-operable Health
Information Technology Systems?
February 23, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-37
Background
On February 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a field hearing, ``Health Care Information Technology:
What are the Opportunities For and Barriers to Inter-operable
Health Information Technology Systems?'' The Committee held the
hearing to learn about the potential benefits of IT to health
care providers and consumers, the impact of IT on health care
costs and quality, and about the major challenges to
implementing a national health information technology system.
Inter-operability allows different information technology
systems and software applications to communicate, exchange
data, and use that information. Inter-operable health IT
systems can involve the use of and the ability to share: up-to-
date patient electronic health records (EHRs); electronic
physician orders for drug prescriptions and lab tests;
electronic referrals to specialists and other health care
providers; and electronic access to current treatments and
research findings. For these systems to share information,
especially if they are different IT systems, they must use
common standards for data transmission, medical terminology,
security, and other features.
The hearing reviewed federal, State and private-sector
efforts to promote connectivity, which enables health care
providers to access patient data from any location. The hearing
also examined efforts to develop standards for security,
privacy and inter-operability, which are crucial to the
adoption of nationwide health IT systems.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. William Jeffrey,
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST); (2) Dr. Jody Pettit, Project Chair at the Oregon Health
Care Quality Corporation; (3) Ms. Diane Cecchettini, RN,
President and CEO of MultiCare Health System; (4) Mr. John Jay
Kenagy, Chief Information Officer at Oregon Health and Science
University; (5) Dr. Homer Chin, Medical Director for Clinical
Information Systems at Kaiser Permanente Northwest; (6) Mr.
Luis Machuca, President and CEO of Kryptiq Corporation; and (7)
Mr. Prem Urali, President and CEO of HealthUnity Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Jeffrey testified that NIST has been working with the
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology (ONC) on standards harmonization, conformity
assessment, developing the architectural management system for
the health information network, and privacy and security. He
said that because there are so many health IT standards in
existence and development, NIST is working with the health care
community ``to develop and demonstrate a prototype health care
standards landscape.''
Dr. Pettit testified that the goal of the Oregon Health
Information Infrastructure (OHII) is to ``catalyze the
formation of a regional health information organization.'' She
emphasized that the patient must be at the center of the health
IT system development process, and that free flow of
information is key. Finally, she argued that while federal
initiatives are moving forward, state initiatives are not being
given enough support. She called on the Federal Government to
provide assistance or start-up capital.
Ms. Cecchettini testified that implementing EHR's has
helped MultiCare Health System by reducing errors and redundant
costs; helping to contact patients for drug recalls; and
improving childhood immunization and mammogram compliance
figures. Ms. Cecchettini called for the Federal and State
Governments to adopt common standards to support inter-
operability; provide payment incentives for adopters of
technology; ensure protection of consumer privacy by enforcing
security measures; and support common vocabulary for medical
terminology.
Mr. Kenagy testified that the large number of choices
rather than lack of choices available for health IT adoption is
a problem. In addition, he stated that learning and
implementing a new health IT system takes significant time for
clinicians and other health care professionals. He called on
the Federal Government to expand research in health IT, to
support training programs for clinicians and IT professionals,
and to address the economic disincentives to invest in health
IT.
Dr. Chin testified that Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW)
has been successful at utilizing health IT because KPNW offers
an integrated comprehensive health care system and because it
provides prepaid insurance to its members, providing an
incentive to keep members healthy. He identified a lack of
incentives to be efficient and effective at delivering health
care, and the subjective and changing nature of health care as
the two primary problems facing effective health care. Dr. Chin
stated that the Federal and State Governments should provide
incentives for health care organizations to implement IT, and
more stringent standards.
Mr. Machuca testified that health IT adoption strategies
should focus on collaboration and communication in addition to
EHR's. He called on the government to fund the implementation
of electronic collaboration in public health settings; and
mediate a standard for patient medical record.
Mr. Urali testified that efforts to promote health IT
adoption must start with clinicians. He encouraged the
government to fund education and training to promote best
practices, and to focus on creating the right policy and
incentives environment, and that the private sector should
innovate. Finally, he stated there should be a greater focus on
the regional level for adoption, rather than the national
level.
4.3(d)_EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 Science and Technology Budget
Proposal
March 16, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-41
Background
On March 16, 2006 the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget request for Science and
Technology (S&T).
EPA's overall FY07 budget request is $7.3 billion. The S&T
portion of the budget request is $788 million or slightly more
than 10 percent of the total. Nearly $528 million (72 percent)
of S&T funding is for EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD), which is the primary research arm of the agency. ORD
also receives a small amount of funding from the agency's
Superfund program for research on hazardous waste remediation.
Typically, most of the remaining S&T funds go to the Office of
Air and Radiation, and a smaller amount to the Office of Water.
The agency's FY07 budget request proposes a larger share of S&T
funds than in past years for the Office of Water's homeland
security activities.
ORD conducts and sponsors both fundamental research in
environmental science and more targeted research that informs
EPA's regulatory programs. For example, ORD develops the
scientific risk information for the agency's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), a database about human health
effects from chemicals in the environment. It is used by EPA
programs and states to help determine hazardous waste site
clean up levels and drinking water standards. In air quality,
ORD develops the scientific underpinning for EPA's air quality
standards in areas such as particulate matter and ozone. And
ORD also investigates newer environmental questions such as the
environmental implications and applications of nanotechnology.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. George Gray, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and
Science Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (2) Dr.
M. Granger Morgan, Chair, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB);
(3) Dr. Don Langenberg, Vice-Chair, the National Council for
Science and the Environment; (4) Mr. Jeff Ruch, Executive
Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Gray testified that the President has requested $788.3
million for EPA's science and technology budget, of which $557
million will be allocated for the Office of Research and
Development. He identified homeland security research as one of
the primary priorities of the EPA, as it contributes to the
general expertise within the Office of Research and
Development. Dr. Gray also addressed IRIS, the Integrated Risk
Information System, stating that its goal is to be open,
transparent and accepting of data and expertise from the
scientific community.
Dr. Morgan testified that the inflation adjusted budget for
the Office of Research and Development has declined by over 16
percent in four years while the environmental challenges have
grown. Dr. Morgan called for a more comprehensive approach to
environmental research that is currently being conducted
throughout the United States. He also stated that the homeland
security research program is more like an operational program,
and thus should not be funded by the Office of Research and
Development.
Dr. Langenberg called for increased funding for EPA's
Office of Research and Development, in order for EPA scientists
to continue contributing to improving the scientific basis for
environmental decision making. Dr. Langenberg pointed out that
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) has been a very successful
program that has been receiving less funding in recent years.
Mr. Ruch called for a halt to the political intervention in
the dialogue between the public and EPA scientists. Mr. Ruch
said that the science and technology budget shows a shift
towards corporate regulatory needs rather than human and
ecological research. Mr. Ruch called for an independent survey
of the Agency's scientists.
4.3(e)_Great Lakes Restoration: How? How Soon?
April 21, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-A
Background
On April 21, 2006, the House Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a field briefing to explore how agencies and policy-makers
prioritize and manage science to meet resource management
information needs for Great Lakes restoration. The Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration (GLRC), a consortium of federal, State,
regional, local, and non-governmental stakeholders led by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), recently completed a
comprehensive strategy for restoring the Great Lakes and
associated watersheds. The strategy, which is strongly
supported by the many organizations involved in its creation,
establishes goals and provides guidance to the many agencies,
organizations, and resource managers involved in Great Lakes
restoration. It also describes the science and scientific tools
needed to support the restoration priorities.
The Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater system
in the world. Over 35 million people use the Great Lakes system
for drinking water, irrigation, commerce, transportation, food,
recreation, and cultural needs. Early concerns with the health
of the Great Lakes and those that depend on them focused on
industrial pollution and sewage.
In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement formally recognizing the need for
a comprehensive and coordinated approach to address water
quality concerns in the Great Lakes basin. Since then, even as
progress has been made reducing point source pollution, there
has been growing concern with non-point source pollution, such
as urban and agricultural runoff, contaminated sediment and the
growth of nonnative species.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Ms. Jan O'Connell, Sierra
Club of Michigan Treasurer; (2) Mr. George Heartwell, Mayor of
Grand Rapids, Michigan; (3) Mr. Gary V. Gulezian, Director of
EPA Great Lake National Program Office; (4) Dr. Steven Brandt,
Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research lab at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (5) Ms.
Katherine Cunningham Ballard, Chief of Coastal Management
Program in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
(6) Dr. Alan Steinman, Director of Grand Valley State
University's Annis Water Resources Institute; (7) Dr. Don
Scavia, Professor of Natural Resources at the University of
Michigan and head of the Michigan Sea Grant Program.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. O'Connell cited a lack of adequate funding as a primary
problem facing Great Lake restoration, despite the fact that
Great Lakes account for over 42 million people's water needs
and 20 percent of the world's fresh water. She also discussed
the December 2005 report on the condition of the Great Lakes,
which identified the deteriorating condition of the lakes, the
rapid disappearance of important species, and the resurgence of
Lake Erie's dead zone as areas of concern. O'Connell said that
in order to prevent the further deterioration of the lakes,
funding should be increased and action taken to avoid the
introduction of aquatic invasive species and enforcing water
standards more stringently.
Mayor Heartwell identified a lack of both action and
funding as problem areas, and described the need to reduce
sewer overflows, eliminate beach closures, protect and restore
key habitats and wetlands, clean up contaminated areas of
concern, and dispose of hazardous waste in a non-invasive way.
He also suggested introducing invasive species legislation;
increasing funding for an updated water infrastructure and
wetlands programs; and introducing an electronic fish barrier
on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. He stressed the
significance of efficient and comprehensive monitoring of the
environment, as well as forecasting tools for predicting how
specific management actions can improve problems that arise.
Mr. Gulezian stated that it would be more effective to
redistribute funds and resources than to continue using current
funding. He cited the fact that federal agencies get $500
million per year for Great Lakes funding, and that under the
Great Lakes Legacy Act, three projects were already in progress
and obtained their funding from other agencies within the
system. He also emphasized that the EPA was integral to
restoring the lakes, since it acts as a coordinator of federal
resources for all active parties.
Dr. Brandt introduced NOAA's five-year research plan, which
involves four principles: management and restoration; the
integration of research and observation; a focus on prediction
and forecasting; and using research findings to develop
decision-making tools. He emphasized the importance of working
with stakeholders and policy-makers for feedback on the plan.
Ms. Ballard made several recommendations about restoring
the Great Lakes, including adopting an Implementation Plan to
prioritize actions, allocate funding, and increase
collaboration; increasing both short- and long-term monitoring
of environmental trends; focusing on the health of nearshore
and tributary areas; providing more data and managing resources
to coastal ocean state governments; and increased funding to
implement the GLRC recommendations.
Dr. Steinman discussed invasive species, nearshore and
coastal protection, and non-point source pollution. He said
that organizations should take advantage of their current
programs to re-examine ocean shipping and its economic
ramifications, enforce regulatory and incentive-based programs,
educate the public, and implement a basin-wide ban on
phosphorus-based lawn fertilizers. He also advised that funding
and monitoring activities be increased.
Dr. Scavia emphasized the importance of restoring the Great
Lakes to our local, regional, and national economic and
ecological health, and added that delaying restoration could
push the Lakes past the ``tipping point,'' after which it is
nearly impossible to recover. He discussed the particularly
dramatic effects of food-web disruptions and invasive species,
and stated that restoring nearshore regions, stopping invasive
species, and increasing monitoring and basic research should
all be priorities for restoring the Great Lakes.
4.3(f)_Improving Drought Monitoring and Forecasting: H.R. 5136,
the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006
May 4, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-47
Background
On May 4, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to better understand ways to forecast and
predict occurrences of drought, which can have profound
economic, social, and environmental impacts, and to receive
comments on H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought
Information System Act of 2006.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
estimates that drought results in total economic costs in the
U.S. of $6 to $8 billion each year from such impacts as crop
loss; premature livestock sales; degraded water quality;
decreased tourism revenue from limited rafting, boating,
fishing, golfing and skiing; decreased energy generation
capacity; increased ground-water pumping costs; and reduced
barge tonnage for commercial shipping. While drought is not
sudden or violent, it can be among the most devastating of
natural disasters, and it affects all parts of the country. In
every one of the hundred years ending in 1995, some part of the
United States has experienced a severe or extreme drought.
Experts in drought mitigation contend that substantial
losses due to drought are not inevitable, because with adequate
prior knowledge, the extent and severity can be substantially
mitigated. Investments by Federal, State and local governments
have targeted research on and monitoring of droughts. However,
these efforts have generally been unconnected and
uncoordinated. Many researchers and water users believe that
tying together and building upon current drought research and
monitoring efforts will result in significant improvements in
forecasting and mitigating drought.
NOAA has collaborated closely with other federal agencies,
the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and other stakeholders
to develop a plan for a National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS). Coordination of monitoring efforts across
agencies is expected to lead to more efficient and effective
data collection, especially soil moisture data and ground
water, decreased duplication of effort, and more even and
complete monitoring of critical regions.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Chester Koblinsky,
Director, Climate Program Office, NOAA; (2) Mr. Duane Smith,
Vice Chair, Western States Water Council and ; (3) Mr. Kenneth
Dierschke, President, Texas Farm Bureau; (4) Mr. Marc D. Waage,
P.E., Manager, Raw Water Supply, Denver Water; (5) Dr. Donald
A. Wilhite, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center,
University of Nebraska;
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Koblinsky discussed the role that NOAA plays in
monitoring droughts, specifically mentioning the U.S. Drought
Monitor, a weekly update of drought conditions throughout the
United States. He said that because drought is an interplay
between water availability and human use, supplying better
information to natural resource managers will help alleviate
the effects of drought. According to Dr. Koblinsky, NIDIS would
provide this critical information. He stated that NIDIS will
take five to six years to fully implement and will incorporate
existing drought information and forecasts, while supplementing
missing data with additional observations and research.
Mr. Smith testified that much of the currently available
information is not presented in a usable format. NIDIS, Mr.
Smith says, will incorporate a variety of forecasting methods,
analysis techniques and observations. This integration will
allow decision makers to easily access climatic information.
Mr. Smith stated that NIDIS will include assessments from
sectors that have not previously been considered, such as
livestock, timber, wildlife, energy, recreation, and tourism
sectors. Mr. Smith reported that the Western Governors
Association unanimously supports NIDIS.
Mr. Dierschke discussed the devastating effects of drought
on his home state of Texas. He reported that in 2005, the Texas
Cooperative Extension Service estimated over $1 billion in
damages to the agricultural community. Beyond direct crop loss,
Mr. Dierschke mentioned the long-term effect of deteriorated
range land. He argued in support of long-term weather and
climate forecasting, citing the limitations of current weather
information in decision making. Mr. Dierschke concluded by
saying that the Farm Bureau supports H.R. 5136, and that NIDIS
will help farmers and ranchers better prepare for the future.
Mr. Waage discussed the severity of drought in Colorado and
how Denver has used weather related information to budget
water. According to Mr. Waage, NIDIS would: provide a database
of up-to-date information; facilitate interaction between the
government and those affected by droughts and; would provide
much needed long-range weather forecasts. He also discussed the
benefits that could come from knowing the amount of snowmelt
and long-term weather forecasts.
Dr. Wilhite discussed the role that the National Drought
Mitigation Center (NDMC) has in drought monitoring and
mitigation. According to Dr. Wilhite, the NDMC developed the
first Internet based drought impact database. He emphasized the
need for accurate information to be readily available for
decision-makers. Dr. Wilhite said that the NDMC could be a
helpful partner for NOAA throughout the implementation of
NIDIS. He concluded by discussing how better climate data, more
reliable forecasts and a more timely communication of this data
will improve water management.
4.3(g)_Views of the NIST Nobel Laureates on Science Policy
May 24, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-51
Background
On May 24, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to better understand the views of three Nobel
Prize winning scientists on American Science Policy, including
the role of the Federal Government and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) in supporting American
leadership in the fields of science and technology.
Created by Congress in 1901, NIST promotes U.S. innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement
science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance
economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST houses
major facilities that play a critical role in measurement and
standards research, as well as supporting technology
development for future industries. These facilities include the
atomic clock, the National Center for Neutron Research, and the
National Nanotechnology and Nanometrology Facility.
NIST rewards and encourages promising scientists in several
ways: the Competence program, the Presidential Early Career
Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), and increasing
support for individual scientists from NIST's base funding.
Each of NIST's Nobel laureates benefited from one or all of
these rewards. In competing for the best and the brightest with
the Nation's top universities NIST provides gifted scientists
with the long-term, stable research funding and an
interdisciplinary environment not generally available
elsewhere.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. William Phillips,
Scientist, Physics Division, National Institute of Standards
and Technology; (2) Dr. Eric Cornell, Senior Scientist,
National Institute of Standards and Technology; (3) Dr. John
``Jan'' Hall, Scientist Emeritus, National Institute of
Standards and Technology;
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Phillips discussed his work at NIST, which began as a
side project in cooling atoms, and concluded with his Nobel
Prize-winning research on laser trapping and cooling. His work
has applications for atomic clocks and also for security, in
the form of code-breaking abilities and guaranteed privacy. Dr.
Phillips emphasized the crucial role that NIST played in
supporting his work, stating that the resources present at
NIST, his qualified colleagues, and especially the encouraging
environment all contributed to his success. He emphasized the
importance of basic research, because while industries may let
this fall by the way side, he said, the government must ``step
up'' and take a long-term view of research.
Dr. Cornell re-emphasized how helpful the management and
environment at NIST had been in supporting his research. He
also explained how his work with quantum physics can apply to
code breaking and computers, and those implications for our
national and economic security-quantum based computers can
break codes ``a billion times'' faster than a regular computer.
He emphasized that welcoming the brightest foreign scientists
to study and work in our country will be very important for the
U.S.'s keeping the leading edge in science and technology.
Dr. Hall reiterated how NIST's flexibility and
responsiveness to new ideas was critical in encouraging his
research; without rigid objectives, the scientists were allowed
to follow where there research took them. He emphasized the
importance of science education for school children,
specifically those in middle school, as well as welcoming
foreign scientists, and increasing funding in basic research.
He identified the lack (or perceived lack) of well paying jobs
in certain science fields, which discourages students from
aiming towards those fields.
4.3(h)_Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration: H.R. 3835, the
National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea
Research Program Act of 2005
July 27, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-58
Background
On July 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science
held a hearing to examine the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Undersea Research Program
(NURP) and Ocean Exploration (OE) Program and to receive
comments on H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration Program
Act of 2005 and the Undersea Research Program Act of 2005.
NURP, which had its origins in the 1970s, funds applied
research in areas such as ecology and fisheries management that
can be of use to policy-makers, and generally focuses on areas
that are relatively close to shore. NURP also funds the
development of technology for undersea research, and education
and outreach programs (such as the Aquarius underwater habitat,
and JASON, which lets schools participate in undersea
research).
The OE program provides grants to researchers for
expeditions to discover and document unknown or little know
features of the oceans and Great Lakes. The program focuses on
a smaller pool of scientists who attempt to discover and record
new and novel physical, biological or chemical aspects of the
deep ocean far from the continental shelf, often deeper than
10,000 feet. The program supports development of new
technologies and works with academic and industry partners to
adapt commercial and experimental technologies to deep-water
exploration activities. Education and outreach is a high
priority, and OE uses its high-profile expeditions to engage
students and the general public in the exploratory process and
raise awareness of marine issues and their impacts on people's
daily lives.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Hon. Jim Saxton,
Representative in Congress, State of New Jersey; (2) Dr.
Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, NOAA; (3) Andrew
Shepard, Director, Southeastern U.S. and Golf of Mexico,
National Undersea Research Center; (4) Dr. Marcia McNutt,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute;
Summary of Hearing
Hon. Saxton discussed the specifics of H.R. 3835, for
example the increased coordination between NOAA and the
National Science Foundation. He explained that the purpose of
the act is to expand ocean exploration, discover new marine
substances to provide therapeutic benefits. He then emphasized
that both NURP and OE are core to the mission of NOAA.
In his testimony, Dr. Spinrad expressed strong support for
the overall intent of H.R. 3835, saying that this ``. .
.legislation elevates the importance of science-based ocean
exploration and undersea technology development.'' He discussed
the decrease in Congressional funding for these programs,
citing the fiscal year 2006 appropriation which was
substantially below previous years' budget.
Mr. Shepard described the history of NURP, crediting the
program with being the primary organization for scientific
diving. He praised the bill for authorizing NURP and OE and
addressing the major weakness of under-funding and instability
of funding. Mr. Shepard endorsed the merger of the two
programs. He added that having a regional presence allows a
direct conduit from ocean exploration directly into the
management community to address coastal issues including
hurricanes, shoreline erosion, and sea level rise.
Dr. McNutt explained the importance of the OE program to
the Nation with the example of the discovery of hot-vent
communities that has resulted in the study of a completely new
ecosystem which led to new understanding of how life might be
sustained elsewhere in the universe. She saw the primary
weakness as being that ocean exploration is not explicitly part
of NOAA's mission, not a lack of funding. She called for the
addition of exploration to the mission of NOAA. She expressed
concern that the intentions of NURP might not be in line with
the goals of OE, and that a merger of the two could therefore
hurt the OE program.
4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
4.4(a)_National Science Foundation Budget and Management
Challenges
March 9, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-7
Background
On March 9, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives held a
hearing to examine the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) budget request
for the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as longer-
term budget and management challenges facing the Foundation.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director,
National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Christine C. Boesz,
Inspector General, National Science Foundation; and (3) Dr.
Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman, Audit and Oversight Committee,
National Science Board and Chancellor, Washington University in
St. Louis.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis spoke of the need for expanded investment
in scientific research and education in order to continue the
development of innovative technological solutions. He described
how the U.S. will lose its edge in science and an ``innovation
gap'' will form if necessary research is not supported by NSF.
He therefore called for a larger investment in NSF's budget,
citing last year's budget cut and the promise Congress made to
double the NSF budget over five years. He believes economic
growth will be achieved through innovation and that we must
invest in the future and that the edge the United States enjoys
in science and technology will continue to slip away unless
more attention is paid to education.
Ranking Minority Member Hooley spoke of NSF's historic
role, nurturing the research and education capabilities of the
Nation in the fields of science and engineering. She was
concerned about the level of resources proposed for NSF in the
President's budget, stating it would not be enough to sustain
future U.S. leadership in science and technology. The budget
request would result in a cumulative shortfall of $5.8 billion
in meeting the doubling goal set out by Congress. Also noted
was the lack of resources set out in the budget request for
educational activities despite widespread concerns about the
quality of science and math education in schools.
Dr. Bement addressed the management challenges and
questions concerning NSF's priorities set forth by the
Committee.
LThis year's budget request was built on four
priorities--strengthening core disciplinary research,
providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and
world class research facilities, broadening
participation in the science and engineering workforce,
and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF
management practices.
LOver the last 12 years, the number of
proposals NSF processes has grown by more than 50
percent to 44,000 each year. Yet the number of full-
time employees has increased by only 5.7 percent.
Additionally, the success rate for proposals is
decreasing. NSF is seeking ways to improve its
solicitation and evaluation of proposals to ensure that
the time of applicants and NSF staff is used as
efficiently as possible.
LAnother challenge is determining the
appropriate lifespan of research facilities and
processes for phasing out these facilities at the right
time.
LAn NSF priority is encouraging students from
all backgrounds to enter into science and engineering
careers, and therefore a number of education and human
resources programs in this area were protected from
reductions in the FY06 budget request. Programs to
increase the number of science and engineering
baccalaureate degrees and support for graduate
fellowships also continue.
Dr. Wrighton commented on the NSF fiscal year 2006 budget,
gave an update on the National Science Board (NSB) activities
over the past year and also discussed future goals and
priorities.
LThe Board approved the budget NSF submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget and supports the
President's budget request. The Board supports the FY06
budget focus on the four priorities mentioned by Dr.
Bement.
LIf more funding were made available to NSF in
FY06, the NSB recommends it go toward (1) science and
engineering education, (2) Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction projects (MREFC), and (3) the
financial burden NSF will encounter with the transfer
of icebreakers from the Coast Guard to NSF.
LNSB activities over the past year have
included the following:
LBoard re-prioritization of all MREFC
projects.
LProvisionally approved the report on
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility
Projects by the National Science Foundation.
Board approval and implementation of revised
process is expected by fall 2005.
LExamined policies relating to the
National Academy for Public Administration
report, including implementation of the
Sunshine Act, the use of Intergovernmental
Personnel Act and rotator-type employees, and
the role of NSB in setting policies for NSF.
LNSB in the coming year plans to undertake a
project on establishing a new vision for NSF in the
21st century.
Dr. Boesz spoke of the work she had done alongside NSB and
NSF management to identify and address NSF management
challenges. She highlighted two of the most important short-
term and long-term management challenges facing NSF: the
strategic management of NSF resources and improved financial
performance.
LWhile NSF's workload has rapidly increased,
the agency has not identified the amount of staffing
and administrative resources needed to address the
disparity.
LFor four consecutive years, auditors have
found that NSF's monitoring of grantee institutions has
significant weaknesses. A more effective monitoring
program would ensure that awardees are complying with
federal requirements, are making adequate progress
toward achieving research objectives, and are charging
allowable costs. Much needs to be done to improve NSF
post-award administration.
LThe Inspector General also described her
office's audit and investigative activities, including
reports on questioned costs, recommendations for
improving grants management controls and oversight
processes at both NSF and its awardee institutions, and
involvement in information gathering for civil/criminal
and administrative cases.
4.4(b)_The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Review and
Outlook
May 18, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-15
Background
On May 18, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the Committee
on Science of the House of Representatives held a hearing to
review the activities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI).
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Scott Donnelly, Senior Vice
President for Global Research, General Electric Company; (2)
Dr. John Kennedy, Director, Center for Advanced Engineering
Fibers and Films, Clemson University; (3) Dr. John Cassady,
Vice President for Research, Oregon State University; and (4)
Mr. Michael Fancher, Director of Economic Outreach, Albany
NanoTech.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis began the hearing by citing a recent survey
which found that more than half of all Americans have no
familiarity with nanotechnology. He stated the importance of
understanding a technology that is changing products and
revitalizing our manufacturing base. The day of the hearing,
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) released a report on the state of and outlook for
nanotechnology in the U.S. According to the report, the U.S.
leads the world in the amount of funding, patents and
scientific publications, but other countries are not far
behind. He asked the witnesses to discuss how to maintain the
Untied States' position as world leader in this area of
technology and what the government should and should not be
doing in this area.
Ranking Minority Member Hooley discussed the role of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) as a coordinated
Federal R&D effort that seeks to ensure that the U.S. remains
at the forefront of nanotechnology and is positioned to
directly benefit from its many potential applications. She
expressed interest in the role of the NNI in helping facilitate
commercialization of nanotechnology-related products and
emphasized that the States play a leading role in economic
development.
Mr. Donnelly discussed the importance of nanotechnology at
General Electric, and the promise this revolutionary technology
holds for future products and applications. He stated that:
LNew material systems based on nanotechnology
have the potential to impact numerous industries, e.g.,
by enabling higher efficiency in jet engines, lower
emissions in energy technologies, improved detection of
biological or chemical agents for homeland security,
and better protective gear for soldiers.
LHe emphasized that advances in new materials
historically require long, sustained research and
development efforts. Federal funding, through agencies
like the National Science Foundation, Department of
Energy, National Institutes of Health, and Department
of Defense, coordinated by the NNI, is essential to
support R&D programs, especially at colleges and
universities.
LFederal support of research programs at
universities is particularly valuable to GE in that
these programs produce graduates who GE can hire and
who already have an appreciation for nanotechnology and
its role in the development of new materials.
Dr. Kennedy described Clemson University's Center for
Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films (CAEFF), an NSF-funded
engineering research center that promotes the transformation of
the fibers and films industry from trial-and-error development
to computer-based design. He added:
LCAEFF conducts research in areas where
nanotechnology is close to being applied in a
commercial venture, such as work on bio-sensors,
infection prevention, and improved wound and incision
healing, as well as longer-term research, such as study
of how nanotechnology can be used in hydrogen storage
systems.
LIn addition to research programs, CAEFF also
emphasizes education activities, such as the
development of multi-disciplinary courses in macro-
molecular engineering, and diversity activities, such
as scholarships, fellowships, and collaborations with
universities that serve under-represented populations.
LDr. Kennedy emphasized the importance of the
Federal/state/ industry/academe Partnership in
nanotechnology. He also suggested that, in addition to
federal support of research programs, federal agencies
(like NASA and DOD) that are potential users of
nanotechnology-enhanced products should accelerate the
development of such products via demonstration
programs.
Dr. Cassidy described the Oregon Nanoscience and
Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI), which combines research
universities, high tech industries, and Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory in a collaborative research program focused
on innovation, collaboration, and commercialization.
LONAMI research is organized into three
areas--Microtechnology-Based Energy, Chemical and
Biological Systems; Safer Nanomaterials and
Nanomanufacturing; and Nanoscale Metrology for
Nanoelectronics--which reflect the focus of technology-
based industries in Oregon.
LHe described ties between ONAMI and
companies, but noted that several barriers to academic-
industry collaboration exist. These barriers include
who will control the intellectual property generated in
university research, a lack of career rewards for
academics performing industrially-relevant research,
and a lack of funding for joint industry/university
research.
LHe described how federal funds for
nanotechnology research are critical for attracting
faculty and graduate students into this field and
developing the workforce the U.S. needs to compete in
nanotechnology.
Mr. Fancher spoke of a new model for technology, business,
and education which involves an ``innovation cluster'' of
academia, governmental agencies, and industry. He also
illustrated the rising cost of commercializing nanotechnology.
He added:
LNew York State is an example of this ``new
model.'' New York State has four key drivers: selecting
an overarching discipline (nanotechnology), investing
in state-of-the-art infrastructure (Albany NanoTech
complex), focusing on world class, hands-on education
and training (world's first college of nanoscale
science and engineering), and leverage public-private
partnerships.
LAlbany NanoTech focuses on nanoelectronics
specifically, and the European Union, Japan, and France
are also investing in government-university-industry
partnerships in this area as well.
LScience, technology, engineering, and math
education is vitally important for generating the
intellectual capital that is needed for the continued
growth of nanotechnology research and development.
LNew York State and various companies have
made significant investments in Albany NanoTech,
particularly in its infrastructure. Mr. Fancher
believes that federal funding is needed for university-
based technology, educational, and business models that
concurrently support long-term research, medium-term
development and short-term manufacturing.
4.4(c)_Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?
June 29, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-21
Background
On June 29, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives held a
hearing to examine the findings and recommendations of the
recent assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) and to hear from the nanotechnology
community on how U.S. research and business activities in
nanotechnology measure up to those of international
competitors.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair of the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a
partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a high-technology
venture capital firm; (2) Mr. Jim O'Connor, Vice President of
Technology Incubation and Commercialization at Motorola, Inc;
(3) Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director of the NanoBusiness
Alliance and (4) Mr. Matthew M. Nordan, Vice President of
Research at Lux Research Inc., a nanotechnology research and
advisory firm.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis spoke of the recently released PCAST report
on the state of and outlook for nanotechnology in the U.S.
While the United States currently leads the world in funding,
patents and scientific publications, the rest of the world is
catching up. Nanotechnology has the potential to revitalize our
entire manufacturing base and impact fields from defense to
health care to energy and transportation. He also mentioned the
importance of continued improvements in math and science
education to ensure that the U.S. maintains its role as the
best place in the world for innovation. The goal of the
hearing, he said, would be to discuss ways the U.S. can
maintain its status as a world leader in nanotechnology and
other emerging technologies, and to learn what barriers exist
to commercializing nanotechnology, how we can overcome them,
and the Federal Government's role in the process.
Ranking Minority Member Hooley spoke of her interest in the
role the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) can play in
facilitating the commercialization of nanotechnology. She
described a recent Research Subcommittee hearing in which
witnesses suggested that federal nanotechnology funding could
include support for applied, pre-competitive research and asked
this hearing's witnesses for suggestions on the kinds of
activities that would ensure effective technology transfer to
the private sector.
Mr. Kvamme discussed PCAST's biennial report on the NNI.
LThe report found that federal funding for
nanotechnology R&D is money well spent and the program
is well managed. In addition, NNI is taking appropriate
steps to understand and address societal concerns and
potential risks.
LThe U.S. is the leader in nanotechnology R&D.
The $1 billion dollar annual federal funding is one-
quarter of the current global investment by all other
nations. When all public and private funding is
considered, the U.S. is funding approximately $3
billion, or one-third, of the $9 billion in total
worldwide spending for nanotechnology R&D.
LU.S. also leads in research output (patents
and publications) and in the number of nanotechnology-
based startup companies; however other countries are
chasing U.S. leadership through coordinated national
programs.
LMr. Kvamme described some of the
recommendations from the PCAST report, including that
NNI should (1) increase its outreach to States to
facilitate tech transfer and commercialization; (2)
continue efforts to understand the possible toxological
effects of nanotechnology; and (3) strengthen ties with
the Departments of Education and Labor to help with the
establishment of an infrastructure capable of educating
and training researchers, teachers, and technical
workers in nanotechnology.
Mr. Nordan described how the U.S. leads the world in
nanotechnology today, but then noted that this lead is tenuous.
He outlined five steps the U.S. should take to maintain and
extend its lead.
LFirst, the U.S. should increase federal
funding for nanotechnology research, as nanotechnology
is an enabling technology that will stimulate economic
development in a wide variety of sectors.
LSecond, the U.S. needs to eliminate
regulatory uncertainty surrounding environmental,
health, and safety issues in nanotechnology to allow
companies to confidently invest in nanotechnology-
related product lines. He described the need to be
sensitive to both perceived and real risks associated
with nanotechnology and emphasized that concerns exist
not only about workplace exposure, but also about
``end-of-life'' issues for products with nanotechnology
within them.
LThird, the U.S. needs to attract U.S.
students to the physical sciences and develop
incentives to retain foreign students who train in the
U.S. so that the U.S. remains home to a
technologically-trained workforce that can power
nanotechnology-related innovation.
LFourth, individual federal agencies should
support programs designed to develop applications and
products needed by those agencies.
LFifth, the U.S. should be mindful that export
controls in nanotechnology are not applied so broadly
that they choke commercialization.
Mr. Murdock spoke of the United States' competitive
position in the commercialization of nanotechnology.
LThe U.S. is currently a leader in
nanotechnology commercialization, and it is vital to
maintain this leadership position in order for the U.S.
to retain jobs in existing companies and industries and
integrate nanotechnology innovations into existing
industry sectors.
LVenture capital firms are shying away from
investments in nanotechnology start-ups because these
technologies have longer-term commercialization
processes and unclear market economics. Many larger
companies plan to innovate through acquisition, by
relying upon start-up companies to take the risks of
developing and commercializing innovations and then
purchasing the successful start-ups.
LThe Federal Government could help bridge the
gap by fully and effectively using the Small Business
Innovation Research program and other programs at its
disposal to enhance commercialization activity.
Creating greater incentives for the private sector to
invest and aggressively participate in the
commercialization process (such as research and
development tax credits) is also essential to achieving
the full potential of nanotechnology.
Mr. O'Connor gave his perspective on the U.S. competitive
position in nanotechnology.
LMuch of the success of nanotechnology can be
attributed to public-private partnerships between
Federal and State Governments and business and
academia. Strong partnerships between universities and
industry promote research, education, and
commercialization. Motorola, like its competitors, is
committed to long-term investments in nanotechnology
research and development, both in internal programs and
in partnerships with universities.
LAsian countries are providing significant
competition for the U.S. in nanotechnology. Some of the
countries have been successful by strategically
choosing to concentrate their investments in particular
areas of nanotechnology in order to make significant
strides sooner in a specific sector. In addition, these
countries are investing in their undergraduate and
graduate training systems to ensure they develop a
supply of highly-skilled workers.
LA well-educated talent pool is critical to
competitiveness, and hence Motorola strongly supports
the PCAST Report recommendation that the NNI establish
relationships with the Department of Education and
Labor to establish nanotechnology education and
training programs to produce appropriate researchers
and technical workers in the U.S.
4.4(d)_Fueling the Future: On the Road to the Hydrogen Economy
July 20, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-23
Background
On July 20, 2005, the Energy and Research Subcommittees of
the Science Committee held a joint hearing to examine the
progress that has been made in hydrogen research since the
launch of the President's Hydrogen Initiative and the next
steps the Federal Government should take to best advance a
hydrogen economy.
The witness panel included: (1) Mr. Douglas Faulkner,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. David Bodde,
Director of Innovation and Public Policy at Clemson
University's International Center for Automotive Research; (3)
Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President for Advanced Vehicle
Engineering at the DaimlerChrysler Corporation; (4) Dr. George
Crabtree, Director of the Materials Science Division at Argonne
National Laboratory; (5) Dr. John Heywood, Director of the
Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Summary of Hearing
In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush
announced the creation of a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which
built on the FreedomCAR initiative he announced in 2002.
Together, the initiatives aim to provide the technology for a
hydrogen-based transportation economy, including production of
hydrogen, transportation and distribution of hydrogen, and the
vehicles that will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell cars running on
hydrogen would emit only water vapor and, if domestic energy
sources were used, would not be dependent on foreign fuels. The
Members in attendance at the hearing expressed concern about
various issues involving this initiative and DOE execution of
the program in particular. Discussion is summarized below.
Subcommittee on Energy Chairman Biggert opened the hearing
by stressing the importance that hydrogen and fuel cells hold
for a cleaner and more efficient nation that is less dependent
on foreign sources of oil. She noted that many of the benefits
of a hydrogen economy, such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, are not currently accounted for in the marketplace,
which will make it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to compete
with conventional technology.
Subcommittee on Research Chairman Bob Inglis advocated the
transition to a hydrogen economy for the sake of cleaner air,
and to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil. He added that
hydrogen entrepreneurs will be making money and employing
people, and that the U.S. will be winning our energy
independence. He admitted technology and cost challenges ahead,
but countered that the U.S. is up to the challenge.
Mr. Faulkner cited significant advances that DOE has made
in helping realize the President's hydrogen initiative, and
that fuel cell activities recently achieved an important
technology cost goal--the high-volume cost of automotive fuel
cells being reduced from $275 per kilowatt to $200 per
kilowatt. He stated that this accomplishment is a major step
toward the Program's goal of reducing the cost of
transportation fuel cell power systems to $45 per kilowatt by
2010.
The non-government witnesses urged the government to adopt
incentives to encourage additional research and development in
hydrogen technologies and urged a dual-path approach that would
focus on developing more immediate technologies that could
improve fuel efficiency, while continuing research into
alternative energy forms such as hydrogen, electricity and
biomass.
While citing hydrogen's benefits as a fuel that can be made
from a variety of sources and it's lack of emissions of
pollutants and greenhouse gasses, witnesses told the
Subcommittees that before a hydrogen economy can become reality
significant obstacles related to the production and storage of
hydrogen must be resolved. Dr. Bodde discussed the challenge in
hydrogen storage, noting that the most important long-term
research goal is to provide a more effective means of storing
hydrogen on vehicles than the compressed gas or cryogenic
liquid now in use.
Most hydrogen today is produced from natural gas, which
does not resolve the issue of U.S. reliance on foreign energy
or greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Crabtree emphasized that
advances in the production of hydrogen are imperative for the
fuel to become a practical solution. He added that to power
cars and light trucks in the coming decades we will need 10 to
15 times the amount of hydrogen we now produce, and that
hydrogen cannot continue to come from natural gas, as that
production route simply exchanges a dependence on foreign oil
for a dependence on foreign gas, and it does not reduce the
production of environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases. He
said that we must find carbon-neutral production routes for
hydrogen.
Mr. Chernoby discussed the advances his company has made in
developing hydrogen powered vehicles, stating that
DaimlerChrysler has been working on fuel cell technology for
transportation utilizing hydrogen for over ten years and they
have invested over $1 billion in R&D and have developed five
generations of vehicles. He said that they have 100 fuel cell
vehicles participating in various international demonstration
projects in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
Citing the significant technical barriers that must be
overcome, Dr. Heywood told the Subcommittees that hydrogen will
not become a widely used fuel for a number of years. He urged
improving fuel efficiency in the short-term, and continued
development of alternatives to fossil fuels, such as hydrogen,
electricity, and biomass fuels. He also recommended that the
U.S. Government play a more active role in increasing fuel
efficiency standards, as well as in R&D for alternative fuels;
and that there are many ways to improve current vehicle
technology to increase efficiency.
4.4(e)_The Role of Social Science Research in Disaster
Preparedness and Response
November 10, 2005
Hearing Volume No. 109-32
Background
On November 10, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science held a hearing to better understand how
the social sciences can inform planning for, response to, and
recovery from natural hazards and disasters.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Susan Cutter, Professor of
Geography at the University of South Carolina and Director of
the Hazard Research Laboratory; (2) Dr. Roxane Silver,
Professor in the Department of Psychology and Social Behavior
in the Department of Medicine at the University of California,
Irvine; (3) Dr. H. Dan O'Hair, Professor and Chair of the
Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma; and
(4) Dr. Shirley Laska, Professor of Environmental Sociology and
Director of the Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and
Technology at the University of New Orleans.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis opened the hearing by discussing the human
and economic toll of recent natural disasters and the looming
threats of terrorism and avian flu. He stated that while
science and technology have aided the ability to predict,
manage, and mitigate natural disasters, a better understanding
of the social, behavioral, and economic aspects of disaster
planning would also be beneficial. Chairman Inglis then
established the focus of the hearing as a discussion on: (1)
how the social sciences assess the vulnerability of a group or
region, (2) how individuals perceive and respond to risk and
disaster warnings, and (3) how disasters impact individuals and
groups.
Ranking Minority Member Darlene Hooley joined the Chairman
in stressing the importance and timeliness of focusing on
disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. In particular,
she mentioned that continued population growth in hazardous
coastal and earthquake-prone regions, threats of terrorism, and
a potential avian flu pandemic increased our vulnerability to
disasters. She next noted the contributions of social science
in increasing our understanding of disasters and emphasized the
importance of acting on this information. Representative Hooley
then listed three questions that she hoped would be addressed
by the hearing. (1) What is the state of current and future
research in social and behavioral sciences? (2) Are important
research areas not being addressed? (3) How have social and
behavioral research translated into practice?
Dr. Cutter focused her testimony on the emergent field of
vulnerability science and offered the following examples of how
social science has contributed to a better understanding of
vulnerability science:
LImproved metrics, models, and methods have
improved social vulnerability assessments. Two examples
are the identification of pre-existing conditions that
make certain groups more vulnerable to disaster and the
development of a quantitative method for determining
social vulnerability of specific geographic areas.
LSocial science research has improved
understanding of evacuation behavior. For example,
people tend to evacuate as family units, avoid public
shelters if possible, and stay in harm's way because of
pets. In addition, people tend to over-respond to
evacuation orders, placing additional and unexpected
burdens on local resources.
LWhile social science is often not translated
into practice, there are exceptions, such as NSF
support of the Association of American Geographers to
develop a strategy for understanding terrorism after 9/
11 and the establishment of the DHS Center on Social
and Behavioral Responses to Terrorism. To improve
disaster preparedness and response, Dr. Cutter
recommends (1) creating a national inventory on hazard
events and losses, (2) establishing a national center
for vulnerability science, (3) reducing the
preparedness divide, (4) bringing social science
findings to practitioners, and (5) increasing support
of rapid response research.
LAn annual workshop at the University of
Colorado-Boulder brings together the research
community, state and local governments, and federal
agency personnel to discuss hazards and disasters.
Dr. Laska spoke about three Center for Hazards Assessment,
Response and Technology (CHART) projects in Louisiana that are
partnerships between social sciences and communities to
understand risk, increase safety, and facilitate recovery from
environmental factors.
LThe first project, initiated at the request
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a
repetitive flood loss project to maintain records of
repeatedly flooded residential structures within the
most flooded parishes in Louisiana. These records have
been used to demonstrate that repeatedly flooded
structures are found in clusters, due to watershed
problems, allowing the problem to be addressed at the
community level.
LThe second, funded by NSF, provides support
for CHART to test a method to help at-risk communities
deal with natural hazards. This process, called
Participatory Action Research, involves collaboration
between academics, practitioners, and community
residents.
LThe third project was a large-scale survey on
hurricane evacuation behavior that was tailored to each
parish. One finding was that two-thirds of respondents
felt safe in their homes in a Category 3 hurricane.
These findings were used to develop an evacuation
campaign prior to Hurricane Katrina.
LDr. Laska encouraged federal agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
the Department of Transportation, to fund social
science and hazard research.
Dr. O'Hair talked about factors that influence the
perception and acceptance of risk and effective communication
of risk. The findings of social science research are as
follows:
LMultiple factors play a role in an
individual's perception and acceptance of risk,
including socio-political factors such as power,
status, ethnicity, culture, education, and trust.
LDuring disasters, the media serves a valuable
role for victims, government, and consumers but also
fails to include critical information and
sensationalize the situation. This is termed the
``paradox of media coverage.''
LThe most important principals for
communicating risk are (1) a consistent, accurate,
clear message provided repeatedly through multiple
methods, (2) timely information, and (3) information
that is specific to the risk.
LFederal spokespersons are preferred for
national events, whereas local events are best
expressed by someone known to the community.
LThe most pressing remaining issues for
disaster research are building a community-based
communication infrastructure and understanding which
media outlets are viewed as most effective and
trustworthy for delivering information. The Disaster
Knowledge Management System takes information from
multiple expert sources and targets it specific
communities that are at risk for the flu pandemic.
Dr. Silver testified on the critical role of social science
research in disaster response.
LDespite many assumptions, models, and
beliefs, there is no universal response to traumatic
events.
LPsychological responses are not limited to
those directly exposed to trauma and are not
proportional to the degree of exposure. It is important
to obtain data concerning the adjustment process
following disasters to aid mental health providers.
LSocial research can aid in effectively
communicating risk, identifying factors that promote
resilience and adjustment to prolonged stress,
uncertainty, and loss, and help policy-makers plan
efforts.
LThere is competition between social science
researchers and the for-profit trauma industry in
dealing with individuals affected by disasters.
4.4(f)_Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering Education:
What's Working?
March 15, 2006
Hearing Volume No. 109-40
Background
On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives held a
hearing to examine how colleges and universities are improving
their undergraduate science, math and engineering programs and
how the Federal Government might help encourage and guide the
reform of undergraduate science, math and engineering education
to improve learning and to attract more students to courses in
those fields.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Elaine Seymour, Author of
Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences,
former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research at the
University of Colorado, Boulder; (2) Dr. Carl Wieman,
Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of Colorado,
Boulder; (3) Dr. John Burris, President, Beloit College; (4)
Dr. Daniel Goroff, Vice President and Dean of Faculty, Harvey
Mudd College; (5) Ms. Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean
of Science, Business, and Computer Technology, Moraine Valley
Community College.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Inglis stressed the need to make science and math
careers captivating and compelling for students so that the
U.S. will continue to lead the world in the development of new
technology. Undergraduate institutions play the biggest role in
creating new K-12 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) teachers, and the Chairman asked the
panelists' opinions on striking a balance between creating
teachers with expertise in STEM fields but with little training
in pedagogy versus those with less depth in a STEM field but
with greater training in pedagogy.
Congressman Udall hoped to learn from the hearing what
barriers exist to improving STEM education at the undergraduate
level and if the Federal Government needs to create programs to
address this issue. He expected the hearing to address the
issues both of attracting and retaining students in STEM
majors, and also ensuring that all students receive a high
quality STEM education.
Dr. Seymour spoke about the results of her research into
why undergraduates leave STEM majors and why those that do
complete STEM degrees often do not go into K-12 teaching. She
was alarmed about the current and growing national shortage of
qualified K-12 STEM teachers. She added:
LA decline in the perceived value of teaching
in society in general and on college campuses in
particular is part of the cause of the lack of interest
in K-12 STEM teaching.