[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.

         LThe university salary structure for STEM 
        faculty does not reward teaching efforts as it does 
        research efforts, leading to poorer quality teaching of 
        undergraduates. Inadequate preparation of graduate 
        teaching assistants exacerbates this problem, as does 
        the fact many students arrive on college campuses 
        without adequate math and science preparation for 
        college work.

         LThere are many STEM teaching vacancies filled 
        by people who are only marginally qualified in STEM 
        areas, a problem often concentrated in large, minority 
        serving school districts.

    Dr. Wieman stated that he found through scientifically 
rigorous research that undergraduate science education is based 
on an obsolete model. Until colleges and universities fix how 
they teach science, future K-12 science teachers will not 
receive the necessary science training, and the overall 
problems with K-12 STEM education cannot be fixed. However 
university departments' approaches to teaching have been static 
despite evidence that their methods are ineffective. He added:

         LRecent evaluation of science education done 
        by STEM faculty shows that at best undergraduates are 
        not gaining worthwhile information in their STEM 
        classes, and at worse they are forming the impression 
        that science is dull and uninteresting.

         LTheir research also showed that K-12 STEM 
        teachers are also those who did most poorly in their 
        undergraduate STEM education, making them less 
        effective.

         LLarge research universities set the standard 
        for undergraduate STEM education and train most of the 
        country's K-12 STEM teachers. The departments that 
        actually control the teaching, with their tradition of 
        autonomy and drive for research-related prestige, have 
        no incentive for large, whole-scale change. However, if 
        universities and outside agencies made the development 
        of new teaching methods competitive, intellectually 
        challenging, and professionally rewarding, they could 
        gain the interest of faculty.

    Dr. Burris spoke from the perspective of a president of a 
small, liberal arts college and a former scientific researcher. 
He discussed the success that small colleges like Beloit have 
in educating undergraduates in STEM fields and listed several 
recommendations for STEM undergraduate education. He added:

         LWith the doubling of NSF's budget over the 
        next ten years should come the doubling of NSF's 
        funding for undergraduate STEM education.

         LStudents learn STEM subjects best in small 
        classes, with hands-on teaching methods using an 
        inquiry-based approach. Colleges and universities need 
        to eliminate overly-large introductory courses whose 
        main purpose is often to discourage, not encourage, 
        potential majors.

         LPrograms to provide colleges with 
        professional-grade research equipment have been 
        enormously successful in that faculty can show students 
        how modern science is done and also keep up active 
        research programs.

         LThe culture at smaller colleges is more 
        collaborative between departments and the 
        administration and the reward system at these 
        institutions is more tied to teaching.

         LNSF is the agency best-suited to support 
        programs that encourage women and minorities to pursue 
        STEM careers.

    Dr. Goroff noted that people work effectively in any field 
if they have a sense of purpose and belonging. He hoped that 
the incentives put forth in the American Competitiveness 
Initiative, and other programs to draw students to STEM majors, 
are accompanied by teaching methods that involve students in 
current research and related real-world scientific activities. 
Dr. Goroff believes that the U.S. is uniquely capable of 
delivering this kind of hands-on education, and he stated that 
an emphasis on quality will spark more scientific advances than 
a focus only on the quantity of STEM majors universities and 
colleges produce. He added:

         LIt is difficult for undergraduate-serving 
        institutions to keep their curriculum and facilities up 
        to date, given the costs associated with the rapidly 
        changing pace of science. Maintaining undergraduate 
        STEM educational programs at NSF is absolutely critical 
        to preserving and improving the quality of STEM 
        education at colleges and universities.

         LGovernment agencies and private organizations 
        should work with universities to give STEM students 
        opportunities to work on real-world STEM research 
        projects.

         LPrograms like the Derek Bok Center for 
        Teaching and Learning at Harvard have been very 
        successful in teaching STEM professors how to teach. 
        These types of centers should be replicated.

    Ms. Collins noted that community colleges also have trouble 
retaining STEM majors, with added difficulties unique to 
community colleges such as demographics, geographic boundaries, 
and open admission policies. She added:

         LStudents are more likely to come to community 
        colleges less prepared for math and science. Moraine 
        Valley Community College (MVCC) has worked with high 
        schools to create ways to bridge this gap.

         LMVCC has used on funds and programs from 
        various agencies to support mentoring, expanded 
        curricula, internships, and dual-credit programs. These 
        programs have greatly aided in retaining and 
        encouraging STEM majors.

         LMVCC has also conducted successful community 
        outreach programs with NSF funding, such as activities 
        for economically disadvantaged Hispanic youth 
        interested in information technology careers.

         LCommunity colleges have a big role to play in 
        providing a path to STEM careers for people of diverse 
        backgrounds. The college has a strong commitment to 
        employing a diverse faculty, thus providing more 
        mentors for a diverse student body.

         LWith funding from the NSF Advanced Technology 
        Education program, MVCC has created a information 
        security center to develop curriculum, expand 
        internships opportunities, build a Women in Technology 
        mentoring program, produce a video that shows 
        technology in more appealing ways, and offer a career 
        development course that highlights science and 
        technology careers. These efforts have been successful 
        in bridging the gap to college-level STEM course work 
        and attracting students to STEM careers.

    4.4(g)_International Polar Year: The Scientific Agenda and the 
                              Federal Role

                           September 20, 2006

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-61

Background
    On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Research held a hearing to examine the research planned for the 
upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and the role the U.S. 
will play in the IPY. The upcoming IPY, set to run from March 
2007 until March 2009, will consist of an intense, 
internationally coordinated effort of polar observations, 
research and analysis in many scientific fields, including the 
study of how the Earth's remote polar regions influence global 
climate systems. The IPY also hopes to inspire the next 
generation of scientists and to educate the public about the 
polar regions. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the 
lead U.S. federal agency.
    The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Director of NSF; 
(2) Dr. Robin Bell, Senior Research Scientist at Columbia 
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Chair of both 
the National Research Council and the U.S. Committee to the 
IPY; (3) Dr. Kelly K. Falkner, Professor of Chemical 
Oceanography at Oregon State University and member of the 
Advisory Committee to the NSF Office of Polar Programs; (4) Dr. 
Donal T. Manahan, Professor of Biology at the University of 
Southern California; and (5) Mr. Mark S. McCaffrey, associate 
scientist and science communications specialist at the 
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at 
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Summary of Hearing
    Chairman Inglis opened the hearing by praising the research 
efforts that he has witnessed first-hand in Antarctica and 
stressing the importance of having a strong education and 
outreach component for the upcoming IPY. Ranking Member Hooley 
echoed Chairman Inglis' sentiments and added that polar 
research results are important to help guide global warming 
policy choices.
    Dr. Bement testified that NSF has been tasked to provide 
leadership for the U.S. in the IPY. He described how the IPY 
fosters international collaboration and reemphasizes a 
structure for polar research. Specifically he explained that:

         LNSF will focus on three scientific themes for 
        this IPY; 1) how organisms adapt to climate extremes, 
        with a focus on the genetic level; 2) a Circum-Arctic 
        Observation Network that will provide missing data 
        essential to modeling and predicting Arctic climate 
        change; 3) research to understand changes in the ice 
        sheets.

         LThe IPY activities are NSF-wide efforts, and 
        NSF is also collaborating with other federal agencies 
        (such as the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and with other 
        countries (including European and Canadian partners for 
        the Circum-Arctic system).

         LNSF outreach and education for the IPY will 
        focus on both students and parents. With new tools like 
        the Internet, iPods and broadband connections, 
        scientists will be able to share their information 
        faster and more richly.

    In response to questions from the Members, Dr. Bement also 
described NSF's efforts to improve use of alternative energy 
sources and environmentally sound building technologies at U.S. 
facilities in the polar regions.

    Dr. Bell testified that the polar questions researchers are 
posing are broad and multi-disciplinary. She also discussed the 
unique, international aspect of the IPY. She added:

         LIPY planning has identified five major 
        challenges or areas to research: large scale 
        environmental change, conducting molecular to 
        continental scientific exploration of the poles, 
        observing the polar regions in depth, looking at the 
        human dimensions of the environment, and looking for 
        ways to build new connections between the IPY science 
        and the public.

         LOne of the areas of emphasis for this IPY 
        that has not been a focus in past IPYs is the study of 
        how changes in the polar regions impact the human 
        communities living there.

         LThe IPY will help develop and stimulate the 
        next generation of scientists and act as a powerful 
        arena for international cooperation and public interest 
        in Earth science.

    Dr. Bell also offered four suggestions for how the 
preparation for the IPY could be improved: 1) Stronger 
engagement from more agencies, like NOAA and NASA; 2) Increased 
funding; 3) More coordination nationally and internationally; 
4) Fostering interdisciplinary research.

    Dr. Manahan testified that the IPY was hugely important to 
the U.S. leadership role in science. Additionally, it offers a 
unique opportunity to answer critical questions about the Earth 
and engage the public, noting that none of the other research 
he performs captures people's attention like his polar 
research. He elaborated:

         LIn the past scientists believed environmental 
        change happened slowly, over a geologic time period. 
        The speed with which the hole in the ozone layer opened 
        and with which temperatures have recently risen, 
        especially at the poles, suggest beyond a certain point 
        the environmental change associated with a particular 
        forcing greatly accelerates. The IPY offers a great 
        opportunity to study this tipping point phenomenon.

         LThe IPY is also a suitable time to study the 
        incredible abundance and diversity of life in cold and 
        dark environments, which scientists estimate contain 90 
        percent, by mass, of the organisms on Earth.

         LResearchers have found that the 
        interdisciplinary approach to science is increasingly 
        important. By embracing this approach for the IPY the 
        U.S. will strengthen its position as a leader in the 
        world scientific community. This IPY should engage the 
        life, physical, and social sciences, treating them as 
        part of one, complex system.

         LThe IPY comes at a very critical time when 
        scientists, and also the public, are recognizing the 
        critical role the polar regions have in climate 
        stability and other global environmental processes.

    Mr. McCaffrey testified on the IPY Education, Outreach and 
Communication's (IPY EOC) plans for the upcoming polar year. 
Their goal is to use the IPY to help foster a scientifically 
literate society. McCaffrey explained:

         LThe IPY should explore the role of technology 
        in our society and should demystify and articulate how 
        science is conducted, including how data is collected, 
        analyzed, modeled, reviewed and communicated.

         LThe IPY EOC has held workshops to develop an 
        integrated approach to international education efforts. 
        Polar literacy themes and a narrative based approach to 
        communication evolved from an online workshop with the 
        IPY EOC.

         LThe rich potential of IPY education and 
        outreach will not be realized if not adequately funded 
        and coordinated domestically and internationally.

    Dr. Falkner testified that the scientific community hopes 
to learn more about dramatic ecological changes and their 
effects on the world climate system. The Environmental Arctic 
Change Program will investigate whether the Arctic is 
transitioning toward a new state. She explained:

         LEcological changes to investigate include an 
        increase in air temperatures, increase in land 
        temperatures, diminished sea ice area and thickness, 
        methane emissions from Siberian Fall Lakes, and melting 
        of the Greenland ice sheet. All of these changes have 
        potential implications for global weather patterns, 
        global warming, habitat destruction, shipping routes 
        and access to resources.

         LThe IPY also provides an opportunity for 
        scientists to mobilize concurrently in the Arctic to 
        answer basic science questions.

         LNew discoveries are possible in areas like 
        sea floor dynamics, the Earth's magnetic field, 
        biology, and contaminant transport.

         LThe IPY demonstrates the U.S. role of 
        leadership in science, as well as sparking student and 
        public interest in research and Earth science.
               4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                4.5(a)_The Future of Aeronautics at NASA

                             March 16, 2005

                        Hearing Volume No. 109-8

Background
    On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing to discuss the future of aeronautics 
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    The witnesses included Dr. John Klineberg, Chair of a 2004 
National Academy of Sciences panel that examined NASA's 
aeronautics programs; Dr. Philip Anton, principal investigator 
of a 2004 RAND Corporation report that examined NASA's wind 
tunnel propulsion test facilities; Dr. Mike Benzakein, Chairman 
of the Department of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State 
University, and former General Manager of Advanced Technology 
and Military Engineering at GE Aircraft Engines; and Dr. John 
Hansman, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Director of the 
International Center for Air Transportation.
Summary of Hearing
    The panel of expert witnesses warned the Subcommittee that 
the significant proposed reductions in aeronautics research at 
NASA poses a serious economic and national security threat to 
the United States.
    The witnesses also said they were concerned that the cuts 
in aeronautics were being driven by budgetary concerns rather 
than by any strategy or plan. Because of this, the witnesses 
called for the development of a national vision for aeronautics 
research to focus on priorities and to guide funding.
    Chairman Ken Calvert, opened the hearing by stating, ``The 
Europeans have thrown down the gauntlet and said that they will 
dominate aerospace in the world by the year 2020. The U.S. 
aerospace industry has expressed alarm at the reductions in 
NASA's aeronautics investment, pointing out that aerospace 
products are a huge source of export sales and a major 
contributor to the United States' international balance of 
trade. Our nation's preeminence in commercial aircraft is being 
seriously challenged by Airbus and many believe that reduced 
aeronautics research and development funding has directly 
played a role in the cause of this weakened position of the 
American aerospace industry. There is a lot of concern that the 
investment in aeronautics research and development by this 
nation has been limping along for several years, and that there 
is a lack of a national strategy.''
    Dr. Anton, who led the RAND study, testified that despite 
the maturity of the aeronautics industry NASA's wind tunnels 
remain critical. Indeed, he said, ``that maturity relies on the 
test facility infrastructure.'' Dr. Anton told the Committee 
that based upon four criteria--alignment with national needs, 
technical competitiveness, redundancy, and usage--the RAND 
study identified 29 of NASA's 31 test facilities that would be 
``detrimental to close.'' He added, ``Nearly all existing NASA 
facilities serve at least one strategic need category important 
to the Nation's continuing ability to design aeronautics 
vehicles. We found very little overlap and very few gaps in 
coverage.''
    Dr. Klineberg told the Subcommittee that the 2004 National 
Academies panel he chaired concluded, ``The government should 
continue to support air transportation, which is vital to the 
U.S. economy and the well-being of its citizens,'' and that 
``NASA should develop consistent strategic and long-range plans 
to focus the aeronautics program in areas of national 
importance. NASA should have well-formulated, measurable, 
attainable goals at all program levels.''
    When asked by Chairman Calvert if the proposed aeronautics 
budget matches the Nation's priorities, Dr. Klineberg, said, 
``The budget is driving the strategic plan, and not the other 
way. I don't think that's right.'' He further said that the 
budget proposal for aeronautics ``is not satisfying the needs 
of the country because we haven't really looked hard at what 
those aeronautics needs are separately from the budget.''
    ``It looks like the budget is driving the agenda, which is 
really in our opinion the wrong way to go,'' Dr. Benzakein 
added. ``We need an aeronautics mission, an agenda agreed to, 
and then after that you can put a budget around it.''
    Explaining the potential impact of reductions in NASA's 
aeronautics programs, Dr. Benzakein told the Subcommittee that 
``The U.S. has enjoyed a favorable balance of trade in 
aeronautics every year since 1970. In 2003, this was $27 
billion--not an insignificant number. Aeronautics research is 
key to maintaining our leadership.'' He added that this 
research must be conducted by NASA because ``there is no other 
agency that can take that role in the United States today.'' 
Dr. Benzakein said that further cuts to the aeronautics budget 
``will have serious implications on the ability of NASA to 
continue to play a relevant role in aeronautics in the 
future.''
    Discussing the security implications of cuts to the 
Nation's aeronautics enterprise, Dr. Hansman said, ``I believe 
that the Nation must recognize the civil and military 
importance of aeronautics and commit to maintaining the health 
and vitality of the national capability in aeronautics. A vital 
element of this capability is a healthy research program which 
builds core knowledge, stimulates innovation, builds 
intellectual capital, creates opportunity and solves emergent 
problems in the civil air transportation system.'' He warned 
that NASA's proposed workforce reductions could hinder the 
ability of NASA to maintain a sufficiently skilled workforce 
and added, ``The workforce actions appear to be motivated by 
budget pressures rather than strategic efforts at intellectual 
renewal.''
    Testifying on behalf of the Administration, Dr. Vic 
Lebacqz, NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research, 
defended the proposed reductions to aeronautics saying such 
changes are necessary to move ahead with the agency's new 
exploration mission. ``To ensure maximum benefit to the 
taxpayer, and to embrace the Vision for Space Exploration, we 
are transforming our investment in Aeronautics Research in 
order to more sharply focus our investment on revolutionary, 
high-risk, `barrier breaking' technologies.''

               4.5(b)_Future Markets for Commercial Space

                             April 20, 2005

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-10

Background
    On April 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on the future market for commercial 
space. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the future 
markets for the commercial space industry, including the 
nascent human space flight enterprise, and suggested ways in 
which the Federal Government could further enable industry 
growth.
    The witnesses included Mr. Burt Rutan, Founder, Scaled 
Composites, Inc. and winner of the Ansari X-Prize for his 
design of SpaceShipOne; Mr. Will Whitehorn, President, Virgin 
Galactic and Brand Development Director for Virgin Management 
Limited; Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology Officer, Space 
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX); Mr. John W. Vinter, 
Chairman, International Space Brokers (ISB); Mr. Wolfgang 
Demish, Founder, Demisch Associates, LLC; Dr. Molly Macauley, 
Senior Fellow and Director of Academic Programs at the 
Resources for the Future.
Summary of Hearing
    Burt Rutan joined the President of Virgin Galactic and 
other leaders in the commercial space industry in testifying 
before the Subcommittee on the future of the commercial space 
market.
    The witnesses discussed the future markets for the 
commercial space industry, including the nascent human space 
flight enterprise, and suggested ways in which the Federal 
Government could further enable the industry's growth.
    In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Calvert 
stated, ``As we enter the Second Space Age, I anticipate 
entrepreneurs and commercial ventures will create many of the 
new rules and tools that will make personal space flight and 
low cost launch as ubiquitous as commercial flight is today.''
    Scaled Composites President Burt Rutan, the pioneering 
designer of SpaceShipOne, the first private manned craft to 
reach space, testified that two types of markets will likely 
emerge for the commercial human space flight industry. The 
first he described as one fraught with risk, in which 
courageous adventure seekers pay large sums of money for 
flights; a scenario he described as being akin to treks to the 
summit of Mount Everest.
    The second scenario, he said, is one ``in which the players 
do not find the dangers of space flight acceptable and 
recognize that extensive improvements in safety are more 
important than extensive improvements in affordability. Those 
that attack the problem from this viewpoint will be faced with 
a much greater technical challenge: the need for new 
innovations and breakthroughs. If successful, however, they 
will enjoy an enormous market, not one that is limited to 
servicing only a few courageous adventurers.'' While Rutan was 
unable to discuss the specific future plans for his company, he 
did tell the Subcommittee, ``I can assure you that they do not 
involve a `scenario one' approach.''
    Just prior to Rutan's successful X-Prize flights last 
September, Sir Richard Branson of the Virgin group announced 
the creation of Virgin Galactic, which will offer commercial 
flights to space. Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn said 
the company intends to purchase at least five vehicles from 
Rutan--which they have dubbed SpaceShipTwo--and plans to be 
operational by the end of the decade. ``We are not doing this 
as a rich billionaire's tour adventure. . .or as just a brand 
representation. We are doing this to create a profitable and 
viable business,'' Mr. Whitehorn said. ``We believe within five 
years [or operation] we can create a viable business that will 
be profitable, and that will allow us to bring down the cost of 
personal space flight to levels which will be affordable across 
the board in the United States and around the world.''
    Explaining the size of Virgin Galactic's potential market, 
Mr. Whitehorn said that the company has received more than 
29,000 applications to fly since its announced formation last 
fall. ``That is 29,000 people who said they are willing to pay 
a deposit of up to $20,000 for space flights within a range of 
prices of up to $200,000. We've also had 100 people who have 
actually signed `terms and conditions' with us now to pay the 
full cost of $200,000 to fly on SpaceShipTwo.''
    A second panel of witnesses testified on the future markets 
of the wider commercial space industry, including launch 
vehicles and satellites. The witnesses were: Mr. Elon Musk, 
Chairman and CEO, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX); Mr. 
John Vinter, Chairman, International Space Brokers (ISB); Mr. 
Wolfgang Demisch, President, Demisch Associates, LLC; and Dr. 
Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow and Director, Academic Programs, 
Resources for the Future.
    Discussing his company's business plan, Mr. Musk said, 
``SpaceX is dedicated to improving the reliability and cost of 
access to space for the greater purpose of helping us become a 
true space-faring civilization.'' He noted that his company's 
Falcon I rocket has the ``lowest cost per flight in the world 
for a production rocket,'' and he said his Falcon V was rated 
as the most reliable rocket, outperforming the Boeing Delta IV 
and the Lockheed Atlas V, which currently are the most commonly 
used heavy-lift rockets.
    Musk said the Federal Government could help the nascent 
commercial space industry by offering prizes for new 
technologies and by purchasing launches from new companies like 
his. He said the Department of Defense has purchased two of 
SpaceX's four launches to date. ``Regrettably, however, NASA 
has not yet procured a launch and has provided less financial 
support than the Malaysian Space Agency, which has bought and 
paid for a flight on Falcon I,'' he said.
    A major issue facing companies like SpaceX is ensuring 
financial protection in the event of a catastrophic mishap. 
International Space Brokers insures nine of the world's twenty 
satellite companies and is the only insurance broker focused 
exclusively on the space industry. ``We address satellite 
insurance and risk management needs from `cradle to grave,' '' 
said ISB Chairman Vinter. ``For us, commercial space begins 
with the arrival of people or equipment at the various launch 
sites, continues through launch, deployment, testing, and on-
orbit operations of satellites through the end of their 
expected lives.''
    Mr. Demish, an aerospace financial analyst, said the large 
costs associated with space access will limit the industry's 
growth. ``Access to space will stay expensive until we can 
achieve something like the proposed space elevator that Arthur 
C. Clarke, among others, has written about,'' Demish testified. 
``In the interim, perhaps for the next two or three decades, it 
will remain uneconomical to send anything other than 
information up into or back down from space. This suggests 
that, absent some astonishingly serendipitous discovery, a 
cancer cure for instance, entry into space will grow about in 
line with the general economy, rather than some multiple 
thereof.''
    Regarding the role of the Federal Government in enabling 
the growth of the commercial space sector, Dr. Macauley said, 
``My overall observation is that U.S. commercial space policy 
to date has been appropriately supportive of U.S. industry and 
sets a good precedent for the future. The interests of the 
taxpayer and industry are most likely to flourish mutually by 
way of a conservative approach to legislative and regulatory 
intervention, coupled with an innovative, incentive-oriented 
philosophy. I also recommend the usefulness of demonstration or 
pathfinder, experimental approaches to policy.''

        4.5(c)_Live From Space: The International Space Station

                             June 14, 2005

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-17

Background
    On June 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a historic hearing via satellite with a witness testifying 
from space aboard the International Space Station (ISS). The 
purpose of the hearing was to give Members a chance to review 
current activities onboard ISS, learn about the accomplishments 
of the crew, get an update on the current status of research on 
the Station, and to gain insight about extended human space 
flight from those who have experienced it.
    Witnesses were Dr. John Phillips, the current U.S. 
astronaut on the ISS; Dr. Peggy Whitson who was on the ISS 
Expedition 5 mission from June through December 2002; and Lt. 
Col. Mike Fincke, member of Expedition 9 mission from April 
through October 2004.
Summary of Hearing
    In his opening statement, Chairman Calvert announced to 
Members that the hearing was a chance to hear first-hand from 
astronauts about what it is like to live and to work in space. 
``This hearing gives us a chance to learn about what is going 
on in space--rather than to delve into the programmatic and 
budgetary details of the ISS program,'' Mr. Calvert said.
    Questions from the Members took advantage of this historic 
opportunity, which covered a variety of topics ranging from the 
research the astronauts were conducting and the psychological 
impact of being away from their families, to the view of Earth 
from space. Some of the research which Members learned about 
included a new ultrasound capability which could be 
innovatively applied to study osteoporosis. The astronauts 
testified that one of the ailments of extended space flight is 
the loss of bone mass.
    A question asked of all the astronauts was what kinds of 
lessons were learned during their stay at ISS and how could 
those lessons be applied to future exploration. Dr. Whitson 
responded about the importance of robotic support, while Lt. 
Col. Fincke indicated that tele-engineering (the ability to 
communicate with a team on Earth in order to complete 
operations in space) was important. Dr. Phillips answered that 
building in redundancy is a key to safety. ``If one thing 
fails, we have another to back it up,'' he said.
    Members were also interested in the astronaut's views about 
the value of research aboard the ISS. Dr. Whitson admitted that 
this is not always an easy question. ``Sometimes it is very 
hard for us to predict what the outcome is and what will be the 
best research to do on board the Station,'' she said. She gave 
an example of technology used on the Station that inadvertently 
helped heart transplant operations. Lt. Col. Fincke spoke about 
the ability to observe weather patterns and provide natural 
disaster warnings. Dr. Whitson also mentioned the possibility 
of commercial companies conducting pharmaceutical and materials 
research in the future.

     4.5(d)_Financial Management at NASA: Challenges and Next Steps

                            October 27, 2005

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-29

Background
    On October 27, 2005, the Committee on Science, Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics and the Committee on Government 
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and 
Accountability, held a joint hearing to examine the 
difficulties that the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) faces in managing and reporting its 
finances, the effects these difficulties have on NASA's ability 
to manage its programs, and the Agency's current and planned 
efforts to address these challenges.
    Witnesses included Mr. Robert Cobb, Inspector General, 
NASA; Ms. Gwendolyn Sykes, Chief Financial Officer, NASA; Mr. 
Patrick Ciganer, Executive Officer, Integrated Financial 
Management Program, NASA; and Mr. Gregory Kutz, Managing 
Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, 
Government Accountability Office, (GAO).
Summary of Hearing
    During the hearing, Members were informed by NASA's 
Inspector General (IG), and the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), that NASA has made very little progress in 
reforming its troubled financial management system.
    In a telling response, NASA's Chief Financial Officer, 
Gwendolyn Sykes, told the Committee that she would not certify 
the Agency's financial statements if she were bound by 
Sarbanes-Oxley, the federal law that provides severe penalties 
to private sector officials for financial misstatements.
    At the hearing, the GAO released a report, requested by the 
Science Committee, examining NASA's implementation of 45 
recommendations GAO issued to the Agency in four reports in 
2003. GAO found that of the 45 recommendations, only three had 
been closed out by NASA; 13 were found to be partially 
implemented.
    Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert 
said, ``I want NASA to be successful. However, as a 
businessman, I also know that without sound financial 
management, NASA will not be able to achieve the goals set for 
its programs.''
    Chairman Calvert continued, ``I am concerned that in three 
of the past four years, independent auditors have been unable 
to give NASA's financial records a passing grade. Administrator 
Griffin, when he testified before the Science Committee in 
June, characterized the status of NASA's financial management 
as `deplorable.' Not only is financial management critical to 
successful operation of the Agency, but we in the Congress also 
need reliable financial information in order to carry out 
effective oversight. We don't want to risk the future of NASA's 
new programs and ventures, by having them built on a shaky 
financial infrastructure. I want to see this great nation lead 
in the areas of exploration, aeronautics and the sciences, and 
don't want us to risk this leadership with unstable 
underpinnings in the Agency's financial system.''
    Gregory Kutz, GAO's Managing Director of Forensic Audits 
and Special Investigations, testified that, ``Our report today 
shows some progress, however overall progress to date has been 
slow.''
    ``In summary, NASA currently lacks the systems, processes, 
and human capital needed to produce credible cost estimates, 
oversee its contractors and their financial and program 
performance, control program costs, and produce timely, 
reliable financial information and auditable annual financial 
statements,'' Kutz explained, adding, ``NASA has fundamental 
problems with its financial management operations that not only 
affect its ability to externally report reliable information, 
but more importantly, hamper its ability to effectively manage 
and oversee its major programs, such as the Space Station and 
Shuttle program.''
    In the report it released, the GAO found that NASA's new 
core financial management system has not resolved the Agency's 
most serious management challenges. ``Because NASA did not use 
disciplined acquisition and implementation practices, the new 
system lacks basic functionality--such as the ability to (1) 
produce transaction-level support for key account balances, (2) 
properly identify adjustments or correcting entries, and (3) 
correctly and consistently post transactions to the right 
accounts. In addition, NASA did not use the implementation of 
its new system as an opportunity to transform its operations 
and instead, automated many of its existing, ineffective 
processes. Compounding its problems, NASA also failed to 
recognize the importance and need for highly skilled, well-
trained financial personnel.''
    GAO added that while most federal agencies have obtained 
unqualified (passing) audits, ``NASA's financial statements 
remain unauditable.''
    Robert Cobb, NASA's IG, said, ``NASA does not currently 
have a financial system that can properly account for the 
taxpayers' dollars, or support program managers with accurate 
financial information necessary to carry out their 
responsibilities. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the 
independent public accountant auditing NASA's financial 
statements was unable to render an opinion on those statements. 
The primary reason was that NASA could not provide sufficient 
evidence to support the statements throughout the year and at 
year end. My office, which hires and supervises the auditor, 
expects that the auditor will be unable to render an opinion on 
NASA's fiscal year 2005 statements for the same reasons. The 
auditor's report is due by November 15.''
    Cobb added, ``Our continuing efforts to obtain 
comprehensive corrective action plans to address the internal 
control deficiencies identified during NASA's financial 
statement audits have largely been unsuccessful. NASA senior 
management continues to provide only high-level, broadly worded 
proposed initiatives that lack sufficient detail and strategies 
to address the outstanding deficiencies.''
    Also testifying at today's hearing were Patrick Ciganer, 
Executive Officer of NASA's Integrated Enterprise Management 
Program, and Allen Li, Director of Acquisition and Source 
Management at GAO.

        4.5(e)_The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda

                             March 29, 2006

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-42

Background
    On March 29, 2006, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the ability of the Joint Planning and 
Development Office (JPDO) to establish and manage an R&D 
program to create a new air-traffic control system. In 2003, 
Congress created JPDO within the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to guide the activities of seven federal 
agencies, particularly the FAA and NASA, as they design and 
implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System 
(NGATS).
    The witnesses were the Honorable Jeffrey N. Shane, the 
Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); 
Dr. Lisa Porter, the Associate Administrator for Aeronautics 
Research Mission Directorate at the NASA; Mr. Bob Pearce, the 
Acting Director of JPDO; Mr. David Dobbs, the Assistant 
Inspector General for Aviation and Special Projects, U.S. 
Department of Transportation; Mr. Mike Hudson, Chair of the 
National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Technology Pathways: 
Assessing the Integrated Plan for a Next Generation Air 
Transportation System, which issued a report in 2005; and Dr. 
Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues at the 
General Accountability Office. At the request of the Science 
Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
GAO is working on a study of JPDO's structure, challenges, and 
international collaboration.
Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert could not be present at 
the hearing but his opening statement reflected his major 
concern that the United States would not be able to maintain 
its lead in the development of a new air traffic management 
system. He questioned whether JPDO was the right office to most 
effectively and efficiently develop the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (NGATS).
    Congressman Ralph Hall acted as Chairman at the hearing. He 
agreed with Chairman Calvert on the importance of the hearing 
and the development of the NGATS and explained that his goal 
was to determine if JPDO was as efficient an organization as it 
could be.
    Ranking Subcommittee Member Mark Udall questioned the R&D 
challenges facing the development of the NGATS and how JPDO was 
prioritizing and working to overcome those challenges.
    The Honorable Jeffrey Shane, the Under Secretary of the 
DOT, testified to the challenges facing the development of the 
NGATS. He explained that the program's goal was to create an 
entirely new system of air transportation, elements of which 
are still unknown. He outlined how JPDO was progressing in this 
task. ``The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 
achieved important milestones in 2005 towards building the 
NGATS system. The JPDO completed its internal organization and 
created eight government/industry Integrated Product Teams 
(IPTs) to break this large and complex project into manageable 
strategies. These strategies focus on those aspects of aviation 
that hold the keys to capacity and efficiency improvements--
airport infrastructure, security, a more agile air traffic 
system, shared situational awareness, safety, environmental 
concerns, weather and global harmonization of equipage and 
operations.''
    Dr. Lisa Porter, the Associate Administrator for 
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at the NASA, explained 
NASA's role in developing the NGATS and working with the JPDO. 
``We have four major programs--the Airspace Systems Program, 
the Aviation Safety Program, the Fundamental Aeronautics 
Program, and the Aeronautics Test Program--each of which 
contributes to the research needs of the future air 
transportation system.'' She also outlined a major R&D 
challenge that NASA faces in developing the NGATS: creating a 
new, more flexible Air Traffic Management system capable of 
supporting increased capacity.
    Mr. Bob Pearce, the Acting Director of JPDO, outline five 
areas that JPDO would be focusing on in the coming year to work 
toward the NGATS. He saw 2006 as a breakthrough year for the 
Next Generation System initiative and the JPDO and testified 
that ``All of the initial hard work is starting to pay off and 
we must now sustain the momentum generated in 2005.''
    Mr. David Dobbs, the Assistant Inspector General for 
Aviation and Special Projects, U.S. Department of 
Transportation testified that, ``Overall, we found that 
progress has been made with the JPDO since the office was 
established two years ago. . .however, the cost and schedule of 
the next system remains unknown, and considerable work remains 
to align Agency budgets and plans.''
    Mr. Mike Hudson, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Technology Pathways: Assessing the Integrated Plan 
for a Next Generation Air Transportation System testified that, 
``The assessment committee considers the timely preparation of 
the first edition of the Integrated Plan to be a positive first 
step. Even so, substantial improvements in the Integrated Plan 
and the method by which it is being implemented are 
essential.'' Improvements included defining operational 
concepts, transforming the eight IPT's into three, and 
undertaking a more vigorous effort to collaborate with foreign 
governments and institutions.
    Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues at 
the General Accountability Office stated that ``ultimate 
responsibility for the success of JPDO and the broader NGATS is 
shared among JPDO and its partner agencies, nonfederal 
stakeholders, and the Congress. . .failure in any one of these 
areas will significantly affect JPDO's chances of achieving a 
three-fold increase in airspace capacity by 2025.''

     4.5(f)_The NASA Workforce: Does NASA Have the Right Strategy 
      and Policies to Retain and Build the Workforce It Will Need?

                             June 13, 2006

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-54

Background
    On June 13, 2006, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the future of NASA's Workforce. The hearing 
focused on NASA's strategy to grow and maintain a workforce 
that has the skills to see the agency through the completion of 
the Shuttle program and implement the Vision for Space 
Exploration.
    The witnesses were Ms. Toni Dawsey, NASA Assistant 
Administrator for Human Capital Management; Dr. Lee Stone, 
Legislative Representative, International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and an employee 
at NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. David Black, Co-Chair, 
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Meeting the Workforce 
Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration, and 
President and CEO, Universities Space Research Association; and 
Mr. John W. Douglass, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries 
Association.
Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert opened the hearing by 
discussing the importance of solving NASA's workforce issues. 
``There are hard fiscal realities facing NASA, but just as 
important and disconcerting are the hard technical realities of 
which the agency will be reliant on its workforce to manage.'' 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee echoed the Chairman's 
concerns. ``Ensuring that NASA has the right workforce for the 
future is going to be no small task and we owe it both to the 
highly talented NASA employees as well as to the broader 
aerospace community to make sure NASA and Congress `get it 
right' in attempting to shape NASA's future workforce.''
    The issues facing NASA's workforce are varied and complex. 
One major challenge is preventing a workforce gap between the 
completion of the Shuttle and the start of the CEV program. 
Another challenge is the question of ``uncovered capacity.'' 
Ms. Toni Dawsey testified as to how uncovered capacity across 
all centers has led to the equivalent of 800 full time 
employees not having sufficient work. Dr. Black, however, 
testified that these numbers are inexact, and urged NASA to 
stay away from reducing its force until it did more research 
into the skills it already possesses. In response, Dawsey 
assured, ``As we have testified before, NASA will conduct a 
reduction in force of any of our civil servants only as an 
action of last resort consistent with our statutory 
constraints.''
    Another issue of debate in the hearing was how much work 
should NASA do in-house versus out of house. Dr. David Black, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Universities Space 
Research Association, advocated further review of which space 
systems will be developed by NASA and which ones will be 
contracted out, in order to better realize workforce needs. 
``The extent to which NASA decides to develop and operate space 
systems in-house at its field centers or to contract such work 
out will have a substantial influence on the skills needed in-
house,'' he said. ``Moreover, such make/buy decisions also have 
a strong influence on recruitment of future NASA employees.''
    Mr. John Douglass, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, also was critical 
of NASA's Strategy, saying that NASA should contract more of 
its work out to industry, while still preserving certain highly 
specialized labor skills.

       4.5(g)_The National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Plan for 
                   Aeronautics: A Blueprint for NASA?

                             July 18, 2006

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-55

Background
    On July 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on the National Academy's Decadal Plan for 
Aeronautics. Witnesses from industry and academia discussed the 
report itself as well as ways in which NASA could implement its 
findings.
    The witnesses were Dr. Paul Kaminski, Chairman of the 
National Research Council's Steering Committee that produced 
the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics (released in June 
2006); Dr. Steven Merrill, Executive Director of the National 
Research Council's Board on Science, Technology, and Economic 
Policy; Dr. Michael Romanowski, Vice President for Civil 
Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association; and Dr. Parviz 
Moin, a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford 
University and Director of the Institute for Computational and 
Mathematical Engineering, the Center for Turbulence Research, 
and the ASCI Center for Integrated Turbulence Simulations.
Summary of Hearing
    Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert opened the hearing. ``We, 
in the United States, must focus on our economic strengths and 
invest in high technology sectors to maintain global 
leadership. It is important to realize that NASA-developed 
technology can be found in virtually every airplane flying 
today. The return on the original investment has been 
tremendous!''
    The hearing focused on the National Research Council's 
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics. The survey identifies 51 
high priority research challenges, grouped into five broad 
categories where it recommends that NASA focus its energies: 
Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics; Propulsion and Power; Materials 
and Structures; Dynamics, Navigation, Control and Avionics; and 
Intelligent and Autonomous Systems, Operations and Decision 
Making, Human Integrated Systems, and Networking and 
Communications. These areas are broadly in line with NASA's 
stated priorities.
    Dr. Paul Kaminski told the Subcommittee that, ``Advances in 
these areas would have a significant, long-term impact on civil 
aeronautics. Accordingly, federal funds, facilities and staff 
should be made available to advance the high-priority Research 
and Technology challenges in each area.''
    Dr. Michael Romanowski continued, ``The Aerospace 
Industries Association agrees with the five common themes the 
study identified among the 51 high-priority research 
challenges. We also agree that NASA needs to create a more 
balanced split in the allocation of aeronautics R&D funding 
between in house research and external research.''
    Referring to the Decadal Survey, Dr. Parviz Moin said, ``I 
do believe that it was an excellent study.'' He went on to 
stress the importance of hypersonics and role it could play in 
moving forward with manned missions to the Moon and Mars if 
provided sufficient resources. ``I think the aeronautics 
directorate can play a significant role in this area but I 
don't think it has the means or budgetary resources to do so. 
Some of the funding for this research can come from the space 
exploration groups,'' Moin testified.
    Dr. Stephen A. Merrill said ``There is, in fact, a growing 
discrepancy between the needs said to be served by NASA's 
[aeronautics] program and the resources available to it. Yet 
there is no agreed upon articulation of what the program should 
be trying to accomplish in this budget environment. Lacking 
clear direction, ARMD [Aeronautics Research Mission 
Directorate] and its predecessors have been attempting to do as 
much or more with less, spreading resources too thinly to 
ensure their effectiveness and the applicability of the R&D 
results.''
    All the witnesses also concluded that NASA's Aeronautics 
budget was too slim to accomplish all the priorities. This led 
to controversy over whether transitional, cutting edge 
demonstrations, or basic research should be the focus of ARMD 
in the future.
    Another hearing, featuring Dr. Lisa Porter, Associate 
Administrator for Aeronautics, will be held in the fall to get 
NASA's perspective on the survey.

       4.5(h)_The National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Plan for 
                      Aeronautics: NASA's Response

                           September 26, 2006

                       Hearing Volume No. 109-64

Background
    On Tuesday, September 26, 2006, the Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss NASA's reaction to the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations on how NASA 
should run its civil aeronautics research and development (R&D) 
program. The hearing is a follow-up to a Subcommittee hearing 
on July 18, 2006, which took testimony from four witnesses 
representing industry, academia, and the National Academy of 
Sciences on two reports recently published by the Academy--
Aeronautics Innovation: NASA's Challenges and Opportunities, 
published in early May; and the first ever Decadal Survey of 
Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future, published in 
early June.
    The hearing sought to address The witnesses were: (1) Dr. 
Lisa Porter, NASA Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics 
Research Mission Director; and (2) Gen. William Hoover, Co-
Chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Steering Committee 
that produced the report: Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: 
Foundation for the Future.
Summary of Hearing
    General Hoover began his testimony by summarizing the 
Decadal Survey discussed during July's hearing. The Decadal 
Survey recommended NASA increase its aeronautics budget in 
order to mature developing technologies and work with industry 
to increase funding for external research. identified 
challenges for transitioning NASA's technology to the public 
and highlighted the need for sufficient research and technology 
funding. Hoover explained NASA needs to develop some research 
to higher levels of maturity depending on which organization or 
industry will be using their information. Aeronautics research 
also needs ``a more homogeneous organizational approach.'' In 
terms of funding, Hoover recommended that the budget for in-
house and external organizations is ``skewed too far'' towards 
in-house operations. Finally, he urged the government to 
conduct a review of organizational options to ensure U.S. 
leadership in civil aeronautics. Along these lines, Hoover 
acknowledged the need to improve the transition of technology 
and fundamental research, but thought the solution lay in 
organizational changes or a national aeronautics policy.
    NASA has responded to the report by citing several changes 
already made within the organization. Dr. Porter explained the 
NAS recommendations are in line with the newly restructured 
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Porter 
maintains aeronautics research is adequately funded and that 
the fiscal year decline does not apply to research content. The 
$200 million decline will occur because ARMD will no longer 
have to pay a large portion of the research Center's overhead 
costs. All ARMD programs will also emphasize improving 
knowledge rather than focusing solely on technology with high 
maturity or Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). Changes have 
also been made beyond the study's recommendations. Porter 
explained ARMD is reaching out to industry, academia, expanded 
partnerships with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Joint 
Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
    Members began questioning by asking NASA to clarify their 
budget rationale, specifically in regard to the large amount of 
funding allocated to hypersonics. Porter explained that 
hypersonics is a high priority because much remains to be 
researched. When it was suggested that hypersonics should seek 
funding from outside organizations, Dr. Porter said NASA had 
secured that very funding from DOD and DARPA. Chairman Calvert 
also asked why industry is not included from the onset of 
research. Dr. Porter explained ARMD requests information from 
many different companies and continuously meets with industry.
    Members also asked how budget cuts would affect the Next 
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS). Dr. Porter 
pointed out that the Aerospace Systems Program is only handling 
the air traffic management part of NGATS. Mr. Udall also wanted 
to know what role the JPDO played in guiding the budget cuts. 
According to Dr. Porter, the JPDO, as well as the FAA, and 
NOAA, reviewed and commented on the proposals.
    Discussion turned to the labor force and Members asked if 
there were cuts in human expertise at NASA and how the cuts 
could affect airline safety. Dr. Porter explained the previous 
program, Human Measures and Performance, was restructured. 
Instead of establishing a separate unit researching the human 
factors, human factors are now integrated into general 
research. General Hoover mentioned Ames Research Center as an 
area involved in human factors. Members then asked with losses 
at Ames and other contractors, is there a concern experts will 
not be available? Dr. Porter answered that human factors is 
still a strong component, but was unable to comment on how many 
human factors experts have been lost.
    Members asked NASA to clarify the distinction between 
demonstrations and experiments. Dr. Porter explained that 
demonstrations are conducted to expand on prior work, while 
experiments are conducted to ``pursue the unknown.'' According 
to Dr. Porter, ``You are not trying to prove you are right, you 
are trying to find out where truth lies, and how to use that to 
get much better.'' As the government tries to develop cutting 
edge technologies, experimentation, rather than demonstration, 
is a more appropriate method. As such, ARMD is conducting more 
experimentation than demonstration.
    Finally Members asked for the witnesses if they had any 
recommendations to Congress, and specifically if ARMD had any 
unfunded priorities. Dr. Porter said they did not and that all 
priorities are included on the current budget. Gen. Hoover 
suggested that the Decadal Survey could provide a basis for 
determining future priorities.
                                Appendix

                              ----------                              







                          VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                            FISCAL YEAR 2006

BACKGROUND

    As the House and Senate begin consideration of the President's 
Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) budget request, there is no question that a 
great deal of debate will revolve around the budget deficit and its 
impact on the long-term economic health of the Nation. As these 
discussions move forward, the Science Committee urges Congress to 
recognize the importance and contributions of science and technology to 
productivity and economic growth--and consequently--fiscal security.
    Indeed, nothing benefits federal revenues over the long-term as 
much as accelerated economic growth, and nothing fuels long-term growth 
more than science and technology. Further, the strength of the U.S. 
scientific enterprise has long been a crucial component of America's 
national security. Advancements in science and technology were critical 
to the Nation's ability to triumph in the Cold War. (Indeed, Cold War-
era investments in science and technology, especially those made in the 
wake of the Soviet launch of Sputnik, laid much of the foundation for 
the broad, successful scientific and engineering enterprise the U.S. 
boasts today.) New ideas, understandings and technologies spawned by 
research and development are just as essential to winning the war 
against terrorism.
    As the President's Science Advisor Dr. John Marburger noted in 
testimony before the Science Committee, ``This Administration 
understands that science and technology are major drivers of economic 
growth and important for securing the homeland and winning the war on 
terrorism.'' Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Under Secretary 
Charles McQueary echoed this sentiment at the same hearing, stating 
that ``the Nation's advantage in science and technology is key to 
securing the homeland.''

SCIENCE COMMITTEE AGENDA

    In the first session of the 109th Congress, the Science Committee's 
top objective will be to pass authorization legislation for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This legislation 
is needed to provide Congressional direction in the wake of the 
President's Space Exploration Vision. The Committee also intends to 
pass an Organic Act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), as well as other bills related to NOAA's 
operations, including one authorizing tsunami detection, warning, 
education and research programs. The Committee has already passed its 
portions of the comprehensive Energy Bill.
    The Committee also will work to strengthen funding and activities 
at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy 
(DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST). With respect to NSF, the Committee places particular 
priority on preserving the agency's critical role in supporting math 
and science education, especially at the K-12 level.
    The Committee also will conduct ongoing oversight of some of the 
key programs it has helped put into place, including the work of the 
DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, and important interagency 
research and development (R&D) activities such as nanotechnology, 
climate change research, networking and information technology, and 
cyber security.

OVERALL R&D FUNDING

    The President proposes to spend $132.3 billion on R&D in FY06, 
about a one percent increase over FY05. The proposed R&D budget 
increases are heavily weighted toward development (a two percent 
increase), while applied research would remain flat, and basic research 
would decline by 1.2 percent.
    The Committee believes the proposed funding for basic research is 
insufficient. Funding short-term development at the expense of longer-
term basic and applied research is not advisable, and neglects those 
portions of R&D where government support is most crucial. The Committee 
also believes that the budget must fully consider appropriate balances 
between defense and non-defense R&D spending and between biomedical and 
non-biomedical spending. At $71 and $29 billion, respectively, the R&D 
budgets of DOD and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) account for 
more than 75 percent of the total R&D budget. Further, the increase for 
defense development ($1.4 billion) amounts to almost twice the overall 
increase in R&D ($733 million). While fully acknowledging the important 
contributions of defense and biomedical R&D, the Committee urges that 
similar attention be given to other important R&D agencies, such as 
NSF, DOE, and NIST.
    The Committee notes R&D rated higher than all other investment 
categories in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program 
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis. Further, the Committee notes 
that the agencies under its jurisdiction scored very well on the 
President's Executive Branch Management Scorecard, with DOE, NASA, and 
NSF among seven of the 26 federal agencies evaluated to receive three 
or more ``green lights.''

INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES

Presidential Initiatives
    The Administration's budget highlights five ``multi-agency R&D 
priorities'' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of 
them--nanotechnology, climate change, and networking and information 
technology. The Committee strongly endorses these initiatives, and 
agrees that they deserve priority in funding, but is concerned that all 
three receive cuts in the budget request.
    The Administration proposes a 2.5 percent decrease from the FY05 
estimated level for the interagency program on nanotechnology. This 
decrease includes a drop of seven percent at the five agencies under 
the Science Committee's jurisdiction that participate in the program 
(NSF, DOE, NIST, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ). 
The Committee believes that Congress should fund these activities, to 
the extent possible, at the levels called for by the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153). The 
Committee endorses the new nanomanufacturing and nanometrology 
initiatives at NIST, but is concerned that the request may not support 
all the equipment needs of its nanoscience facility.
    The Administration proposes spending $1.9 billion for the 
interagency Climate Change Science Program, approximately the same 
level as in FY05. As part of that Program, the Committee continues to 
support the interagency Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), 
which focuses on shorter-term research to support improved public 
debate and decision-making. The Committee is concerned that the FY06 
request cuts the CCRI by $38 million, or 17 percent below the FY05 
level. It is unclear why the CCRI activities were reduced when they are 
designed to provide information on the most pressing questions and 
uncertainties in climate research.
    The Administration proposes a 4.5 percent decrease from the FY05 
estimated level for the interagency program on Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD). This program 
includes important work on high-end computing and high-confidence 
software and systems, and the Committee believes that funding for work 
in this area should be raised, not lowered.
    While cyber security R&D is not a formal Presidential initiative, 
significant effort is being put into programs in this area at a number 
of agencies. The budget request for cyber security is basically flat at 
NSF, NIST, and DHS, and well below the levels authorized in the Cyber 
Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305). The Committee 
believes that increased funding for, and increased coordination of, 
cyber security R&D programs are needed.
    The Committee also endorses the two other multi-agency R&D 
initiatives, which relate to combating terrorism (discussed in the next 
section) and to hydrogen (discussed in the section on the Department of 
Energy).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

                             FULL COMMITTEE

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

    The Committee wrote the portion of the Homeland Security Act that 
created the DHS S&T Directorate, and has exercised close oversight of 
DHS R&D programs since the Department's inception. The Committee is 
pleased that the Administration has requested a 23 percent increase in 
funding for this directorate.
    A significant part of the increase ($127 million) reflects the 
transfer of R&D programs currently located elsewhere in DHS (primarily 
at the Transportation Security Administration) into the S&T 
Directorate. The Committee is supportive of this consolidation, and 
looks forwarded to the increased coordination of R&D that it expects to 
result from it.
    The remainder of the increase is spread among several new 
initiatives, the largest of which is the formation of a $227 million 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
    The Committee remains concerned about the balance between short- 
and long-term research programs at DHS. The requested funding for 
university programs and for research on emerging threats is flat. The 
Committee is concerned that if DHS does not make and maintain 
investments in longer-term basic research, including research at 
universities, the next generation of homeland security technologies 
will not be available to counter the next generation of threats.

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)

    The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's non-military national 
laboratories, civilian energy research, development, and demonstration 
programs, and commercial application of energy technology activities.
Office of Science
    The Committee believes that the Administration's FY06 request for 
DOE's Office of Science, which funds 40 percent of the Nation's 
physical science research, is inadequate. The budget proposes funding 
the Office at $3.46 billion, a reduction of 3.8 percent. This is 
significantly less (25 percent) than the $4.6 billion included in all 
three versions of the House-passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 
2003. It also is well below (nine percent) the $3.8 billion authorized 
in H.R. 610, the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
Commercial Application Act of 2005, which was passed by the Science 
Committee on February 10, 2005.
    The proposal also does little to advance the goal of the 
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (P-CAST), 
which recommended in a 2002 report that future Administration budget 
requests bring funding for the physical sciences into parity with that 
of the life sciences. DOE's Office of Science is the largest federal 
supporter of the civilian physical sciences, a critical component of 
the federal research portfolio that has been dwarfed by support for 
biomedical research in recent years.
    The Committee is particularly concerned about relative balance 
between funding for user facilities and for academic research by the 
Office of Science. The Committee supports the proposed funding of 
operations for the newest user facilities such as the Spallation 
Neutron Source (+$74 million) and the four new Nanoscale Science 
Research Centers (+$43 million) at Oak Ridge, Sandia, Argonne, and 
Brookhaven National Laboratories.
    The Committee is concerned, however, that such support could come 
at the expense of research grant funding, which is down by about 10 
percent in this request.
    But funding for the user facilities themselves is inadequate. Under 
the budget proposal, existing user facilities would be shut down for 
more weeks of the year because of lack of funds. These facilities are 
used by industrial and academic researchers as well as by researchers 
at the National Laboratories themselves. Taxpayers have already 
invested heavily in these facilities, and it is wasteful to allow them 
to sit idle for much of the year.
    Budgetary constraints are also leading DOE to cut back on its plans 
to open future facilities. In November 2003, the Office of Science 
released a Facilities Plan, a prioritized list of 20 new facilities it 
hoped to open over the next 20 years. The Plan was well thought out and 
required difficult decisions, but its implementation is already being 
adversely affected by the budget. The FY06 budget proposal would cancel 
one project included in the Plan (at Fermilab) and would defer another 
(the Rare Isotope Accelerator). However, the Committee understands that 
an ambitious construction program in the face of a constrained 
budgetary environment may cause either the construction of the 
facilities to be prolonged--increasing their costs--or core research 
and existing user facilities' programs to be cut.
    Finally, the ten-fold increase (from $4.9 million to $52 million) 
in funding proposed for the preliminary design and long-lead 
acquisition for ITER, the international fusion research project, seems 
premature for a project for which the site has not yet been chosen.
Energy Supply R&D
    The Committee is concerned that R&D related to energy efficiency 
and alternative sources of energy is inadequate, especially during a 
time of high energy prices. Energy efficiency and renewable energy 
research would be reduced by 5.3 percent under the FY06 proposal.
    The Committee continues to support the President's initiative 
calling for America to lead the world in the development of hydrogen-
powered automobiles and the necessary fueling infrastructure to support 
them. The Committee remains concerned, however, that the proposed 
increases in hydrogen programs would come at the expense of much of the 
rest of the R&D funded by DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
account, which includes programs for hybrid vehicles and advanced 
diesels that can lead to significant near-term reductions in oil 
consumption.
    The Committee applauds the Administration's additional funding for 
nuclear energy research, but is concerned with the proposal to merge 
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) with the remaining 
programs of nuclear R&D. NERI, which funds innovative, peer-reviewed 
nuclear research at universities, has been the source of new ideas for 
improving the safety and performance of nuclear energy. These 
technologies may also enhance national security by reducing the danger 
of proliferation of nuclear materials.
    The Committee continues to support the Clean Coal program with the 
requirements that are included in H.R. 610, but has concerns about the 
FutureGen project, which is to be funded with rescinded Clean Coal 
funds. While the Committee supports the goals of FutureGen and believes 
DOE should be investing more in studying carbon sequestration, the 
Administration's request for $237 million for the transfer of funds to 
the FutureGen project may be premature, given that design and scope of 
the project have not been completed.
    Also, the Committee is troubled by the cut of nearly 20 percent 
proposed for electricity transmission and distribution research, given 
that power disturbances are an important national security matter and 
are estimated to cost the U.S. up to $80 billion a year.

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for 
80 percent of EPA's R&D activities, and it receives the majority of 
funds available in the agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account. 
ORD serves a unique role in environmental R&D: it conducts the basic 
and applied research that supports EPA's regulatory programs and 
investigates the next generation of environmental challenges. To meet 
these needs, ORD conducts intramural research at EPA's many 
laboratories, and it supports extramural research at colleges and 
universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant 
program.
    For FY06, the budget request includes $761 million for S&T at EPA, 
a two percent increase from FY05. Funding for the Office of Research 
and Development (ORD), the primary recipient of S&T funds, would 
decrease by one percent to $569 million. The Committee is pleased with 
the overall requested funding levels and applauds the Administration 
for recognizing the importance of science at the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    The Committee supports the proposed continuation of the agency's 
building decontamination research (with $19 million FY06) and the 
proposed continuation of the National Homeland Security Research 
Center. The budget request recognizes EPA's important homeland security 
contributions in buildings, water and food security.
    But while the Committee strongly supports EPA's role in homeland 
security, it is concerned that security research could be funded at the 
expense of other areas of environmental research.
    The FY06 proposal includes a 168 percent increase in S&T funding 
going to homeland security activities. The largest share of the 
increase ($44 million) is proposed for a five-city pilot program called 
the Water Sentinel to develop a drinking water monitoring and 
surveillance system. Given the relatively flat S&T budget, the 
Committee is concerned that core environmental research activities will 
be reduced to fund such initiatives. The $44 million for a five-city 
pilot appears to be a very expensive undertaking. The Committee plans 
to look more closely at this and other homeland security proposals and 
their effect on ORD's core research.
    The Committee also remains concerned with proposed cuts in the 
ecological research program and the pollution prevention research 
program (now called Sustainability Research), which are based on the 
FY05 PART reviews. At a hearing on the ecological research program last 
year, Administration officials did not provide a clear rationale for 
the cut. In FY06, ecological research would receive $84 million, which 
is $10 million (or 11 percent) less than FY05. This would be especially 
harmful because the program has already been reduced by $32 million or 
38 percent since FY04.
    The Committee is pleased that the budget includes funding for the 
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship program, which supports 
graduate student fellowships in environmental science. However, the 
Committee believes the program should be funded at $10 million, the 
level restored by Congress in FY03, FY04, and FY05. It appears that 
EPA's budget proposal would fund STAR fellowships, along with three 
other fellowship programs, at $8.3 million, with the result once again 
of cutting STAR fellowship funding.
    The Committee also plans to examine the following proposed 
reductions: (1) an 80 percent reduction in the Superfund Innovative 
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, which demonstrates innovative 
clean up technologies; (2) elimination of $5 million for the 
Exploratory STAR Research Grants, which the Agency's Science Advisory 
Board has repeatedly recommended that EPA expand; and (3) a $2.4 
million reduction in mercury research that will eliminate EPA's 
investment in tracking how mercury moves through the environment.
    The budget proposes a new funding approach between ORD and the 
other program offices, such as the air, water and waste offices. 
Approximately, $20 million of ORD's funds are being transferred to the 
control of the other program offices, which will then contract with ORD 
on a fee-for-service basis for research. Although the Committee is not 
averse to the concept of fee-for-service research, it is not clear what 
problem this new approach is designed to fix. The Committee plans to 
look closely at this new approach.

Department of Commerce--Technology Administration

    The bulk of the Technology Administration's funding goes to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Nation's 
oldest federal laboratory, which has consistently provided high-quality 
research in a wide variety of fields, including industrial sciences, 
homeland security, nanotechnology, health care, building science, and 
computer security. The budget request includes $426 million for the 
core NIST laboratory programs and facilities in FY06, an increase of 
about $47 million or 12 percent. The Committee strongly supports this 
request, as it represents the necessary level of funding for NIST to 
fulfill all its mandates and missions.
    The Committee supports the budget request of $59 million for NIST's 
construction account, which includes funding to complete the upgrades 
at the Central Utility Plant at NIST's laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, 
continue building improvements in Boulder and Gaithersburg, Maryland, 
and establish a funding mechanism for regular maintenance at the 
Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML) in Gaithersburg. The Committee is 
pleased that the construction of the AML in Gaithersburg is completed 
and the President's request includes funds to make this facility 
available to outside researchers. The Committee nevertheless remains 
concerned because the FY05 request for $25 million in specialized 
equipment was not funded in the FY05 appropriation and must be provided 
in FY06 or the massive investment for the AML will not be fully 
utilized.
    The Committee continues to support the Advanced Technology Program 
(ATP) and is disappointed that the Administration has again included no 
funds for the program in the budget request. In addition, the Committee 
is concerned that the proposed budget does not even fund the costs 
associated with closing the program. The closing of the program would 
require funds from the NIST laboratory budget because ATP currently 
spends about $13 million at NIST's own labs. Funding would also be 
required to cover the cost of laying off the more than 200 ATP 
employees, about $20 million. These costs would have to be absorbed by 
the NIST labs, eating into the proposed increases for the laboratory 
programs.
    The Committee is disappointed that the Administration has requested 
only $47 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). 
This would cut the program by 56 percent from the $107 million 
appropriated in FY05, leaving the national network of Centers with 
insufficient funding. MEP has demonstrated its effectiveness as the 
only program that offers direct technical assistance to small and 
medium-sized manufacturers to help them thrive in a globalized economy. 
The House has spoken overwhelmingly in favor of MEP, both through the 
FY05 appropriation and in the passage last year of H.R. 3598, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004.

Department of Commerce--National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
keep NTIS functioning as a self-sustaining entity.

Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
                    (NOAA)

    NOAA's activities include providing weather forecasts and warnings, 
charting the seas for navigation, developing guidelines for the use and 
protection of ocean and coastal resources, and performing research to 
improve understanding of marine, coastal and atmospheric environments. 
The Committee has jurisdiction over four of NOAA's five line offices--
the National Ocean Service, the Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic 
Research, the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information 
Service, and the National Weather Service.
    The FY06 budget request for NOAA is $3.6 billion, a decrease of 
$300 million (eight percent) compared to the FY05 enacted level of $3.9 
billion. Most of the reduction is due to the elimination of earmarks, 
and the Committee supports the proposed overall level of funding for 
NOAA.
    The Committee supports the request of $964 million for satellite 
programs at NOAA. This request is a $57 million (six percent) increase 
over the FY05 enacted level of $907 million. The increase is for the 
procurement, acquisition, and construction of the next generation of 
weather satellites, and it is in line with the long-term budget plans 
for these satellite systems. The Committee remains concerned about cost 
overruns and technical challenges that have delayed the launch date for 
the new polar satellite system. Last year, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) completed a report for the Committee on the 
costs and risks associated with NOAA's next-generation polar satellite 
program. The current projection for the cost of the next generation 
polar satellite system has risen from $6.5 billion to $8.1 billion, and 
GAO estimates it is likely to rise by another $500 million before the 
system is complete. Additionally, the Committee recently learned that 
availability of one of the key sensors on the new polar satellite will 
be delayed by 16 months due to technical difficulties in developing the 
sensor.
    The Committee strongly supports NOAA's request for $28 million for 
satellite data product processing and distribution, and $26 million for 
satellite product development, readiness and application. The Committee 
is concerned about NOAA's current and future capability to utilize, 
manage, and store satellite and weather data critical for forecasting 
and research. These funding levels will ensure that the Nation can take 
full advantage of the large investment in satellites through timely and 
useful satellite data products.
    The Committee supports NOAA's request for $9.5 million to expand 
the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. The Committee held a hearing about 
the proposed expansion of the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network on January 
26, 2005. This request, combined with $14.5 million in supplemental 
funds in FY05, will allow NOAA to procure and deploy tsunami detection 
buoys in a system designed to provide continuous tsunami warning 
capability for both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United 
States. However, the Committee is particularly concerned that the 
Administration has cut nearly in half from $4.3 million to $2.3 million 
the funding that goes to help educate communities about, and prepare 
them for tsunamis. Experts testified at the Committee's January hearing 
that while detection is important, it is unlikely to save lives unless 
local communities have plans in place, and the public is educated about 
how to react in the event of a tsunami.

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation (NSF)

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of 
federal funding for non-medical basic research conducted at colleges 
and universities. NSF funds basic research across nearly all 
disciplines of science and engineering, making NSF-supported research 
integral to progress in national priority areas such as health care and 
national security, among others. In addition, NSF sponsors programs to 
improve K-12 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and 
research assistantship programs support many graduate and post-doctoral 
students.
    NSF continues to receive high marks from the Office of Management 
and Budget for the quality of its management and the excellence of its 
programs. Building on its performance in the FY05 budget, NSF was one 
of only seven agencies awarded three green lights on the Executive 
Branch Management Scorecard. In addition, eight NSF programs were 
examined using PART. All eight programs received ratings of 
``Effective'' (the highest rating). NSF was the only agency in the 
Federal Government to receive the highest rating on every program that 
underwent a PART evaluation.
    The FY06 budget request for NSF is $5.61 billion, an increase of 
2.4 percent, or $132 million over the FY05 level. However, because NSF 
received a 3.1 percent ($180 million) cut in FY05, the overall request 
level for FY06 is approximately one percent below the FY04 level. In 
addition, the proposed increase includes money provided to foot the 
bill for ice-breaking expenses currently paid by the U.S. Coast Guard, 
so the increase for NSF in reality comes to about 1.5 percent. 
Meanwhile, NSF has faced increasing proposal pressure in virtually 
every scientific field. The Foundation now funds only about 20 percent 
of the proposals it receives, down from the 33 percent level that had 
held for many years.
    While recognizing that budget realities may not allow Congress to 
fund NSF at the level provided in the current authorization (the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, P.L. 107-368), 
the Committee believes that the proposed FY06 request is inadequate. 
Congress should provide as much funding as possible to strengthen 
support for core science and education programs, and priority areas 
such as information technology and nanoscale science and engineering 
research.
    The Committee is especially disturbed by the proposed cuts in NSF's 
Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate. Since 1950, NSF has 
been tasked with strengthening math and science education programs at 
all levels. Yet under the budget proposal, the overall investment in 
education at NSF would drop from $841.4 million in FY05 to $737 million 
in FY06 (down 12 percent). Much of the decrease would occur in the 
Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE) and Undergraduate 
Education accounts, which would drop from $182 million to $141 million, 
and from $154 million to $135 million, respectively.
    NSF's education programs are unique in their capacity to develop 
new and improved materials and assessments, create better teacher 
training techniques and move promising ideas from research to practice. 
The Committee fears that disinvestments in this area will deprive 
states, school districts and schools of the tools and ideas they need 
to achieve the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. NSF's EHR 
programs should receive at least level funding in FY06.

United States Fire Administration (USFA)

    The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), which is now part of DHS, was 
created in 1974 to aid localities in reducing the loss of life and 
property from fires and related emergencies. The budget request for 
USFA is $52.6 million, well below its authorized level of $64.8 
million. The Committee also notes its support for USFA's National Fire 
Academy training center and its budget request of $10 million.
    From FY01 through FY03, USFA administered the (separately 
authorized) Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which is 
authorized by the Science Committee. This program provides direct 
assistance to local fire departments for training, purchase of 
equipment, and other purposes. The program is now run by the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness (ODP). The FY06 budget request includes $500 
million for the fire grant program at ODP. This is a $150 million cut 
from FY05, and $450 million less than authorized under legislation 
signed into law last November (P.L. 108-375). In addition, the 
Administration has requested no funds for the SAFER Program, which 
awards grants to fire departments for the purpose of hiring new 
firefighters. SAFER is authorized at $1.061 billion in FY06 and 
received an appropriation of $65 million in FY05. The Committee feels 
that both of these important programs should receive higher funding.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

    NEHRP is an interagency program that Congress created in 1977 and 
reauthorized last November (P.L. 108-360). It includes NSF, NIST, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS), and aims to reduce the loss of life and property from 
earthquakes by improving emergency response, increasing understanding 
of earthquake risks, and improving earthquake engineering.
    The President's overall FY05 request for NEHRP is about $127 
million, including $54.0, $51.3, $20.6 and $1.0 million, for NSF, USGS, 
FEMA, and NIST, respectively. The Committee believes that NEHRP should 
be funded at the levels in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-360). The Committee is 
most concerned that the NEHRP budget request for NIST of only $1 
million will not be enough to enable NIST to carry out its new 
responsibilities as the lead agency for the program, a role previously 
performed by FEMA. The Committee believes that a minimum of $3.5 
million is needed for NIST's lead agency tasks. The Committee is 
pleased that the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)--a critical 
seismic monitoring program administered by USGS--would receive a 
significant increase to $8.1 million, and urges funding for ANSS at or 
above this level.

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    The budget request provides $16.456 billion for NASA in FY06, an 
increase of 2.4 percent (excluding from the base the $126 million in 
emergency supplemental funding provided to fix NASA facilities damaged 
from last year's hurricanes). While this year's 2.4 percent increase 
for NASA is larger than for most other science agencies, the 
Administration did not seek the 4.7 percent increase it had previously 
projected for FY06 in last year's budget request.
    The Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs remain 
the centerpieces of NASA's human space flight program for the near-
term. About 40 percent of NASA's FY06 budget request is dedicated to 
these two programs.
    The Committee is divided over the NASA budget request as of now 
even though there is broad support for the basic thrust of the Space 
Exploration Vision outlined by the President on January 14, 2004. Key 
questions include the relative priority of NASA funding as compared to 
that of other science agencies; the adequacy of funding for science and 
aeronautics within NASA; and the future of the NASA workforce.
    NASA is still in the process of making fundamental implementation 
decisions related to carrying out the President's vision, and as a 
result numerous figures in the proposed FY06 budget are described by 
NASA as ``placeholders.'' For example, NASA is still determining what 
research it will conduct on the Space Station; what the final 
configuration of the Space Station will look like; how many more Space 
Shuttle flights will be required to complete construction of the Space 
Station; what many of the specifications for the new Crew Exploration 
Vehicle (CEV) will be (including how many people it will carry, whether 
it will be reusable, and whether it will go to the Space Station); what 
launch vehicle to use for the CEV; what activities will take place when 
Americans return to the Moon; and what project will be used to test the 
nuclear propulsion technologies being developed under Project 
Prometheus.
    Many questions also remain about the Space Shuttle, which has been 
grounded since the February 1, 2003 loss of the Columbia. The program's 
future and spending needs will be unclear at least until the Shuttle 
returns to flight, now scheduled for this May. The President's Vision 
is predicated on the Shuttle returning to flight and on Space Station 
construction being completed by 2010, enabling the Shuttle to be 
retired to free up funds for other activities.
    The Administration also has not presented any plan for dealing with 
the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA), which could bring the Space 
Station program to a virtual halt during FY06. Under U.S. rules, 
astronauts are not allowed to remain aboard the Space Station unless a 
crew rescue vehicle is available. The Russian Soyuz spacecraft is used 
for that purpose. But in April 2006, the agreement under which the 
Russians have provided the Soyuz vehicles will, in effect, expire. The 
INA prevents the U.S. from making payments to the Russians for any 
further space services, including Soyuz vehicles, unless the President 
can certify that the Russians are not helping proliferate nuclear 
weapons to Iran. The Administration has indicated it is reviewing 
proposals to amend the INA to allow a new agreement with the Russians, 
but no such language has been forthcoming thus far, and it is unclear 
how Congress would react to such a proposal. Thus, the future use of 
the Space Station is in doubt.
    NASA's proposed FY06 budget for its Science Directorate, which now 
includes both Space Science and Earth Science, is $5.5 billion, 
slightly down from FY05, but several hundred million dollars below the 
level NASA projected last year for FY06. A number of previously planned 
missions would be either delayed or eliminated.
    The Committee is troubled by the limited funding the budget 
provides for NASA's Aeronautics program. The budget cuts the program by 
nearly six percent, down to $852 million for FY06. Aeronautics research 
has long been level funded, and it is especially disadvantaged as 
NASA's overhead costs of operating infrastructure fall 
disproportionately on this program.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    The Committee continues to be disappointed with the tepid support 
for Federal Aviation Administration research and development 
activities. The budget request of $256.2 million represents a slight 
decrease from FY05 enacted levels, and is significantly less than the 
$352.2 million authorized by the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176).
    The FAA, together with other federal departments and agencies, is 
embarking on an extensive, long-term project, the Joint Planning and 
Development Office, to develop a next generation air traffic management 
system. The Committee believes this activity, coupled with ongoing 
research, demands greater investment.
    The FY06 request for the FAA's Office of the Associate 
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is $11.8 
million, which is below the $12.3 million Congress authorized for FY06. 
The Committee, however, remains concerned that AST is continuing to 
develop burdensome and costly launch regulations that will undermine 
the competitiveness of the existing U.S. expendable launch industry. 
The Committee will also closely monitor AST's development of 
regulations for the space tourism industry that are consistent with 
legislation, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (P.L. 
108-492).

Department of Commerce--Office of Space Commercialization

    The Committee urges continued support for this Office. The Office 
has played a useful role in promoting the commercial space industry and 
in removing unnecessary impediments to its development. The Office 
needs to take a stronger role in legal and policy discussions within 
the government and be more aggressive in assisting U.S. commercial 
space providers in their efforts to conduct business with the 
government.






























                          VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                            FISCAL YEAR 2007

BACKGROUND

    As the House and Senate begin consideration of the President's 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget request, there is no question that a great 
deal of debate will revolve around the budget deficit and its impact on 
the long-term economic health of the Nation. As these discussions move 
forward, the Science Committee urges Congress to recognize the 
importance and contributions of science and technology to productivity 
and economic growth--and consequently--fiscal security.
    Indeed, nothing benefits federal revenues over the long-term as 
much as accelerated economic growth, and nothing fuels long-term growth 
more than science and technology. With that in mind, the President has 
proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative, which aims to 
strengthen American innovation and maintain the U.S. position as a 
global economic leader by increasing the federal investment in basic 
research, improving math and science education, and providing tax 
credits to stimulate private sector research and development. The 
Committee strongly supports the American Competitiveness Initiative and 
the related Advanced Energy Initiative.
    Further, the strength of the U.S. scientific enterprise has long 
been a crucial component of America's national security. Advancements 
in science and technology were critical to the Nation's ability to 
triumph in the Cold War. (Indeed, Cold War-era investments in science 
and technology, especially those made in the wake of the Soviet launch 
of Sputnik, laid much of the foundation for the broad, successful 
scientific and engineering enterprise the U.S. boasts today.) New 
ideas, understandings and technologies spawned by research and 
development are just as essential to winning the war against terrorism.

SCIENCE COMMITTEE AGENDA

    In the second session of the 109th Congress, the Science 
Committee's top priority will be to see that the appropriations 
required to carry out the President's American Competitiveness 
Initiative are enacted. To the extent that authorizing legislation is 
required to support and guide appropriations related to the initiative, 
the Committee will move such legislation.
    The Committee will also work to enact legislation passed out of 
Committee during the first session, including a National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) organic act, a bill authorizing 
tsunami detection, warning, education and research programs, a bill 
authorizing an interagency green chemistry R&D program, a 
reauthorization of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 
102-194), and a bill authorizing research on environmental cleanup of 
methamphetamine labs.
    The Committee also will conduct ongoing oversight of the agencies 
and programs it has helped put into place, including the work of the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) 
Directorate, and important interagency research and development (R&D) 
activities such as nanotechnology, climate change research, networking 
and information technology, cyber security, and math and science 
education programs. The Committee will continue to conduct close 
oversight of weather satellite programs at NOAA and the climate change 
technology programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).

OVERALL R&D FUNDING

    The President proposes to spend $137.2 billion on R&D in FY07, 
about a 2.6 percent increase over FY06. The proposed R&D budget 
increases are heavily weighted toward development, which would receive 
a seven percent increase, while basic research would receive a one 
percent increase, and applied research would decline by seven percent.
    As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the budget 
request includes significant funding increases--a total of about $1 
billion--for three agencies that support the physical sciences and 
engineering research critical to American innovation: the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), the DOE Office of Science, and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 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. The Committee 
believes that these investments are critical to support the development 
of the next generation of transformative technologies and urges that 
the requested funds be provided.

INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES

Presidential Initiatives
    The Administration's budget highlights five ``multi-agency R&D 
priorities'' and provides a precise budget breakdown for three of 
them--nanotechnology, climate change science, and networking and 
information technology. The Committee strongly endorses these 
initiatives, and agrees that they deserve priority in funding.
    The Administration proposes a 1.8 percent decrease from the FY06 
estimated funding level for the interagency program on nanotechnology. 
This decrease is mainly due to removal of funding appropriated for 
specific projects at the Department of Defense and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Committee is very 
pleased that for the five agencies under the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction that participate in the nanotechnology program (NSF, DOE, 
NIST, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ), the FY07 
budget requests a 10.1 percent increase over the FY06 level. The 
Committee believes that Congress should fund these activities, to the 
extent possible, at the levels called for by the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153) and 
particularly urges increased funding for research on potential 
environmental and safety issues associated with nanotechnology.
    The Committee continues to support the interagency Climate Change 
Science Program (CCSP), for which the Administration has proposed to 
spend $1.7 billion, about the same level as in FY06. As part of the 
CCSP, the Committee continues to support the interagency Climate Change 
Research Initiative (CCRI), which focuses on shorter-term research to 
support improved public debate and decision-making. The FY07 request is 
$200 million for CCRI, which is about the same level as enacted in 
FY06.
    Information technology research has played a critical role in U.S. 
economic strength over the past several decades. Consistent with the 
President's prioritization of areas that contribute to U.S. 
competitiveness, the budget request recommends $3.07 billion for the 
interagency program on Networking and Information Technology Research 
and Development (NITRD) in FY07, a 7.7 percent increase over FY06. The 
Committee applauds the increased funding for important areas such as 
high-end computing systems and software and urges the funding be 
provided for NITRD at or above the requested level.
    While cyber security R&D is not a formal Presidential initiative, 
significant effort is being put into programs in this area at a number 
of agencies as authorized in the Cyber Security Research and 
Development Act (P.L. 107-305). The Committee is particularly pleased 
to note that increases in funding in the area have been requested for 
FY07 at NSF, NIST, and DHS and urges funding at or above these levels. 
The Committee also is pleased that coordination of cyber security and 
information assurance is being integrated into the NITRD interagency 
coordination process.
    The Committee also endorses the two other multi-agency R&D 
initiatives, which relate to combating terrorism (discussed in the next 
section) and to hydrogen (discussed in the section on DOE).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

                             FULL COMMITTEE

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

    The Committee wrote the portion of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (P.L. 107-296) that created the DHS S&T Directorate, and has 
exercised close oversight of DHS R&D programs since the Department's 
inception. The Committee is concerned that the Administration has 
requested a 33 percent decrease in funding for the S&T Directorate. 
While a significant part of the decrease ($334 million) reflects the 
transfer of almost all nuclear and radiological programs to the DHS 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), the programs remaining within 
DHS S&T still would be reduced by $151 million, 13 percent below FY06. 
Much of the reduction ($104 million) is due to the conclusion of a 
program to develop countermeasures to shoulder-fired anti-aircraft 
missiles.
    The Committee is particularly concerned about the significant 
reduction proposed for work on standards for homeland-security related 
equipment. This decrease will hamper DHS's ability to provide standards 
and guidelines for the performance and use of existing commercial 
technologies as well as for novel products being developed by other DHS 
programs. The Committee is also concerned about proposed decreases for 
work in the area of emergent and prototypical technologies. Reductions 
in this area will limit DHS's ability to perform basic research in 
vulnerability characterization and countermeasure identification and to 
quickly address DHS-specific requirements for technology development.
    The Committee is pleased with the $8.3 million increase proposed 
for cyber security R&D and supports the request.
    The Committee remains concerned about the balance between short- 
and long-term research programs at DHS. There is increasing emphasis on 
development to meet near-term requirements and diminishing funding 
directed at more basic research. Such research is needed to ensure that 
the Nation is adequately prepared for future threats and that the 
Nation has a cadre of S&T professionals with appropriate training.
    The Committee is also concerned about how DHS will balance its 
research priorities, given that the agency must deal with a wide range 
of threats--from cyber attacks to dirty bombs to foot and mouth 
disease--through technologies that must be able to be used in a wide 
variety of environments. Declining funding will make priority-setting 
even more essential. DHS will need to develop robust methods to 
determine which threats pose the greatest risks to help determine the 
distribution of funding across its portfolios.

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Department of Energy (DOE)

    The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's non-military national 
laboratories, civilian energy research, development and demonstration 
programs, and commercial application of energy technology activities.
Office of Science
    The Committee strongly endorses the Administration for its support 
of the Office of Science as part of the American Competitiveness 
Initiative. The Administration meets the levels authorized for the 
Office of Science in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) with 
its request of $4.1 billion for FY07, a 14 percent increase over FY06. 
This $505 million increase is 50 percent larger than the largest 
increase requested for the Office of Science in the preceding decade. 
The Committee believes the FY07 request will restore to health the 
Office of Science, an office which provides more than 40 percent of 
federal support for basic research in the physical sciences. The 
Administration's outyear commitment to provide annual increases 
averaging roughly seven percent over the next 10 years will enable 
dramatic advances in the cutting-edge research underpinning our 
economic competitiveness and national security.
    Using the funding requested for FY07, the Office of Science will be 
able to operate its suite of scientific user facilities on average 96 
percent of their optimal number of operating hours, up from 88 percent 
in FY06. For Nuclear Physics, the improvement is dramatic--facilities 
will be able to operate at 84 percent of optimum compared to 50 percent 
in FY06. DOE's neutron sources and x-ray light sources will have the 
resources necessary to modernize beamlines and other high-tech 
instrumentation, considerably improving the scientific productivity of 
these sources. Just as significantly, the FY07 request allows the 
Office of Science to bring on line the new Spallation Neutron Source 
(SNS) and four of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The 
Committee enthusiastically supports the FY07 funding levels that allow 
the Office of Science to re-instrument and maximize operations of its 
growing suite of scientific user facilities. The Committee believes 
these facility operations are one of the primary benefits the Office of 
Science provides to the researchers at universities, in industry, and 
in government labs across the Nation.
    The request also allows the Office of Science to seize scientific 
opportunities by implementing key components of its 20-year facilities 
plan. The request includes $60 million for FY07 in the Fusion Energy 
Sciences program for ITER, the plan's top priority. Investments are 
made in leadership computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne 
National Laboratories that significantly advance the plan's second-
ranked priority to develop ultra-scale scale scientific computing 
capabilities. An additional $20 million keeps project engineering and 
design (PED) funding on track for the Linac Coherent Light Source at 
Stanford, one of the third-ranked priorities in Science's facilities 
plan. The Committee believes that PED funding for National Synchrotron 
Light Source II (NSLS II), an upgrade to the existing light source at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory, is a nationally important investment.
    The Committee is disappointed, however, that the budget requests 
neither construction funding, nor PED funding, nor even R&D funding for 
the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA), a nuclear physics facility accorded 
high priority in the early period of the 20-year facilities plan. The 
budget does continue to request $4 million for exotic beam R&D, which 
are the capabilities RIA or a RIA-like machine would deliver. In light 
of the lack of PED funding for RIA, it is difficult to see how the 
Administration will be able to meet its obligation under section 981 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to commence construction of the facility 
no later than September 30, 2008.
    Finally, the Committee notes with pleasure the balance struck 
between support for researchers (45 percent) and the operation of 
national scientific user facilities (38 percent). For example, major 
increases in research support are seen in university-based nuclear 
physics, which is up by 17 percent; the development of advanced 
computing software, which is up by 51 percent; and nanotechnology 
research, which is up by 62 percent. Funding within the Office of 
Science for the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative increases 54 
percent to $50 million. The Committee is concerned that climate change 
research is reduced $6.6 million, including reductions to ocean carbon 
sequestration research (cut by $4.9 million) and climate modeling (cut 
by $1.5 million).
Applied Energy R&D
    The Committee applauds the increases in funding proposed for 
renewable energy research as part of the Advanced Energy Initiative. In 
particular, the Administration requests increases for solar, wind, and 
biomass research, which collectively grow by 45 percent. The Committee 
is also pleased with the increase in funding for long-term hydrogen 
R&D. Combined, such activities will help reduce U.S. dependence on 
fossil fuels. However, the Committee is concerned by the accompanying 
decrease in funding across the board for efficiency programs. With the 
noted exceptions of advanced battery research, and equipment standards 
and analysis funding, most activities in the Buildings program, the 
Vehicles program, and the Industries program suffered from the zero-sum 
nature of funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy: overall, the Office receives a 0.2 percent increase, 
insufficient to keep up with inflation. Given the generally short- to 
mid-term, moderate-risk and high-payoff nature of energy efficiency 
activities, the Committee is concerned that the proposal misses an 
opportunity to couple short-term demand reductions--and the associated 
potential for lower prices--with longer-term policies to move away from 
foreign energy supplies.
    In Nuclear Energy, the Committee applauds the increase in funding, 
much of which will go toward the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The 
Committee is concerned, however, that the underlying simultaneous 
commitments to several new project starts--the sodium-cooled fast 
reactor, the high-temperature gas reactor, and the demonstration-scale 
nuclear fuel reprocessing plant--all require large outyear commitments 
of funds. Therefore, the Committee especially applauds the 
Administration's commitment to conduct a comprehensive and rigorous 
systems analysis of the advanced fuel cycle and its associated research 
facility needs. The Committee is also concerned with the proposal to 
eliminate University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance, 
especially in light of the recent announcement of the President's 
American Competitiveness Initiative. The university funding has 
provided crucial support to a new generation of nuclear science and 
engineering students who will help continue U.S. advancements in 
nuclear energy and security.
    In Fossil Energy, the Committee applauds the increase in funding to 
keep the FutureGen project on schedule. FutureGen is a coal-based power 
plant that would capture and dispose of carbon dioxide 
(CO2), resulting in near-zero emissions. The Committee also 
applauds the funding of the associated carbon sequestration science 
activities necessary to extend the lessons from FutureGen across the 
country.
    The Committee notes with concern the 22 percent reduction proposed 
for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. DOE has 
noted that this office, formerly the Office of Electric Transmission 
and Distribution, has been restructured to ``capitalize on the 
complementary synergies and programmatic alignments that have emerged 
since the merger of its predecessor organizations.'' While the 
Committee supports DOE efforts to obtain synergies and efficiencies, it 
also notes that this Office is responsible for R&D to ensure 
transmission grid reliability, and hopes that these changes do not 
result in reduced emphasis on this important effort. This Office is now 
responsible for Distributed Energy Resources (DER), the primary home of 
many combined heat and power technologies that the Committee has 
encouraged in the past. The Committee is concerned that the 48 percent 
reduction in DER programs appears to go beyond synergies and likely 
will result in staff and contractor layoffs.
    The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a cross-cutting 
effort that includes activities in almost all of DOE's applied R&D 
programs. The Administration anticipates releasing a tally of its FY 
2007 request for the CCTP in late March. Currently, it is possible to 
determine that many of the major CCTP components are up or flat. The 
most important recent development in the program was the release on 
August 5, 2005 of the CCTP draft strategic plan for public comment. The 
Committee is disappointed with both the content of the plan and the 
long delay in its release. The Committee is concerned the draft 
strategic plan does little to advance the Administration's position 
that advanced technology development must form the core of the national 
response to climate change.

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for 
80 percent of EPA's R&D activities, and it receives the majority of 
funds available in the agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account. 
ORD serves a unique role in environmental R&D: it conducts the basic 
and applied research that supports EPA's regulatory programs and 
investigates the next generation of environmental challenges. To meet 
these needs, ORD conducts intramural research at EPA's many 
laboratories, and it supports extramural research at colleges and 
universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant 
program.
    The FY07 the budget request includes $788 million for S&T at EPA, 
an apparent eight percent ($58 million) increase from the FY06 enacted 
level of $730 million. However, that figure includes an accounting 
change, which transfers $62 million from the Environment Programs and 
Management (EPM) account to the S&T account. The accounting change is 
intended to more accurately allocate facility rents to the appropriate 
account. Although the Committee has no objection to the accounting 
change, the $62 million has been excluded from the Committee's analysis 
to enable a meaningful comparison between the FY07 request and the FY06 
enacted budget. Excluding the accounting change, the S&T budget request 
is $726 million, one percent less than the FY06 enacted level.
    The Committee is concerned by the continuing erosion in funding for 
the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Under the President's 
FY07 request, ORD's total budget would decrease to $557 million, six 
percent ($38 million) less than the FY06 enacted level, both because of 
the elimination of earmarks and because S&T funding that otherwise 
would have been available to ORD is going to other offices within EPA 
(in particular for homeland security work). More troubling is the 
overall trend in ORD's funding level. The FY07 request for ORD would be 
its lowest since FY00 and 14 percent less than its peak funding level 
of $646.5 million in FY04. The decline in resources, coupled with ORD's 
newer responsibilities in the important area of homeland security, is 
eroding ORD's ability to carry out its traditional environmental 
research responsibilities.
    The Committee supports the request of $9 million for research on 
the implications of nanotechnology, a nearly 80 percent increase over 
the FY06 enacted level. At a recent Committee hearing on 
nanotechnology, industry observers called for a substantial increase in 
the federal R&D investment in environmental implications of 
nanotechnology.
    The Committee supports the agency's $0.5 million proposal to 
improve its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the agency's 
electronic database of human health effects that may result from 
exposure to various chemicals. The Committee will be watching these 
reforms carefully to ensure they do not lead to undue delays in 
updating information in IRIS or compromise the integrity and public 
health protections IRIS is designed to support.
    The Committee strongly supports EPA's role in homeland security and 
agrees with the agency's FY07 goals to increase decontamination 
research and expand the Water Sentinel pilot program that is helping 
develop a drinking water monitoring and surveillance system. The 
knowledge that would be gained from Water Sentinel could be critical in 
the event of a chemical or biological attack on the Nation's drinking 
water systems. However, the Committee is concerned that the agency's 
heavy reliance on the S&T account to fund homeland security activities 
would continue to erode ORD's investments in other important areas of 
environmental research.
    In particular, in EPA's homeland security budget request the 
Committee is concerned with the source of funding for the Water 
Sentinel pilot project. EPA requests $45 million from the S&T account 
for the Water Sentinel pilot, a more than 500 percent increase over the 
FY06 enacted level of $8.1 million. Water Sentinel is a hybrid program 
managed by the Office of Water, but involving R&D and more traditional 
water system operations. The Committee believes that funding for the 
program should be drawn from multiple accounts, rather than exclusively 
from the S&T account. The savings from this arrangement could be used 
to restore core ORD research programs discussed in more detail below.
    The Committee is disappointed with the proposed $7 million (eight 
percent) reduction from the FY06 enacted level in ORD's Ecosystem 
Research. If enacted, it would culminate in a $28 million (26 percent) 
reduction since 2004. Among the most troubling decreases within this 
program is the proposed $3.4 million (or 26 percent) reduction in the 
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowships. The Committee 
believes the fellowship program should be funded at $10 million, the 
level restored by Congress in each year beginning with FY03. The 
Committee is also concerned about the proposed $5 million reduction in 
the Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program, (EMAP), which supports 
states' measurements of water quality conditions.
    The Committee is also disappointed with further reductions in ORD's 
Sustainability Research program (formerly called the Pollution 
Prevention Research). The FY07 request proposes an $8 million or 23 
percent decrease from the FY06 enacted level of $29 million, and would 
result in a 43 percent decline since 2005. Past requests have sought to 
reduce funding for the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) 
program, and the FY07 request eliminates the entire program ($3 
million). The ETV program verifies the performance of a new technology 
at the request of and with joint funding from a technology 
manufacturer. The program was originally created to help technology 
developers convince prospective purchasers that a new, innovative 
technology would perform as promised.
    The Committee also plans to examine the following proposed 
reductions: (1) the termination of the mandatory Superfund Innovative 
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, which demonstrates innovative 
clean up technologies; (2) a reduction in the global change research 
program, (3) flat funding for the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (EPA's 
contribution to the Global Earth Observing System of Systems); and (4) 
a $4 million (16 percent) reduction in pesticide and toxics research 
that will slow research on high volume chemicals and endocrine 
disruptor chemicals.

Department of Commerce--Technology Administration/National Institute of 
                    Standards and Technology (TA/NIST)

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology is the Nation's 
oldest federal laboratory. Its mission explicitly includes promoting 
U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. Because NIST 
consistently provides high-quality, cutting-edge research in a wide 
range of scientific and technical fields critical to U.S. industry, it 
is perfectly placed to play a central role as proposed in the 
President's American Competitiveness Initiative.
    The budget request includes $467 million for the core NIST 
laboratory programs and facilities as part of the President's American 
Competitiveness Initiative. This increase includes $72 million for new 
research initiatives and enhancements to NIST's user facilities, an 18 
percent increase over FY06. The Committee enthusiastically supports 
this request, as it represents a significant and sensible investment in 
programs that keep the U.S. at the forefront of economically important 
emerging technologies.
    The Committee also strongly supports the budget request of $68 
million for NIST's construction account. This includes $12 million for 
construction expenses at the NIST Center for Neutron Research, which 
will allow more scientists to use this unique, world-class facility. 
The request also includes $10 million in the Safety, Capacity, 
Maintenance, and Major Repairs (SCMMR) account for building maintenance 
at NIST's laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. The Committee believes this 
funding will have a positive effect on the efficiency and stability of 
many of NIST's research projects in Boulder. Currently, fluctuations in 
the environmental and electrical systems at the Boulder labs frequently 
disrupt research at the labs and the maintenance will allow the 
scientists to focus on their important work.
    The Committee continues to support the Advanced Technology Program 
(ATP) and is concerned that the Administration has again requested no 
funds for the program and is seeking to terminate the program. The 
Committee is concerned that terminating ATP would reduce the NIST 
laboratory budget since 10 percent of ATP funds, $8 to $13 million a 
year, was spent inside NIST.
    The Committee is disappointed that the Administration has requested 
only $46 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
program. This would cut the program by 56 percent from the $106 million 
appropriated in FY06, leaving the national network of Centers with 
insufficient funding to maintain their assistance to small and medium-
sized manufacturing firms. MEP has demonstrated its effectiveness as 
the only program (private or public) that offers direct technical 
assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The Federal 
Government funds only a third of the operating expenses of the MEP 
Centers, with the remainder shared between states and users. The House 
has spoken overwhelmingly in favor of MEP, both through amounts 
appropriated in FY05 and FY06 and in the passage of H.R. 250, the 
Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.

Department of Commerce--National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

    The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to 
keep NTIS functioning as a self-sustaining entity and would like to 
explore, with the Department of Commerce, ways that NTIS can contribute 
to innovation in the U.S. economy.

Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
                    (NOAA)

    Among other activities, NOAA provides weather forecasts and 
warnings, charts the seas for navigation, develops guidelines for the 
use and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and performs 
research to improve understanding of marine, coastal and atmospheric 
environments. The Committee has jurisdiction over four of NOAA's five 
line offices--the National Ocean Service, the Office of Atmospheric and 
Oceanic Research, the National Environmental Satellite Data and 
Information Service, and the National Weather Service.
    The FY07 budget request for NOAA is $3.7 billion, a decrease of 
$227 million (six percent) compared to the FY06 enacted level of $3.9 
billion. Most of the reduction is due to the elimination of earmarks, 
and the Committee supports the proposed overall level of funding for 
NOAA.
    The Committee supports the request of $882 million for the National 
Weather Service (NWS), an increase of $33.6 million (four percent) over 
the FY06 enacted level. The increase includes $29 million to develop, 
operate, and maintain a variety of warning and forecast systems such as 
the Tsunami Warning Program, the Air Quality Forecasting Program, and 
the Wind Profiler Network (which is important for tornado, severe 
storm, and flash flood forecasting). Also in NWS, the Committee 
supports the request of $7.5 million for the U.S. Weather Research 
Program. This $2.5 million (50 percent) increase over FY06 levels will 
accelerate current research efforts to improve hurricane forecasting 
models.
    The Committee also supports the request in the Office of 
Atmospheric and Oceanic Research for $13 million for high performance 
computing (100 percent or $6.5 million increase over FY06 enacted 
levels). High performance computing is integral to NOAA's ability to 
provide timely and accurate weather forecasts and warnings, including 
those for hurricanes.
    The Committee supports the request of $1 billion for satellite 
programs at NOAA. This request is an $82 million (8.6 percent) increase 
over the FY06 enacted level of $952 million. The increase is for the 
procurement, acquisition, and construction of the next generation of 
weather satellites, and it is in line with the long-term budget plans 
for these satellite systems. Satellite funding in FY07 is particularly 
important because NOAA plans to let the prime contract for its next 
generation of geostationary satellites.
    Also, the Committee remains concerned about cost overruns and 
technical challenges that have delayed the launch date for NOAA's new 
polar satellite system, the National Polar-orbiting Operational 
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). The Committee recently held a 
hearing about NPOESS and learned it is currently running as much as $3 
billion (more than 25 percent) over budget and as many as three years 
behind schedule. The NPOESS program is in the midst of a detailed 
external review and currently no increased funding is anticipated (or 
requested) in the FY07 budget. However, additional funding will be 
required in future years, and the Committee is extremely concerned that 
NOAA has not explained how it can pay for those increases without 
damaging other programs.
    The Committee strongly supports NOAA's request for $27 million for 
satellite data product processing and distribution, and $25 million for 
satellite product development, readiness and application. The Committee 
is concerned about NOAA's current and future capability to utilize, 
manage, and store satellite and weather data critical for forecasting 
and research. These funding levels will ensure that the Nation can take 
full advantage of the large investment in satellites through timely and 
useful satellite data products.

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

National Science Foundation (NSF)

    NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic 
research conducted at colleges and universities. NSF funds basic 
research across nearly all disciplines of science and engineering, 
making NSF-supported research integral to progress in national priority 
areas such as health care, national security, and other areas of 
importance where U.S. innovation is the key to maintaining our 
competitive advantage. In addition, NSF sponsors programs to improve K-
12 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and research 
assistantship programs support many graduate and post-doctoral 
students.
    NSF continues to receive high marks from the Office of Management 
and Budget for the quality of its management and the excellence of its 
programs. NSF is one of only three agencies (of the 26 evaluated) to be 
awarded four or more green lights on the Executive Branch Management 
Scorecard. In addition, ten NSF programs have been examined to date 
using Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool 
(PART) analysis, and all ten programs received ratings of 
``effective,'' the highest possible rating. NSF remains the only agency 
in the Federal Government to receive the highest rating on every 
program that underwent a PART evaluation.
    As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the FY07 budget 
request for NSF is $6.02 billion, an increase of 7.9 percent, or $439 
million over the FY06 level. The funding increase in the FY07 budget 
mainly goes to scientific research programs and research facilities and 
is spread fairly evenly among all fields NSF supports, including 
engineering, non-biomedical life sciences, physics, and geosciences. 
The Committee strongly endorses the proposed overall budget level 
proposed for NSF, while acknowledging that even with that healthy 
increase, funding will lag behind the levels authorized in the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368).
    While the Committee is pleased to see funding increases across all 
NSF research fields, it is deeply troubled by the modest 2.5 percent 
increase for NSF's Education and Human Resources (EHR) directorate, 
given the President's emphasis on math and science education in the 
American Competitiveness Initiative. Since 1950, NSF has been tasked 
with strengthening math and science education programs at all levels, 
and NSF's education programs are unique in their peer review processes, 
their linkage to higher education and their resulting capacity to 
develop new and improved materials and assessments, create better 
teacher training techniques and move promising ideas from research to 
practice. The budget request of $816 million for NSF Education and 
Human Resources (EHR) Directorate for FY07 allows for only about 
inflationary growth over FY06 and does little to restore the 
significant funding reductions that have occurred since FY04. In 
addition, within EHR, funding for elementary, secondary and informal 
education programs and research and evaluation activities would 
continue to decline. The Committee recommends that NSF EHR receive at 
least $913 million in FY07, with particular emphasis on increasing 
funding for the new Division of Research on Learning in Formal and 
Informal Settings, the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, the Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program; the 
Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program, and the Math and 
Science Partnership program.

United States Fire Administration (USFA)

    The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), which is now part of DHS, was 
created in 1974 to aid localities in reducing the loss of life and 
property from fires and related emergencies. The budget request for 
USFA is $46.8 million, a five percent increase over FY06, but well 
below its authorized level of $66.8 million. The Committee also notes 
its support for USFA's National Fire Academy training center.
    From FY01 through FY03, USFA administered the (separately 
authorized) Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which is 
authorized by the Science Committee. This program provides direct 
assistance to local fire departments for training, purchase of 
equipment, and other purposes. The program is now run by the Office of 
Grants and Training within the new Preparedness Directorate at DHS. The 
FY07 budget request includes $293 million for the fire grant program. 
This is a $355 million cut from FY06, and more than $700 million less 
than is authorized under legislation signed into law in November 2004 
(P.L. 108-375). In addition, the Administration has requested no funds 
for the SAFER Program, which awards grants to fire departments for the 
purpose of hiring new firefighters. SAFER is authorized at $1.1 billion 
in FY07 and received an appropriation of $106 million in FY05. The 
Committee feels that both of these important programs should receive 
higher funding.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

    NEHRP is an interagency program that Congress created in 1977 and 
reauthorized last November. It includes NSF, NIST, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS), and aims to reduce the loss of life and property from 
earthquakes by improving emergency response, increasing understanding 
of earthquake risks, and improving earthquake engineering.
    The President's overall FY05 request for NEHRP is $112 million, 
including $54.7, $55.4, and $1.7 million, for NSF, USGS, and NIST, 
respectively. Additional funding for NEHRP related activities will come 
from FEMA, but the amount of FEMA's FY07 budget request for this 
program is not available at this time. The Committee believes that 
NEHRP should be funded at the levels in the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-360). The 
Committee is most concerned that the NEHRP budget request for NIST of 
only $1.7 million will not be enough to enable NIST to carry out its 
responsibilities as the lead agency for the program, a role previously 
performed by FEMA. The Committee believes that a minimum of $3.5 
million is needed for NIST's lead agency tasks. The Committee also is 
concerned that the request for the Advanced National Seismic System 
(ANSS), a critical seismic monitoring program administered by USGS, is 
only $8.1 million, the same level as in FY06 and well below the 
authorized level of $36 million.

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP)

    The NWIRP was authorized in 2004 (also in P.L. 108-360) as an 
interagency effort geared towards improving scientific understanding of 
wind hazards and developing cost-effective measures to reduce their 
impact on lives and property through atmospheric research, code 
development, and creation of risk assessment tools. The participating 
agencies include NSF, NIST, FEMA, and NOAA. An implementation plan 
establishing one of the participating agencies as the lead for the 
program was due to Congress from the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy (OSTP) in October 2005 but has not been received.
    Funding explicitly designated for NWIRP is not included in any of 
the participating agencies' budget requests for FY 2007, in spite of 
funding authorization totaling $25 million: $9.4 million for FEMA, $9.4 
million for NSF, $4 million for NIST, and $2.2 million for NOAA. The 
Committee believes that coordination and funding of NWIRP is critically 
necessary to save lives and reduce the economic costs of windstorms, 
which average $1.1 billion annually.

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    The budget request seeks $16.792 billion for NASA in FY07, an 
increase of 3.2 percent over the FY06 appropriation, excluding 
supplemental funding for Katrina-related damages.
    As it made clear in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
155), the Committee wants to enable NASA to thrive as a multi-mission 
agency with robust activities in the human exploration of space, Earth 
science, space science and aeronautics.
    NASA has made significant progress in a number of areas since the 
Committee last prepared Views and Estimates. In the past year, NASA has 
achieved a greater degree of fidelity in its understanding of the costs 
and priorities of the programs within the agency. The new 
administrator, Michael Griffin, has overseen a number of changes and 
agenda-setting activities. NASA has completed the Exploration Systems 
Architecture Study (ESAS), providing the first baseline for pursuing 
the Vision for Space Exploration. Furthermore, the agency continues to 
identify and correct the safety concerns of the Space Shuttle and 
prepare for an orderly completion of the Space Station and retirement 
of the Shuttle in 2010 after over 25 years of service to the Nation. 
NASA has also begun restructuring its aeronautics research program.
    The five-year budget projection for the Space Shuttle program is 
designed to fully fund the Shuttle through its retirement, making up 
for a shortfall in previous projections. Taking into account program 
transfers, the FY07 budget increases funding for the Space Shuttle by 
$2.2 billion through 2010 and for the Space Station by $1.5 billion.
    Restoring funding for the Shuttle and Station accounts has come at 
the cost of slowed growth in NASA's other program areas. The 
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, which oversees the Vision for 
Space Exploration, will receive $2 billion less through 2010, and NASA 
has replaced significant projected growth in the FY06 request for the 
Science Directorate with annual growth of 1.5 percent in FY07 and one 
percent thereafter, less than the projected rate of inflation.
    The significantly reduced growth of the Science Directorate is of 
serious concern to the Committee. These reductions will necessitate the 
cancellation or lengthy deferral of several planned earth science and 
space science missions.
    In FY07, the request increases the amount available for Exploration 
by $928 million compared to last year's appropriated level. This 
funding is focused on developing the next-generation hardware to 
replace the Shuttle, the Crew Exploration Vehicle and its launcher. 
NASA expects to award contracts for the new vehicle at the end of FY06. 
The request reduces the amounts available for other, longer-term 
activities within the Science Directorate.
    The Committee is again concerned about the limited funding for 
NASA's Aeronautics program. The budget cuts the program by 18.1 
percent, down to $724.4 million. Reductions of this size may jeopardize 
NASA's ability to retain critical skills and perform ground-breaking 
research in support of this nationally important industry.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    The request for the FAA's Office of the Associate Administrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is $12.0 million, an increase of 
$200,000 from FY06. The Committee continues to monitor the 
implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 
(P.L. 108-492) to ensure AST avoids overly burdensome or costly 
regulatory structures on the nascent commercial space industry.
    The Committee is once again disappointed with the support given by 
the FAA to research and development. The budget request of $236.7 
million falls short of addressing issues related to the agency's 
challenge of designing, developing and implementing a follow-on air 
traffic control system, while continuing to deal with ongoing safety-
related research.
    The Joint Planning and Development Office, located within the FAA's 
Air Traffic Organization, and authorized by the Vision 100--Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), must receive greater 
agency attention if it is to succeed.

Department of Commerce--Office of Space Commercialization

    The Committee urges support for this Office, which has played a 
useful role in promoting the commercial space industry. The Office 
needs to take a stronger role within the government and increase their 
efforts to support U.S. commercial space providers.










                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                     DEMOCRATIC VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
   ON THE FY 2007 BUDGET FOR CIVILIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
                             MARCH 6, 2006

         ``Special attention should go to the physical sciences, 
        engineering, mathematics, and information sciences and to 
        Department of Defense (DOD) basic-research funding. This 
        special attention does not mean that there should be a 
        disinvestment in such important fields as the life sciences. . 
        .or the social sciences. A balanced research portfolio in all 
        fields of science and engineering research is critical to U.S. 
        prosperity.

         From the Executive Summary of Rising Above the Gathering 
        Storm, National Academies report (emphasis added).

    While there have been numerous reports on American competitiveness 
in recent years, Gathering Storm has had a rare impact on policy-makers 
and the public. A consensus seems to have emerged on two points. First, 
that we have to invest in our most important resource--our people--by 
improving the quality of science and math education offered in our 
schools. Second, we have to create an economy that fully embraces 
innovation.
    The National Academies panel, chaired by Norm Augustine, chose 
twenty recommendations it believed would lay the groundwork for 
building an economy that holds the promise of good, high-paying 
employment for Americans. These policy initiatives are about creating 
jobs and a brighter future for Americans and that is why we have 
embraced the findings of the Augustine Report.
    The Bush Administration seems to have joined the bandwagon in 
support of the Augustine Committee, at least rhetorically. The Research 
and Development (R&D) budget request presented to Congress this year 
has as its centerpiece the ``American Competitiveness Initiative.'' 
This effort would promote increases in physical sciences Research and 
Development at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) to put them on a path to double the relevant funding in ten 
years. The Administration also has proposals to increase science 
education support through the Department of Education and enhance 
energy independence through investments in the Department of Energy 
(primarily in the fields of renewable energy sources).
    Unfortunately, these initiatives are funded through cuts in other 
areas. For the American Competitiveness Initiative, the proposed $900 
million increase at NSF, DOE, and NIST comes at the expense of other 
programs at those agencies and at the other federal science agencies. 
In fact, despite the hoopla surrounding the President's FY 2007 budget 
initiatives, the Federal Science &Technology request for FY 2007 is $1 
billion less than the Administration requested for FY 2006. Comparing 
this year's request to last year's enacted levels, the overall federal 
science and technology budget across the government would drop by one 
percent.
    So while the Administration says the right words about helping 
America invest in those areas that will help America grow, the reality 
is that the request contradicts the recommendation of the National 
Academies panel--both because it boosts some science at the expense of 
other science, and because the net consequence of this budget is that 
we would be disinvesting rather than investing in science and 
technology.
    We find it impossible to see how less science and technology 
research investment would help to increase--or even sustain--America's 
rapidly dwindling competitive edge. This budget request would invest 
less than the rate of inflation at a time when many of our 
international competitors are increasing their investment in science 
and technology at faster rates than ever before.
    According to the newly-released UNESCO Science Report 2005, Asia is 
now close to spending one-third of all the money the world is devoting 
to R&D. In 2002, Asia accounted for 31.5 percent, up from 27.9 percent 
in 1997. The Asian spurt was led by China, whose gross expenditure on 
research and development went from 3.9 percent in 1997 to 8.7 percent 
of the world total in 2002. The proportion of China's GDP devoted to 
R&D more than doubled in less than a decade.
    Although the United States currently remains the leader in research 
investment, our competitors are rapidly catching up. Quite simply, the 
United States cannot rest on its laurels. Nor can it just move around 
the chairs on the Titanic. We find the priorities in the budget 
request.amount to little more than sleight of hand--taking from one 
pocket and putting into another and calling that shift an increase. 
This country has to do more than what this budget requests if we are 
indeed to remain competitive.
    The Committee on Science Majority's Views and Estimates question 
some Administration cuts and correctly note areas of particular 
bipartisan concern such as the continued erosion in funding for the EPA 
Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Administration's 
request to again terminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and 
cut the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program by 56 
percent. However, the Majority's uncritical support for the President's 
Competitiveness proposal, with all the loss that lies behind the 
selected program increases, makes it impossible to support the 
Republican Views and Estimates. Thus we file these dissenting views.
    We find the budget request to be a complete contradiction to the 
recommendations of the nonpartisan expert recommendations of the 
Augustine Committee. We can support some of the President's 
initiatives, but not at the expense of deeper cuts in other important 
areas for innovation. The future of the Nation's economy is riding on 
making smart decisions today. The President's budget is an inadequate 
guide to the task. We would encourage the Budget Committee to make room 
in the appropriate functional categories for funding sufficient to 
embrace the full scope of the Augustine Commission's recommendations.
    We will close with a few specific observations regarding proposals 
at particular agencies.

The Administration's National Science Foundation Request

    While we were pleased to see the Administration putting forth a 
plan to follow through on their commitment to double NSF funding, the 
Administration is four years behind on that commitment and $3.8 
billion, or 39 percent, short of the goal. In 2002, the Congress 
passed, and the President signed into law, an authorization bill 
doubling NSF funding over five years. However, the President's requests 
for NSF since the NSF doubling signing ceremony had been anemic until 
this, the FY 2007 budget request.
    As a result, even with the FY 2007 proposed increase, the NSF 
budget is still below the 15 percent annual rate of increase needed to 
meet the five-year doubling profile called for in the NSF authorization 
statute. In fact, the President's plan for NSF does not guarantee a 
doubling even in ten years. All that the American Competitiveness 
Initiative promises is that we will see the combination of NSF, DOE 
basic research and NIST cumulatively double in ten years, without 
committing to the distribution among those agencies. NSF--really all 
three agencies--deserve guidance clearer than this as they plan for 
future investments.
    We were very disappointed to see a continued de-emphasis of K-12 
science education at NSF. Even as the NSF budget grows overall, the 
Administration proposes a seven percent cut to K-12 programs. NSF has 
been a leader in improving science and math education for over 50 
years. We do not understand how ignoring NSF's expertise in the 
education component of the President's initiative helps 
competitiveness.
    Relative to the FY 2004 funded level, the NSF FY 2007 science 
education request would represent a 37 percent decline. One of this 
nation's highest priorities should be to increase America's talent pool 
by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education. Cutting 
funding to NSF K-12 programs undercuts this important goal.

The Administration's Request for the Manufacturing Extension 
                    Partnership Program

    From our point of view, competitiveness is about keeping good jobs 
and creating even more and better jobs in this country. Yet, the 
Administration proposed to cut Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
funding by 56 percent. MEP is the only federal program designed 
specifically to assist small manufacturers. MEP is the only program 
with a proven track record in creating and retaining manufacturing jobs 
right now. We have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since 2001. This 
last year alone, we lost another 55,000 manufacturing jobs.
    Knowing these facts, we just don't see how cutting MEP 56 percent, 
and NIST overall by 23 percent, increases American competitiveness. The 
bipartisan National Association of Governors, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers--and many others--
wholeheartedly endorse MEP. Yet, this Administration again chooses to 
ignore this consensus support.

The Administration's Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                    Administration (NOAA)

    The Majority Views endorse the President's proposed reduction in 
NOAA's budget of over $200 million dollars--a six percent reduction 
from the FY 2006 enacted level. The primary science accounts at NOAA 
also would be reduced by eight percent as compared to this year's 
budget. We do not believe NOAA can meet the demands for its operational 
and research services with this budget.
    We have serious concerns about the present and future budget 
implications of the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite 
System (NPOESS) acquisition program. NPOESS is substantially over-
budget and behind schedule. Final decisions about moving this program 
forward are now being decided through the Department of Defense's Nunn-
McCurdy process. The request offered by the Administration offers no 
room to maneuver as regards reasonable and prudent steps managers might 
otherwise take to limit the likely gaps in weather and climate data 
coverage implicit in this badly-managed program.
    The constrained budget offered for NOAA for FY 2007 affords little 
opportunity for NOAA to meet the needs and expectations of the 
communities it serves through its weather forecasting, coastal zone 
management, fisheries, and research activities. This matters to 
citizens whose livelihoods and safety are tied to the swift, sure 
performance of those duties we entrust to NOAA.

                  Approved by:





Hon. Bart Gordon                        Hon. Russ Carnahan
Hon. Jerry Costello                     Hon. Daniel Lipinski
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson              Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee
Hon. Lynn Woolsey                       Hon. Brad Sherman
Hon. Darlene Hooley                     Hon. Brian Baird
Hon. Mark Udall                         Hon. Jim Matheson
Hon. David Wu                           Hon. Jim Costa
Hon. Michael Honda                      Hon. Al Green
Hon. Brad Miller                        Hon. Charlie Melancon
Hon. Lincoln Davis                      Hon. Dennis Moore


  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 26, 2005                  Tsunamis: Is the U.S. Prepared?                         109-1
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 2, 2005                   Options for Hubble Science                              109-2
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 9, 2005                   Improving the Nation's Energy Security: Can             109-3
                               Cars and Trucks Be Made More Fuel Efficient?            .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 10, 2005                  Organizational Meeting                                  N/A
                               (Held by the Committee on Science.)                     .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 10, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 610, Energy Research,                      H.Rept. 109-216, Pt. 1
                               Development, Demonstration, and Commercial              (H.R. 610)
                               Application Act of 2005                                 .........................
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 16, 2005                  An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for               109-4
                               Fiscal Year 2006                                        .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 17, 2005                  NASA's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal                 109-5
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 3, 2005                   H.R. 798, Methamphetamine Remediation                   109-6
                               Research Act of 2005                                    .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 9, 2005                   National Science Foundation Budget and                  109-7
                               Management Challenges                                   .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 15, 2005                  Subcommittee Markup: H.R. 50, National                  H.Rept. 109-42
                               Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act;             (H.R. 798)
                               H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology                      H.Rept. 109-92
                               Competitiveness Act of 2005; and H.R. 798,              (H.R. 250)
                                Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on                     .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 16, 2005                  The Future of Aeronautics at NASA                       109-8
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 1023, Charles ``Pete'' Conrad              H.Rept. 109-36
                               Astronomy Awards Act; H.R. 1158, To                     (H.R. 28)
                               reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy               H.Rept. 109-147
                               Conservation and Technology                             (H.R. 1158)
                               Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 28, High-             H.Rept. 109-37
                               Performance Computing Revitalization Act of             (H.R. 1023)
                               2005; H.Con.Res. 96, Recognizing the                    H.Rept. 109-42
                               significance of African American women in the           (H.R. 798)
                               United States scientific community; and,                .........................
                               H.R. 798, Methamphetamine Remediation                   .........................
                               Research Act of 2005                                    .........................
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 13, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry                      H.Rept. 109-82
                               Research and Development Act of 2005                    (H.R. 1215)
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 14, 2005                  The 2004 Presidential Awardees for                      109-9
                               Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching          .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 20, 2005                  Future Markets for Commercial Space                     109-10
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 20, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 1674, United States Tsunami                H.Rept. 109-698
                               Warning and Education Act                               (H.R. 1674)
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on                     .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 27, 2005                  Priorities in the Department of Energy                  109-11
                               Budget for Fiscal Year 2006                             .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2005                  NASA Earth Science                                      109-12
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2005                   China, Europe, and the Use of Standards                 109-13
                               as Trade Barriers: How Should the U.S. Respond?         .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 12, 2005                   The Future of Computer Science Research                 109-14
                               in the U.S.                                             .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2005                   Markup: H.R. 50, National Oceanic and                   H.Rept. 109-xx
                               Atmospheric Administration; H.R. 426, Remote            (H.R. 50)
                               Sensing Applications Act of 2005;                       H.Rept. 109-157
                               H.R. 1022, George E. Brown, Jr.,                        (H.R. 426)
                               Near-Earth Object Survey Act; and                       H.Rept. 109-158
                               H.R. 2364, Science and Technology                       (H.R. 1022)
                               Scholarship Program for Careers in                      H.Rept. 109-151
                               the National Weather Service and NOAA                   (H.R. 2364)
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 18, 2005                   The National Nanotechnology Initiative:                 109-15
                               Review and Outlook                                      .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 8, 2005                   Business Actions Reducing Greenhouse                    109-16
                               Gas Emissions                                           .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 14, 2005                  Live From Space: The International                      109-17
                               Space Station                                           .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 16, 2005                  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing                               109-18
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 28, 2005                  The Future of NASA                                      109-19
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 28, 2005                  Small Business Innovation Research: What Is             109-20
                               the Optimal Role of Venture Capital?                    .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 29, 2005                  Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?              109-21
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 29, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 3070, National Aeronautics and             H.Rept. 109-173
                               Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005          (H.R. 3070)
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and           .........................
                                Aeronautics.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 12, 2005                  Economic Aspects of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing           109-22
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 14, 2005                  Markup: H.R. 3070, National Aeronautics and             H.Rept. 109-173
                               Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005          (H.R. 3070)
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 20, 2005                  Fueling the Future: On the Road to the                  109-23
                               Hydrogen Economy                                        .........................
                               (Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on              .........................
                               Energy and the Subcommittee on Research.)               .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 21, 2005                  U.S. Competitiveness: The Innovation Challenge          109-24
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 15, 2005                 Cyber Security: U.S. Vulnerability and                  109-25
                               Preparedness                                            .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2005                   NOAA Hurricane Forecasting                              109-26
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 20, 2005                  Science, Technology, and Global Economic                109-27
                               Competitiveness                                         .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 26, 2005                  The Investigation of the World Trade Center             109-28
                               Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and                .........................
                               Next Steps                                              .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 27, 2005                  Financial Management at NASA: Challenges and            109-29
                               Next Steps                                              .........................
                               (Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and    .........................
                                Aeronautics, Committee on Science and the
                                Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and
                                Accountability, Committee on Government Reform.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 2, 2005                   Winning Teams and Innovative Technologies               109-30
                               From the 2005 Solar Decathlon                           .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 3, 2005                   Status of NASA's Programs                               109-31
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 9, 2005                   Markup: H.Res. 515, Requesting the President to         H.Rept. 109-296 (H.Res.
                                provide documents relating to the anticipated effects   515)
                                of climate change on coastal regions of the U.S.
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 10, 2005                  The Role of Social Science Research in Disaster         109-32
                               Preparedness and Response                               .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 16, 2005                  Ongoing Problems and Future Plans for                   109-33
                               NOAA's Weather Satellites                               .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 17, 2005                  Environmental and Safety Impacts of                     109-34
                               Nanotechnology: What Research Is Needed?                .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 15, 2006                  An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for               109-35
                               Fiscal Year 2007                                        .........................
                               Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 16, 2006                  NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal                 109-36
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 23, 2006                  Health Care Information Technology: What Are            109-37
                               the Opportunities For and Barriers to                   .........................
                               Inter-operable Health Information Technology            .........................
                               Systems?                                                .........................
                               (Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee on              .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 2, 2006                   NASA's Science Mission Directorate: Impacts of the      109-38
                                Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 9, 2006                   Should Congress Establish ``ARPA-E,'' the               109-39
                               Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy?               .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 15, 2006                  Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering            109-40
                                Education: What's Working?
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 16, 2006                  EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 Science and Technology Budget    109-41
                                Proposal
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 29, 2006                  Markup: H.Res. 717, Directing the Secretary of          H.Rept. 109-415
                               Commerce to transmit to the House of                    (H.Res. 717)
                               Representatives a copy of a workforce                   .........................
                               globalization final draft report produced by            .........................
                               the Technology Administration.                          .........................
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 29, 2006                  The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D              109-42
                               Agenda                                                  .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space              .........................
                               and Aeronautics.)                                       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 30, 2006                  K-12 Science and Math Education Across the Federal      109-43
                                Agencies
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 5, 2006                   Markup: H.Res. 717, Directing the Secretary of          H.Rept. 109-415
                               Commerce to transmit to the House of                    (H.Res. 717)
                               Representatives a copy of a workforce                   .........................
                               globalization final draft report produced by            .........................
                               the Technology Administration.                          .........................
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 6, 2006                   Assessing the Goals, Schedule, and Costs of the Global  109-44
                                Nuclear Energy Partnership
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 21, 2006                  Great Lakes Restoration: How? How Soon?                 109-A
                               (Field Briefing held by the Subcommittee                .........................
                               on Environment, Technology, and Standards.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 27, 2006                  H.R. 5143, The H-Prize Act of 2006                      109-45
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2006                    The Role of the National Science Foundation in K-12     109-46
                                Science and Math Education
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2006                    Markup: H.R. 5143, The H-Prize Act of 2006              H.Rept. 109-456
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              (H.R. 5143)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2006                    Improving Drought Monitoring and Forecasting:           109-47
                               H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought              .........................
                               Information System Act of 2006                          .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2006                    Markup: H.R. 5136, National Integrated Drought          H.Rept. 109-503
                               Information System Act of 2006                          (H.R. 5136)
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on                     .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2006                    Innovation and Information Technology: The              109-48
                               Government, University, and Industry Roles in           .........................
                               Information Technology Research and                     .........................
                               Commercialization                                       .........................
                               (Field Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2006                   Inspector General Report on NOAA Weather                109-49
                               Satellites                                              .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2006                   The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006         109-50
                                (Discussion Draft)
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 24, 2006                   Views of the NIST Nobel Laureates on Science Policy     109-51
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 2006                   Ending Our Addiction to Oil: Are Advanced               109-52
                               Vehicles and Fuels the Answer?                          .........................
                               Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee on               .........................
                               Energy.)                                                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 7, 2006                   Markup: H.R. 5136, National Integrated Drought          H.Rept. 109-503
                               Information System Act of 2006;                         (H.R. 5136)
                               H.R. 5356, Early Career Research Act of 2006            H.Rept. 109-525
                                                                                       (H.R. 5356)
                               H.R. 5358, Science and Mathematics Education            H.Rept. 109-524
                               for Competitiveness Act of 2006                         (H.R. 5358)
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 8, 2006                   The Future of NPOESS: Results of the Nunn-              109-53
                               McCurdy Review of NOAA's Weather Satellite              .........................
                               Program                                                 .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 13, 2006                  The NASA Workforce: Does NASA Have the Right Strategy   109-54
                                and Policies to Retain and Build the Workforce It
                                Will Need?
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space              .........................
                               and Aeronautics.)                                       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2006                  Markup: H.R. 5450, National Oceanic and                 H.Rept. 109-545, Pt. 1
                               Atmospheric Administration Act                          (H.R. 5450)
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Committee on Science List of Hearings with Publication
              Date              Numbers plus List of Legislative Reports filed in the       Publication Number
                                                   109th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2006                  Markup: H.R. 5656, Energy Research,                     H.Rept. 109-611
                               Development, Demonstration, and Commercial              (H.R. 5656)
                               Application Act of 2006                                 .........................
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science.)              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2006                  The National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Plan for      109-55 w/109-64
                                Aeronautics: A Blueprint for NASA?
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space              .........................
                               and Aeronautics.)                                       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 19, 2006                  Voting Machines: Will the New Standards and Guidelines  109-56
                                Help Prevent Future Problems?
                               (Joint Hearing held by the Committee on Science and     .........................
                                the Committee on House Administration.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 2006                  Scientific and Technical Advice for the U.S.            109-57
                               Congress                                                .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 27, 2006                  Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration:                109-58
                               H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration               .........................
                               Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea                    .........................
                               Research Program Act of 2005                            .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Environment, Technology, and Standards.)                .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2, 2006                 Renewable Energy Technologies--Research                 109-59
                               Directions, Investment Opportunities, and               .........................
                               Challenges to Commercial Application in the             .........................
                               United States and the Developing World                  .........................
                               (Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee                 .........................
                               on Energy.)                                             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 13, 2006                 How Can Technologies Help Secure                        109-60
                               Our Borders?                                            .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 20, 2006                 International Polar Year: The Scientific Agenda         109-61
                               and the Federal Role                                    .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on                    .........................
                               Research.)                                              .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 20, 2006                 Department of Energy's Plan for Climate Change          109-62
                                Technology Programs
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy.)           .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 21, 2006                 Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of         109-63
                                Nanotechnology: What Are the Federal
                               Agencies Doing?                                         .........................
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 26, 2006                 The National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Plan for      109-64 w/109-55
                                Aeronautics: NASA's Response
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space              .........................
                               and Aeronautics.)                                       .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 28, 2006                 Implementing the Vision for Space Exploration:          109-65
                                Development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 29, 2006                 GAO Report on NOAA's Weather Satellite Program          109-66
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 31, 2006                  Compilation of Markups                                  109-67
                               (Markups held by the Committee on Science.)             .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                
