[House Report 110-935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 608
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-935
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
JANUARY 2, 2009
January 2, 2009.--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 AND TECHNOLOGY
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
Union Calendar No. 608
110th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 110-935
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
JANUARY 2, 2009
January 2, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VACANCY
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BARON P. HILL, Indiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
DAVID WU, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MIKE ROSS, Arizona JO BONNER, Alabama
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chairman
JIM MATHESON, Utah PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CHARLIE A. WILSON, Ohio JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
MIKE ROSS, Arizona PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
LAURA RICHARDSON, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
*LRanking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and
Subcommittee assignments.
**LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee
assignments.
+LThe Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-
officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right
to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all
matters before the Subcommittees.
...........................................................
C O N T E N T S
Summary of Activities
Committee on Science and Technology
110th Congress, 2007-2008
Page
History of the Committee on Science and Technology............... 1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and
Technology..................................................... 15
1.1--P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1)............................ 15
1.2--P.L. 110-69, America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272)........... 16
1.3--P.L. P.L. 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (H.R. 6)........................................... 18
1.4--P.L. 110-143, Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act
of 2007 (H.R. 365)......................................... 20
1.5--P.L. 110-181, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 4986)............................... 21
1.6--P.L. 110-229, Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(S. 2739).................................................. 22
1.7--P.L. 110-234, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(H.R. 2419)................................................ 23
1.8--P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(H.R. 6124)................................................ 24
1.9--P.L. 110-315, Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R.
4137)...................................................... 25
1.10--P.L. 110-365, Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of
2008 (H.R. 6460)........................................... 26
1.11--P.L. 110-376, United States Fire Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (S. 2606)...................... 27
1.12--P.L. 110-394, National Sea Grant College Program
Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5618)......................... 28
1.13--P.L. 110-417, Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. 3001)........... 29
1.14--P.L. 110-422, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063)....... 30
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science........................................................ 33
2.1--H.R. 85, Energy Technology Transfer Act................. 33
2.2--H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and
Math Scholarship Act....................................... 34
2.3--H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through Science and
Engineering Research Act................................... 35
2.4--H.R. 364, Providing for the establishment of an Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy........................ 37
2.5--H.R. 547, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act............................................ 39
2.6--H.R. 632, H-Prize Act of 2007........................... 41
2.7--H.R. 694, Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act........................ 42
2.8--H.R. 906, Global Change Research and Data Management Act
of 2007.................................................... 43
2.9--H.R. 1068, A bill to amend the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991...................................... 45
2.10--H.R. 1126, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.... 46
2.11--H.R. 1205, Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of
2007....................................................... 47
2.12--H.R. 1467, 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act.................. 48
2.13--H.R. 1657, 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......................................... 49
2.14--H.R. 1716, Green Energy Education Act of 2007.......... 50
2.15--H.R. 1834, National Ocean Exploration Program Act...... 50
2.16--H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 2007................................................ 52
2.17--H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing
Stimulation Act of 2007.................................... 54
2.18--H.R. 1933, Department of Energy Carbon Capture and
Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of
2007....................................................... 55
2.19--H.R. 2304, Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and
Development Act of 2007.................................... 57
2.20--H.R. 2313, Marine Renewable Research and Development
Act of 2007................................................ 58
2.21--H.R. 2339, Produced Water Utilization Act of 2007...... 59
2.22--H.R. 2342, National Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation Act of 2007.................................... 61
2.23--H.R. 2400, Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act... 61
2.24--H.R. 2406, Healthcare Information Technology Enterprise
Integration Act............................................ 62
2.25--H.R. 2698, Federal Aviation Research and Development
Authorization Act of 2007.................................. 64
2.26--H.R. 2773, Biofuels Research and Development
Enhancement Act............................................ 65
2.27--H.R. 2774, Solar Energy and Advancement Act of 2007.... 66
2.28--H.R. 2850, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act
of 2007.................................................... 68
2.29--H.R. 3775, Industrial Energy Efficiency Research and
Development Act of 2007.................................... 68
2.30--H.R. 3776, Energy Storage Technology Advancement Act of
2007....................................................... 70
2.31--H.R. 3877, Mine Communications Technology Innovation
Act........................................................ 72
2.32--H.R. 3916, Border Security Technology Innovation Act of
2008....................................................... 73
2.33--H.R. 3957, Water Use Efficiency and Conservation
Research Act of 2007....................................... 74
2.34--H.R. 4174, Federal Ocean Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act............................................. 76
2.35--H.R. 5161, Green Transportation Infrastructure Research
and Technology Transfer Act................................ 77
2.36--H.R. 5789, Science and Technology Innovation Act; H.R.
5819, SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act........................ 79
2.37--H.R. 5940, National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008..................................... 80
2.38--H.R. 6323, Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2008................. 81
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the
Committee on Science and Passed by the House of Representatives 85
3.1--H.Con.Res. 34, Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian,
a pioneer in the field of organic chemistry research and
development and the first and only African American chemist
to be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences....... 85
3.2--H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the 50th Anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) and its past
contributions to space research, and looking forward to
future accomplishments..................................... 85
3.3--H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research
accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of
the A.M. Turing Award...................................... 86
3.4--H.Con.Res. 147, Recognizing 200 years of research,
service to the people of the United States, and stewardship
of the marine environment by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and its predecessor agencies,
and for other purposes..................................... 86
3.5--H.Con.Res. 222, Commending NASA Langley Research Center
in Virginia on the celebration of its 90th anniversary on
October 26 and 27, 2007.................................... 87
3.6--H.Con.Res. 225, Honoring the 50th anniversary of the
dawn of the Space Age, and the ensuing 50 years of
productive and peaceful space activities................... 88
3.7--H.Con.Res. 251, Commending the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory for its work of promoting energy efficiency for
30 years................................................... 89
3.8--H.Con.Res. 287, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
United States Explorer I Satellite, the world's first
scientific spacecraft, and the birth of the United States
space exploration program.................................. 89
3.9--H.Con.Res. 366, Expressing the sense of Congress that
increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics,
and technology education should be a national priority..... 90
3.10--H.Con.Res. 375, To honor the goal of the International
Year of Astronomy, and for other purposes.................. 91
3.11--H.Res. 59, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Engineeers Week............................................ 92
3.12--H.Res. 72, Recognizing the work and accomplishments of
Mr. Britt `Max' Mayfield, Director of the National
Hurricane Center's Tropical Prediction Center upon his
retirement................................................. 93
3.13--H.Res. 252, Recognizing the 45th anniversary of John
Herschel Glenn, Jr.'s historic achievement in becoming the
first United States Astronaut to orbit the Earth........... 93
3.14--H.Res. 316, Congratulating the achievement of Roger D.
Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and
George F. Smoot for being awarded Nobel Prizes in science.. 94
3.15--H.Res. 402, Expressing support for the goals and ideals
of National Hurricane Preparedness Week.................... 94
3.16--H.Res. 421, Honoring the trailblazing accomplishments
of the `Mercury 13' women, whose efforts in the early 1960s
demonstrated the capabilities of American women to
undertake the human exploration of space................... 94
3.17--H.Res. 446, Honoring the life and accomplishments of
Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra and expressing condolences
on his passing............................................. 95
3.18--H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling
and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of
the United States, and recognizing modeling and simulation
as a national critical technology.......................... 95
3.19--H.Res. 593, Congratulating scientists F. Sherwood
Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen for their work in
atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the
formation and decomposition of ozone, that led to the
development of the Montreal Protocol on substances that
deplete the ozone layer.................................... 96
3.20--H.Res. 716, Expressing the sense of Congress 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 96
3.21--H.Res. 736, Honoring the 60th anniversary of the
aeronautics research accomplishments embodied in ``the
breaking of the sound barrier''............................ 97
3.22--H.Res. 751, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Chemistry Week............................................. 98
3.23--H.Res. 891, Celebrating 35 years of space-based
observations of the Earth by the Landsat spacecraft and
looking forward to sustaining the longest unbroken record
of civil Earth observations of the land.................... 99
3.24--H.Res. 907, Congratulating the X PRIZE Foundation's
leadership in inspiring a new generation of viable, super-
efficient vehicles......................................... 100
3.25--H.Res. 917, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Engineers Week, and for other purposes..................... 101
3.26--H.Res. 943, Remembering the Space Shuttle Challenger
disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their
lives on January 28, 1986.................................. 102
3.27--H.Res. 966, Honoring African American inventors, past
and present, for their leadership, courage, and significant
contributions to our national competitiveness.............. 103
3.28--H.Res. 1112, Recognizing 2008 as the International Year
of the Reef................................................ 105
3.29--H.Res. 1117, Declaring the support of the House of
Representatives for the goals and ideals of Earth Day and
for developing the scientific and technological
capabilities to achieve those goals........................ 106
3.30--H.Res. 1118, Honoring the life and achievements of John
Archibald Wheeler and expressing condolences on his passing 106
3.31--H.Res. 1180, Resolution recognizing the efforts and
contributions of outstanding women scientists,
technologists, engineers, and mathematicians in the United
States and around the world................................ 107
3.32--H.Res. 1312, Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
Space Foundation........................................... 108
3.33--H.Res. 1313, Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the
first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride, and
honoring her contributions to the space program and to
science education.......................................... 109
3.34--H.Res. 1315, Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.............. 110
3.35--H.Res. 1390, Expressing support for the designation of
a 4-H National Youth Science Day........................... 110
3.36--H.Res. 1466, Honoring Dr. Guion S. ``Guy'' Bluford,
Jr., and the 25th anniversary of his historic flight as the
first African-American in space............................ 111
3.37--H.Res. 1471, Honoring the 50th Anniversary of the
successful demonstration of the first integrated circuit
and its impact on the electronics industry................. 112
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science and Technology, Including Selected
Subcommittee Legislative Activities............................ 115
4.1--Committee on Science and Technology..................... 115
4.1(a) February 8, 2007--The State of Climate Change
Science 2007: the Findings of the Fourth Assessment
Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), Working Group I Report. Hearing Volume No. 110-
2...................................................... 115
4.1(b) February 13, 2007--National Imperatives for Earth
and Climate Science Research and Applications
Investments Over the Next Decade. Hearing Volume No.
110-3.................................................. 117
4.1(c) February 14, 2007--The Administration's Fiscal
Year 2008 Research and Development Budget Proposal.
Hearing Volume No. 110-5............................... 118
4.1(d) March 13, 2007--Science and Technology Leadership
in a 21st Century Global Economy. Hearing Volume No.
110-10................................................. 119
4.1(e) March 15, 2007--NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request. Hearing Volume No. 110-12..................... 120
4.1(f) April 17, 2007--The State of Climate Change
Science 2007: The Findings of the Fourth Assessment
Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), Working Group II: Climate Change Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Hearing Volume No. 110-20 121
4.1(g) May 16, 2007--The State of Climate Change Science
2007: The Findings of the Fourth Assessment Report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Hearing Volume No. 110-30.............................. 123
4.1(h) June 5, 2007--The Role of Technology in Reducing
Illegal Filesharing: A University Perspective. Hearing
Volume No. 110-34...................................... 125
4.1(i) June 12, 2007--The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part I. Hearing Volume No. 110-39.......... 127
4.1(j) July 26, 2007--The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part II: The University Response. Hearing
Volume No. 110-49...................................... 129
4.1(k) September 19, 2007--Bridge Safety: Next Steps to
Protect the Nation's Critical Infrastructure. Hearing
Volume No. 110-53...................................... 131
4.1(l) September 25, 2007--Meeting the Need for Inter-
operability and Information Security in Health IT.
Hearing Volume No. 110-57.............................. 132
4.1(m) October 31, 2007--Aviation Safety: Can NASA Do
More to Protect the Public? Hearing Volume No. 110-70.. 134
4.1(n) February 13, 2008--NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request. Hearing Volume No. 110-75..................... 136
4.1(o) February 14, 2008--Funding for the America
COMPETES Act in the Fiscal Year 2009 Administration
Budget Request. Hearing Volume No. 110-76.............. 137
4.1(p) March 12, 2008--Competitiveness and Innovation on
the Committee's 50th Anniversary With Bill Gates,
Chairman of Microsoft. Hearing Volume No. 110-84....... 138
4.1(q) April 16, 2008--The National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Hearing Volume No.
110-93................................................. 139
4.1(r) April 23, 2008--Opportunities and Challenges for
Nuclear Power. Hearing Volume No. 110-94............... 141
4.1(s) April 30, 2008--Electronic Waste: Can the Nation
Manage Modern Refuse in the Digital Age? Hearing Volume
No. 110-98............................................. 143
4.1(t) May 12, 2008--STEM Education Before High School:
Shaping Our Future Science, Technology, Engineering and
Math Leaders of Tomorrow by Inspiring Our Children
Today. Hearing Volume No. 110-101...................... 145
4.1(u) May 14, 2008--Water Supply Challenges for the 21st
Century. Hearing Volume No. 110-102.................... 146
4.1(v) July 30, 2008--NASA at 50: Past Accomplishments
and Future Opportunities and Challenges. Hearing Volume
No. 110-118............................................ 148
4.1(w) July 31, 2008--Oversight of the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD)
Program. Hearing Volume No. 110-119.................... 149
4.1(x) September 11, 2008--The Next Generation Air
Transportation System: Status and Issues. Hearing
Volume No. 110-122..................................... 150
4.2--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.................. 153
4.2(a) January 30, 2007--H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels
Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Hearing
Volume No. 110-1....................................... 153
4.2(b) March 7, 2007--The Department of Energy Fiscal
Year 2008 Research and Development Budget Proposal.
Hearing Volume No. 110-7............................... 154
4.2(c) March 14, 2007--The Environmental Protection
Agency Fiscal Year 2008 Research and Development Budget
Proposal. Hearing Volume No. 110-11.................... 155
4.2(d) March 21, 2007--Perspectives on Climate Change.
Hearing Volume No. 110-14.............................. 158
4.2(e) March 22, 2007--The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year 2008
Budget Proposal. Hearing Volume No. 110-16............. 159
4.2(f) April 26, 2007--Establishing the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)--H.R. 364. Hearing
Volume No. 110-22...................................... 160
4.2(g) May 3, 2007--Reorienting the U.S. Global Change
Research Program Toward a User-driven Research
Endeavor: H.R. 906. Hearing Volume No. 110-26.......... 163
4.2(h) May 15, 2007--Prospects for Advanced Coal
Technologies: Efficient Energy Production, Carbon
Capture and Sequestration. Hearing Volume No. 110-29... 165
4.2(i) May 17, 2007--Developing Untapped Potential:
Geothermal and Ocean Power Technologies. Hearing Volume
No. 110-32............................................. 167
4.2(j) June 7, 2007--The Status Report on the NPOESS
Weather Satellite Program. Hearing Volume No. 110-36... 168
4.2(k) June 14, 2007--A Path Toward the Broader Use of
Biofuels: Enhancing the Federal Commitment to Research
and Development to Meet the Growing Need. Hearing
Volume No. 110-40...................................... 170
4.2(l) June 19, 2007--Research, Education and Training
Programs to Facilitate Adoption of Solar Energy
Technologies. Hearing Volume No. 110-41................ 171
4.2(m) July 17, 2007--The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part
I. Hearing Volume No. 110-45........................... 173
4.2(n) July 19, 2007--Tracking the Storm at the National
Hurricane Center. Hearing Volume No. 110-47............ 174
4.2(o) August 1, 2007--The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part
II. Hearing Volume No. 110-50.......................... 176
4.2(p) September 5, 2007--The Benefits and Challenges of
Producing Liquid Fuel From Coal: The Role for Federal
Research. Hearing Volume No. 110-51.................... 179
4.2(q) September 25, 2007--Revisiting the Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP): Achieving Industrial
Efficiency. Hearing Volume No. 110-56.................. 180
4.2(r) October 3, 2007--Energy Storage Technologies:
State of Development for Stationary and Vehicular
Applications. Hearing Volume No. 110-61................ 182
4.2(s) October 23, 2007--GAO's Report on the Status of
NOAA's Geostationary Weather Satellite Program. Hearing
Volume No. 110-66...................................... 184
4.2(t) October 30, 2007--Research to Improve Water-Use
Efficiency and Conservation: Technologies and
Practices. Hearing Volume No. 110-68................... 185
4.2(u) February 26, 2008--The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Proposal and GAO's Report on the Aviation Weather
Service. Hearing Volume No. 110-78..................... 187
4.2(v) February 29, 2008--Energizing Houston:
Sustainability, Technological Innovation, and Growth in
the Energy Capital of the World. Hearing Volume No.
110-79................................................. 189
4.2(w) March 5, 2008--The Department of Energy Fiscal
Year 2009 Research and Development Budget Proposal.
Hearing Volume No. 110-80.............................. 191
4.2(x) March 17, 2008--Utility-Scale Solar Power:
Opportunities and Obstacles. Hearing Volume No. 110-87. 193
4.2(y) April 15, 2008--The Department of Energy's
FutureGen Program. Hearing Volume No. 110-92........... 195
4.2(z) May 21, 2008--The National Sea Grant College
Program Act: H.R. 5618. Hearing Volume No. 110-103..... 197
4.2(aa) June 5, 2008--The Federal Ocean Acidification
Research and Monitoring Act: H.R. 4174. Hearing Volume
No. 110-106............................................ 198
4.2(bb) June 10, 2008--Hybrid Technologies for Medium- to
Heavy-Duty Commercial Trucks. Hearing Volume No. 110-
107.................................................... 200
4.2(cc) June 19, 2008--An Insecure Forecast for
Continuity of Climate and Weather Data: The NPOESS
Weather Satellite Program. Hearing Volume No. 110-109.. 202
4.2(dd) June 26, 2008--The State of Hurricane Research
and H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research
Initiative Act of 2007. Hearing Volume No. 110-112..... 204
4.2(ee) July 10, 2008--Harmful Algal Blooms: The
Challenges on the Nation's Coastlines. Hearing Volume
No. 110-113............................................ 205
4.2(ff) July 23, 2008--A National Water Initiative:
Coordinating and Improving Federal Research on Water.
Hearing Volume No. 110-116............................. 207
4.2(gg) September 10, 2008--The Foundation for Developing
New Energy Technologies: Basic Energy Research in the
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. Hearing
Volume No. 110-121..................................... 209
4.3--Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight............ 211
4.3(a) February 13, 2007--Amending Executive Order 12866:
Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation? Part I.
Hearing Volume No. 110-4............................... 211
4.3(b) March 28, 2007--Shaping the Message, Distorting
the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Science
Policy. Hearing Volume No. 110-17...................... 213
4.3(c) April 26, 2007--Amending Executive Order 12866:
Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation? Part II.
Hearing Volume No. 110-21.............................. 214
4.3(d) May 3, 2007--Transitioning the Environmental
Measurements Laboratory to the Department of Homeland
Security. Hearing Volume No. 110-25.................... 216
4.3(e) May 24, 2007--The NASA Administrator's Speech to
Office of Inspector General Staff, the Subsequent
Destruction of Video Records, and Associated Matters.
Hearing Volume No. 110-33.............................. 218
4.3(f) June 7, 2007--Oversight Review of the
Investigation of the NASA Inspector General. Hearing
Volume No. 110-37...................................... 220
4.3(g) June 12, 2007--The duPont Aerospace DP-2 Aircraft.
Hearing Volume No. 110-38.............................. 222
4.3(h) July 19, 2007--The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part
I. Hearing Volume No. 110-45........................... 225
4.3(i) August 1, 2007--The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part
II. Hearing Volume No. 110-50.......................... 226
4.3(j) September 27, 2007--The National Security
Implications of Climate Change. Hearing Volume No. 110-
58..................................................... 229
4.3(k) October 17, 2007--Disappearing Polar Bears and
Permafrost: Is a Global Warming Tipping Point Embedded
in the Ice? Hearing Volume No. 110-64.................. 231
4.3(l) October 25, 2007--Radiological Response: Assessing
Environmental and Clinical Laboratory Capabilities.
Hearing Volume No. 110-67.............................. 233
4.3(m) March 13, 2008--The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Library Closures: Better Access for a
Broader Audience? Hearing Volume No. 110-85............ 234
4.3(n) April 1, 2008--Toxic Trailers: Have the Centers
for Disease Control Failed to Protect Public Health?
Hearing Volume No. 110-88.............................. 236
4.3(o) May 21, 2008--EPA's Restructured IRIS System: Have
Polluters and Politics Overwhelmed Science? Hearing
Volume No. 110-104..................................... 239
4.3(p) May 22, 2008--American Decline or Renewal? Part
I--Globalizing Jobs and Technology. Hearing Volume No.
110-105................................................ 241
4.3(q) June 12, 2008--Toxic Communities: How EPA's IRIS
Program Fails the Public. Hearing Volume No. 110-108... 242
4.3(r) June 24, 2008--American Decline or Renewal? Part
2--The Past and Future of Skilled Work. Hearing Volume
No. 110-111............................................ 244
4.3(s) September 9, 2008--Biobanking: How the Lack of a
Coherent Policy Allowed the Veterans Administration to
Destroy an Irreplaceable Collection of Legionella
Samples. Hearing Volume No. 110-120.................... 245
4.4--Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.......... 249
4.4(a) March 8, 2007--Improving the Laboratory Experience
for America's High School Students. Hearing Volume No.
110-9.................................................. 249
4.4(b) March 20, 2007--National Science Foundation
Reauthorization: Part I. Hearing Volume No. 110-13..... 251
4.4(c) March 29, 2007--National Science Foundation
Reauthorization: Part II. Hearing Volume No. 110-19.... 252
4.4(d) May 15, 2007--Federal STEM Education Programs:
Educators' Perspectives. Hearing Volume No. 110-28..... 253
4.4(e) June 6, 2007--Federal STEM Education Programs.
Hearing Volume No. 110-35.............................. 255
4.4(f) June 19, 2007--The Role of Community Colleges and
Industry in Meeting the Demands for Skilled Production
Workers and Technicians in the 21st Century Economy.
Hearing Volume No. 110-42.............................. 257
4.4(g) September 25, 2007--The Contribution of the Social
Sciences to the Energy Challenge. Hearing Volume No.
110-55................................................. 259
4.4(h) October 2, 2007--Nanotechnology Education. Hearing
Volume No. 110-60...................................... 261
4.4(i) October 10, 2007--Assessment of the National
Science Board's Action Plan for STEM Education. Hearing
Volume No. 110-63...................................... 263
4.4(j) October 17, 2007--Women in Academic Science and
Engineering. Hearing Volume No. 110-65................. 265
4.4(k) October 31, 2007--Research on Environmental and
Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of
Planning and Implementation Under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Hearing Volume No. 110-69... 267
4.4(l) February 7, 2008--Status of Visas and Other
Policies for Foreign Students and Scholars. Hearing
Volume No. 110-74...................................... 269
4.4(m) February 26, 2008--Oversight of the National
Science Foundation. Hearing Volume No. 110-77.......... 270
4.4(n) March 11, 2008--The Transfer of National
Nanotechnology Initiative Research Outcomes for
Commercial and Public Benefit. Hearing Volume No. 110-
82..................................................... 271
4.4(o) April 2, 2008--International Science and
Technology Cooperation. Hearing Volume No. 110-89...... 272
4.4(p) April 24, 2008--Role of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences in National Security. Hearing Volume No. 110-
95..................................................... 273
4.4(q) May 8, 2008--Fulfilling the Potential of Women in
Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008. Hearing
Volume No. 110-100..................................... 275
4.4(r) June 26, 2008--The State of Hurricane Research and
H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative
Act of 2007. Hearing Volume No. 110-112................ 276
4.4(s) July 15, 2008--The Role of Non-governmental
Organizations and Universities in International Science
and Technology Cooperation. Hearing Volume No. 110-114. 277
4.4(t) September 18, 2008--The Role of Social and
Behavioral Sciences in Public Health. Hearing Volume
No. 110-123............................................ 279
4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 281
4.5(a) March 22, 2007--The Federal Aviation
Administration's R&D Budgetary Priorities for Fiscal
Year 2008. Hearing Volume No. 110-15................... 281
4.5(b) March 29, 2007--The Joint Planning and Development
Office and the Next Generation Air Transportation
System: Status and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-18... 282
4.5(c) May 2, 2007--NASA's Space Science Programs: Review
of Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and Issues. Hearing
Volume No. 110-24...................................... 284
4.5(d) May 17, 2007--Building and Maintaining a Healthy
and Strong NASA Workforce. Hearing Volume No. 110-31... 286
4.5(e) June 28, 2007--NASA's Earth Science and
Applications Programs: Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-44.................. 287
4.5(f) July 24, 2007--NASA's Space Shuttle and
International Space Station Programs: Status and
Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-48...................... 289
4.5(g) September 6, 2007--NASA's Astronaut Health Care
System--Results of an Independent Review. Hearing
Volume No. 110-52...................................... 290
4.5(h) November 8, 2007--Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)--
Status of the Survey Program and Review of NASA's
Report to Congress. Hearing Volume No. 110-72.......... 292
4.5(i) February 13, 2008--NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request. Hearing Volume No. 110-75..................... 294
4.5(j) April 3, 2008--NASA's Exploration Initiative:
Status and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-90........... 296
4.5(k) April 7, 2008--Remote Sensing Data: Applications
and Benefits. Hearing Volume No. 110-91................ 297
4.5(l) April 24, 2008--NASA's International Space Station
Program: Status and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-96.. 299
4.5(m) May 1, 2008--NASA's Aeronautics R&D Program:
Status and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 110-99........... 301
4.6--Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation............... 303
4.6(a) February 15, 2007--The National Institute of
Standards and Technology's Role in Supporting Economic
Competitiveness in the 21st Century: The Fiscal Year
2008 Budget Request. Hearing Volume No. 110-6.......... 303
4.6(b) March 8, 2007--The Department of Homeland
Security's R&D Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008.
Hearing Volume No. 110-8............................... 305
4.6(c) April 26, 2007--Small Business Innovation Research
Reauthorization on the 25th Program Anniversary.
Hearing Volume No. 110-23.............................. 306
4.6(d) May 10, 2007--Green Transportation Infrastructure:
Challenges to Access and Implementation. Hearing Volume
No. 110-27............................................. 308
4.6(e) June 26, 2007--SBIR and STTR--How Are the Programs
Managed Today? Hearing Volume No. 110-43............... 310
4.6(f) July 17, 2007--The Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517,
Amendments to the Patent and Trademark Act of 1980)--
The Next 25 Years. Hearing Volume No. 110-46........... 312
4.6(g) October 2, 2007--The United States Fire
Administration Reauthorization: Addressing the
Priorities of the Nation's Fire Service. Hearing Volume
No. 110-59............................................. 314
4.6(h) October 4, 2007--The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part III: How Do Companies Choose Where to
Build R&D Facilities? Hearing Volume No. 110-62........ 316
4.6(i) November 6, 2007--The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part IV: Implications for the Science and
Engineering Workforce. Hearing Volume No. 110-71....... 318
4.6(j) November 15, 2007--Next Generation Border and
Maritime Security Technologies: H.R. 3916. Hearing
Volume No. 110-73...................................... 320
4.6(k) March 6, 2008--The Department of Homeland
Security's R&D Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009.
Hearing Volume No. 110-81.............................. 322
4.6(l) March 11, 2008--NIST's FY 2009 Budget Request:
What Are the Right Technology Investments to Promote
U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness? Hearing Volume No.
110-83................................................. 323
4.6(m) April 24, 2008--Aviation Security Research and
Development at the Department of Homeland Security.
Hearing Volume No. 110-97.............................. 325
4.6(n) June 24, 2008--Sustainable, Energy-Efficient
Transportation Infrastructure. Hearing Volume No. 110-
110.................................................... 326
4.6(o) July 15, 2008--The Low-level Plutonium Spill at
NIST-Boulder: Contamination of Lab and Personnel.
Hearing Volume No. 110-115............................. 328
4.6(p) July 24, 2008--The National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program: Strengthening Windstorm Hazard
Mitigation. Hearing Volume No. 110-117................. 330
Appendix
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science and Technology
for FY 2008.................................................... 335
Additional Views of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson......... 347
Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2008................ 349
Additional Views of Representative Bob Inglis.................... 354
Views and Estimates for the Committee on Science and Technology
for Fiscal Year 2009........................................... 356
Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2009................ 382
Additional Views of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson......... 387
Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Roscoe G.
Bartlett....................................................... 394
Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Bob Inglis...... 396
House Science and Technology Committee Summary of Oversight
Activities--110th Congress..................................... 397
History of Appointments, Committee on Science and Technology..... 409
Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Science and
Technology for the 110th Congress.............................. 411
List of Publications of the Committee on Science and Technology
(110th Congress)............................................... 425
Union Calendar No. 608
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-935
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
__________
January 2, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
Mr. Gordon, from the Committee on Science and Technology,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
History of the Committee on Science and Technology
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 non-military 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.
In November 2006, the Democratic Party regained the
majority of the House of Representatives. The Democratic Caucus
agreed to change the name of the Committee from the Committee
on Science to the Committee on Science and Technology. This was
previously the name of the Committee from the 93rd to the 99th
Congress. Representative Bart Gordon became the Chairman of the
newly renamed Committee at the start of the 110th Congress.
Gordon had served as the Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee since the 108th Congress.
One of Chairman Gordon's first acts was to reorder the
subcommittee structure of the Committee. In the 110th Congress
there were five subcommittees of the Committee on Science and
Technology: Energy and Environment; Technology and Innovation;
Research and Science Education; Space and Aeronautics; and,
Investigations and Oversight. The renewal of the Investigations
and Oversight Subcommittee after a 12-year absence reflected
the new Congress' focus on ethics and oversight of federal
programs.
Under Chairman Gordon's leadership, the Committee on
Science and Technology embarked on an aggressive agenda for the
110th Congress. The Chairman's early focus was on
implementation of the recommendations of the National Academy
of Sciences from their report, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm. This report, which was requested in 2005 by then Ranking
Minority Member Gordon, outlined steps the Federal Government
needed to take to ensure the competitiveness of America in the
21st Century. Included in these recommendations were calls for
additional teacher training in the math and science fields,
scholarships to math and science college students who pursue
teaching careers, increased funding for research and
development, and the creation of a high-risk high-reward energy
research agency within the Department of Energy modeled after
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the
Department of Defense. These recommendations were translated
into legislation by the Committee, and eventually became law in
the form of the America COMPETES Act (The America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science Act).
Another early focus of the Committee was on the topic of
energy. The Committee moved numerous bills during the first
session of the 110th Congress, and these individual pieces were
eventually incorporated into an omnibus energy bill entitled
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The
Committee's contributions to this law included legislation on
research, development, and demonstration in the areas of
biofuels, solar energy, marine energy, geothermal energy,
carbon sequestration, and energy storage. EISA also contained
stringent new efficiency standards and automobile fuel
efficiency standards.
The Committee also devoted considerable energy into
oversight and reauthorization of NASA. This culminated in a one
year reauthorization of the agency. The NASA reauthorization
mandated that the agency take no steps that would preclude
flying the Space Shuttle past 2010 until after the new
President had a chance to evaluate the status of the agency. In
addition to the agency's base authorization levels, the bill
authorizes an additional one billion dollars to accelerate
development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which is the
follow-on human space transportation system to the Space
Shuttle. Finally, the 2008 authorization increases funding for
aeronautics research at the agency.
During the 110th Congress the Committee also passed several
other pieces of legislation. The Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act of 2007 tasked EPA to develop new detection and
remediation technologies and standards for cleanup contaminated
methamphetamine production sites. The U.S. Fire Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2008 reauthorized programs at the
Administration and added programs focused on fires at the wild
land-urban interface. Finally, the Committee passed the
National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008, in
conjunction with the Natural Resources Committee. There were
numerous other pieces of legislation which were enacted that
the Committee had jurisdictional interests in, including:
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008;
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008; Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008; Higher Education Opportunity Act; Great
Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008; and, Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and
Technology
1.1--P.L. 110-53, IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION
ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 1)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, is a wide-ranging law which provides
for the implementation of outstanding recommendations of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(9/11 Commission). The Act requires scanning of all cargo
containers bound for U.S. ports within five years and scanning
of all cargo on passenger aircraft within three years. Among
other things, the Act authorizes grants for inter-operability
for first responders, provides for risk-based allocation of
Homeland Security Grants, authorizes rail and mass transit
security grants, strengthens information sharing with local law
enforcement, and provides for disclosure of the overall
intelligence budget.
Provisions of P.L. 110-53 on which the Committee was
involved in conference include Sections: 1103, Interagency
coordination to enhance defenses against nuclear and
radiological weapons of mass destruction; 1408, Public
transportation security research and development; 1518,
Railroad security research and development; 1535, Over-the-road
bus security research and development; 1608, Research and
development of aviation transportation security technology;
1610, Protection of passenger planes from explosives; and 1901,
Promoting anti-terrorism capabilities through international
cooperation.
Legislative History
On January 5, 2007, Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the
Committee on Homeland Security, introduced H.R. 1, which was
referred to the Committees on Homeland Security, Energy and
Commerce, Judiciary, Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign
Affairs, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and
Government Reform, and Ways and Means. On January 9, 2007, H.R.
1 was considered by the House and passed by: Y-299, N-128 (Roll
Call No. 15).
H.R. 1 was received in the Senate on January 9, 2007. On
July 9, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 1 by unanimous consent,
after striking all after the enacting clause and inserting the
text of S. 4, as amended. The Senate requested a conference and
appointed conferees.
On July 17, 2007, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1 and agreed to a conference. From the
Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker appointed the
following conferees for consideration of Sections 703, 1301,
1464, 1467, and 1507 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Chairman Bart Gordon, Technology and
Innovation Subcommittee Chairman David Wu, and Technology and
Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Phil Gingrey.
On July 25, 2007, the conference report (H.Rept. 110-259)
was filed. The Senate considered and passed the conference
report on July 26, 2007, by: Y-85, N-8 (Record Vote No. 284).
The House passed the conference report on July 27, 2007, by: Y-
371, N-40 (Roll Call No. 757). It was signed into law by the
President on August 3, 2007, and became Public Law No. 110-53.
1.2--P.L. 110-69, AMERICA COMPETES ACT (H.R. 2272)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 110-69, the America COMPETES Act or America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science Act, is a comprehensive bill aimed at
enhancing the competitiveness of the United States by investing
in math and science education, investing in basic research and
development, and creating a new entity at the Department of
Energy to engage in high-risk, high-reward energy research and
technology development. Many of the provisions in P.L. 110-69
are based on recommendations made in the National Academies
report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
The America COMPETES Act reauthorizes both the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), and puts both of those
entities on a near-term path to doubling in funding. The
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science is also put on a
near-term path to doubling in funding. In addition to
increasing overall funding for basic research, the Act also
expands early career grant programs and provides additional
support for outstanding young investigators at both NSF and
DOE.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education is another focus of the America COMPETES Act. The Act
helps to prepare thousands of new STEM teachers and provides
current teachers with content and teaching skills in their area
of education through NSF's Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
and Math and Science Partnerships Program. P.L. 110-69 also
expands programs at NSF to enhance the undergraduate education
of the future science and engineering workforce. Finally, the
Act authorizes new grant programs to implement courses of study
in STEM fields and foreign languages in ways that lead to
baccalaureate degrees with concurrent teacher certification,
and increase the number of AP and IB teachers serving in high-
need schools.
The America COMPETES Act also establishes an Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. Based on
the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E is envisioned as a nimble and semi-
autonomous research agency that engages in high-risk, high-
reward energy research.
Finally, the Act makes investments in the Nation's
technology competitiveness by creating the Technology
Innovation Program at NIST to fund high-risk, high-reward, pre-
competitive technology development with high potential for
public benefit. In addition, the Act significantly updates the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, meant to ensure the
Nation's preeminence in advanced computing.
The America COMPETES Act ultimately included the substance
of several smaller bills which were packaged together to create
a comprehensive agenda on competitiveness. Those bills within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology
include: H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science
and Math Scholarship Act; H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Research Act; H.R. 364, To provide for
the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency
Energy; H.R. 524, To establish a laboratory science pilot
program at the National Science Foundation; H.R. 1068, To amend
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; H.R. 1231, To
enable the awarding of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award to a greater number of qualified enterprises; H.R. 1867,
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007; H.R.
1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act
of 2007; and, H.R. 2153, 21st Century Competitiveness Act of
2007.
Legislative History
On May 10, 2007, Chairman Bart Gordon introduced H.R. 2272,
which was referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology. H.R. 2272 was comprised of five bills previously
considered by both the Committee on Science and Technology and
the House: H.R. 362, H.R. 363, H.R. 1068, H.R. 1867, and H.R.
1868. On May 21, 2007 the House considered H.R. 2272 under
suspension of the rules, and agreed to the bill by voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 22, 2007. On
July 19, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2272 by unanimous
consent, after striking all after the enacting clause and
inserting the text of S. 761, as amended. The Senate requested
a conference and appointed conferees. The Senate amendment to
H.R. 2272 contained provisions analogous to H.R. 364 and H.R.
2153.
On July 31, 2007, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2272 and agreed to a conference. From the
Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker appointed the
following conferees: Chairman Bart Gordon, Vice Chair Dan
Lipinski, Research and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman
Brian Baird, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman
David Wu, Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Nick
Lampson, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Mark
Udall, Gabrielle Giffords, Jerry McNerney, Ranking Minority
Member Ralph Hall, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee
Ranking Minority Member Jim Sensenbrenner, Research and Science
Education Ranking Minority Member Vernon Ehlers, Judy Biggert,
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom
Feeney, and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking
Minority Member Phil Gingrey.
The Conferees met on July 31, 2007 and reached agreement.
On August 1, 2007, the conference report (H.Rept. 110-289) was
filed. The conference report passed the House on August 2,
2007, by: Y-367, N-57 (Roll Call No. 802). On August 2, 2007,
the Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous
consent. It was signed into law by the President on August 9,
2007, and became Public Law No: 110-69.
1.3--P.L. 110-140, ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (H.R.
6)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, P.L. 110-
140, is a comprehensive energy policy law. The purpose of the
bill, and the full title of the bill, is, ``To move the United
States toward greater energy independence and security, to
increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect
consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings,
and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas
capture and storage options, and to improve the energy
performance of the Federal Government.'' The House version of
the bill, H.R. 3221, was referred to ten House committees upon
introduction. The Science and Technology Committee has
jurisdiction over those parts of the bill dealing with energy
research, development, demonstration, and commercial
applications, climate and marine research, and transportation
research and development.
P.L. 110-140 incorporates the substance of nine bills which
originated with the Committee on Science and Technology: H.R.
632, H-Prize Act of 2007; H.R. 1933, Department of Energy
Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 2007; H.R. 2229, United States-Israel
Energy Cooperation Act; H.R. 2304, Advanced Geothermal Energy
Research and Development Act of 2007; H.R. 2313, Marine
Renewable Energy Research and Development Act of 2007; H.R.
2773, Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act; H.R.
2774, Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007; H.R.
3775, Industrial Energy Efficiency Research and Development Act
of 2007; and, H.R. 3776, Energy Storage Technology Advancement
Act of 2007. Four additional bills which are included in P.L.
110-140 were referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology: H.R. 2337, Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization
Act of 2007; H.R. 3237, Smart Grid Facilitation Act of 2007;
H.R. 3238, To promote the development of renewable fuels
infrastructure, and for other purposes; and, H.R. 3239, To
promote advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles and vehicle
components. Three more bills included in P.L. 110-140 were not
referred to the Committee, but were recognized as being in the
Committee's jurisdiction during informal conferencing: H.R.
2420, International Climate Cooperation Re-engagement Act of
2007; H.R. 2701, Transportation Energy Security and Climate
Change Mitigation Act of 2007; and, H.R. 3236, Energy
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2007.
Legislative History
On January 12, 2007, Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall
introduced H.R. 6, which was then titled the, ``CLEAN Energy
Act of 2007.'' This bill, which is dramatically different than
the final enacted version of H.R. 6, passed the House on
January 18, 2007, by: Y-264, N-163 (Roll Call No. 40).
H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on January 18, 2007. On
June 21, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 6 with an amendment by:
Y-65, N-27, (Record Vote No. 226). The Senate amendment to H.R.
6 retitled the bill the, ``Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007,'' and greatly
changed the focus and scope of the legislation.
On July 30, 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced
H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National
Security, and Consumer Protection Act. H.R. 3221 was referred
upon introduction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, Foreign
Affairs, Small Business, Science and Technology, Agriculture,
Oversight and Government Reform, Natural Resources,
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services. H.R.
3221 was comprised of the substance of the following individual
bills which had been previously introduced: H.R. 2304, Advanced
Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007; H.R.
2773, Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act; H.R.
3101, Biomass Research and Development Act of 2007; H.R. 2635,
Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007; H.R. 1933, Department of
Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 2007; H.R. 3236, Energy Efficiency
Improvement Act of 2007; H.R. 2337, Energy Policy Reform and
Revitalization Act of 2007; H.R. 906, Global Change Research
and Data Management Act of 2007; H.R. 2338, Global Warming
Wildlife Survival Act; H.R. 2847, Green Jobs Act of 2007; H.R.
2420, International Climate Cooperation Re-engagement Act of
2007; H.R. 2313, Marine Renewable Energy Research and
Development Act of 2007; H.R. 1267, National Carbon Dioxide
Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007; H.R. 2342, National
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Act of 2007; S. 2314,
Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007; H.R. 2389,
Small Energy Efficient Businesses Act; H.R. 3237, Smart Grid
Facilitation Act of 2007; H.R. 2774, Solar Energy Research and
Advancement Act of 2007; H.R. 3238, To promote the development
of renewable fuels infrastructure, and for other purposes; H.R.
3239, To promote advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles and vehicle
components; H.R. 2701, Transportation Energy Security and
Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007; H.R. 1838, United
States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. On August 4, 2007, the
House passed H.R. 3221, as amended, by: Y-241, N-172 (Roll Call
No. 832). On September 4, 2007, H.R. 3221 was received in the
Senate.
Subsequent to the House passing H.R. 3221, negotiations
between the House and Senate commenced to reconcile the
differences between the House passed version of H.R. 3221 and
the Senate passed version of H.R. 6. On December 6, 2007, the
House agreed with amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 6
by: Y-235, N-181 (Roll Call No. 1140). H.R. 6, as amended, was
received by the Senate on December 7, 2007. On December, 13,
2007, the Senate concurred in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to the text of H.R. 6, with an amendment by: Y-86, N-
8 (Record Vote No. 430). H.R. 6, as amended, was transmitted to
the House on December 14, 2007. On December 18, 2007, the House
agreed to the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the
Senate amendments by: Y-314, N-100 (Roll Call No. 1177). It was
signed into law by the President on December 18, 2007, and
became Public Law No: 110-140.
1.4--P.L. 110-143, METHAMPHETAMINE REMEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 2007
(H.R. 365)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007, P.L.
110-143, establishes a federal research program to support the
development of voluntary guidelines to help states address the
residual consequences of former methamphetamine laboratories.
The Act requires the Administrator at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program of research on
residues from the production of methamphetamines. The Act
further requires the Administrator, in consultation with the
National Institute for Standards and Technology, to establish
voluntary guidelines for preliminary site assessment and
remediation of methamphetamine laboratories. P.L. 110-143
requires the Administrator to convene a meeting of relevant
State agencies, individuals, and organizations to share best
practices and identify research needs. It 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 EPA's research program. Finally, the
Act authorizes appropriations for the fiscal years 2007 and
2008 for methamphetamine remediation related programs at EPA
and NIST.
Legislative History
On February 15, 2005, Representatives Bart Gordon, Ken
Calvert and Sherwood Boehlert introduced H.R. 798, the
Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Science, which referred it to the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards. On
March 3, 2005, the Committee on Science held a hearing to
examine the clean-up and remediation challenges of residential
methamphetamine laboratories and to discuss H.R. 798. On March
15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards held a markup. No amendments were offered. The
measure was ordered reported by a voice vote. On March 17,
2005, the Full Committee held a markup. Mr. Gordon offered a
substitute amendment, which made technical, clarifying and
conforming changes to the underlying bill, which was adopted by
voice vote. The measure was ordered reported, as amended, by a
voice vote. On April 13, 2005, H.R. 798 was reported to the
House and placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 23. On
December 13, 2005, the bill was considered and passed under
suspension of the rules. On December 14, 2005, the Senate
received the bill and referred it to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. On December 9, 2006, the
Committee discharged the bill by unanimous consent. The Senate
considered the bill and made an amendment to it by unanimous
consent. The Senate passed the bill, as amended, and sent it
back to the House for consideration. No further action was
taken in the 109th Congress.
On January 10, 2007, Representative Bart Gordon introduced
H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007.
The bill reflected the changes the Senate had made to H.R. 798
in the 109th Congress. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Science and Technology. On January 24, 2007, the Committee
held a markup, and ordered the bill reported by a voice vote.
On February 7, 2007, the Committee favorably reported the bill
to the House and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 3. That same day the bill was considered under suspension
of the rules and agreed to by: Y-426, N-2 (Roll Call No. 78).
On February 8, 2007, the Senate received H.R. 365, and referred
the bill to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. On
December 11, 2007, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works discharged the bill by unanimous consent. On December 11,
2007, the Senate passed the bill without amendment by unanimous
consent. On December 13, 2007, the President signed H.R. 365,
which became Public Law No. 110-143.
1.5--P.L. 110-181, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2008 (H.R. 4986)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
reauthorizes activities of the Department of Defense and
national security activities of the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2008. In addition, certain wartime appropriations
are authorized for fiscal year 2008.
Science and Technology Committee Members served as
conferees for Section 801, as enacted. Section 801, Internal
Controls for Procurements on Behalf of the Department of
Defense by Certain Non-Defense Agencies, places certain
limitations on procurements by non-defense agencies for the
Department of Defense which are not in compliance with
Department of Defense procurement requirements. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is one of the
covered non-defense agencies under this section. In addition,
Section 801 calls for Inspectors General reviews of procurement
policies, procedures, and internal controls of covered non-
defense agencies and periodic determinations if those non-
defense agencies' procurement policies are in compliance with
Department of Defense procurement requirements.
Legislative History
On March 20, 2007, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike
Skelton introduced H.R. 1585, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. H.R. 1585 was favorably
reported from the Committee on Armed Services, with an
amendment, on May 11, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-146). H.R. 1585, as
amended, was considered under a rule on May 16 and 17, 2007,
and passed the House on May 17 by a recorded vote: Y-397, N-27
(Roll Call No. 373).
H.R. 1585 was received by the Senate on June 4, 2007, and
on June 5, 2007, was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
On October 1, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 1585 with an
amendment by: Y-92, N-3 (Record Vote No.: 359). The Senate
insisted on its amendment, requested a conference and appointed
Senate conferees on October 1, 2007.
On December 5, 2007, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1585, agreed to go to conference, and
appointed House conferees by unanimous consent.
From the Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker
appointed the following conferees for consideration of Sections
846, 1085, and 1088 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Chairman Bart Gordon, Gabrielle
Giffords, and Research and Science Education Subcommittee
Ranking Minority Member Vernon Ehlers. The Conferees met and
reached agreement and on December 6, 2007, the conference
report (H.Rept. 110-477) was filed. The conference report
passed the House on December 12, 2007, by: Y-370, N-49 (Roll
Call No. 1151). On December 14, 2007, the Senate agreed to the
conference report by: Y-90, N-2 (Record Vote No. 433). On
December 28, 2007, the President vetoed H.R. 1585.
On January 16, 2008, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike
Skelton introduced H.R. 4986, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. H.R. 4986 was almost
identical to H.R. 1585 as passed by the House and Senate, and
Section 801 remained unchanged. On January 16, 2008, H.R. 4986
was considered and passed the House under suspension of the
rules by: Y-369, N-46 (Roll Call No. 11). On January 22, 2008,
H.R. 4968 was received in the Senate, considered, and passed
without amendment by: Y-91, N-3 (Record Vote No. 1). On January
28, 2008, H.R. 4968 was signed into law by the President and
became Public Law Number 110-181.
1.6--P.L. 110-229, CONSOLIDATED NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 2008 (S. 2739)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 is an
amalgamation of scores of smaller bills, most of which deal
with public lands. The smaller bills were compiled into S. 2739
in order to more easily move them past procedural holds in the
Senate. The following bills, or some portion of them, are
included in S. 2739: H.Con.Res. 116, H.Con.Res. 209, H.R. 30,
H.R. 85, H.R. 161, H.R. 235, H.R. 247, H.R. 276, H.R. 299, H.R.
319, H.R. 359, H.R. 376, H.R. 386, H.R. 407, H.R. 442, H.R.
467, H.R. 482, H.R. 495, H.R. 497, H.R. 512, H.R. 658, H.R.
713, H.R. 759, H.R. 761, H.R. 807, H.R. 815, H.R. 830, H.R.
839, H.R. 886, H.R. 902, H.R. 986, H.R. 1021, H.R. 1025, H.R.
1047, H.R. 1083, H.R. 1100, H.R. 1114, H.R. 1126, H.R. 1191,
H.R. 1239, H.R. 1337, H.R. 1388, H.R. 1462, H.R. 1483, H.R.
1520, H.R. 1526, H.R. 1625, H.R. 1662, H.R. 1736, H.R. 1815,
H.R. 1835, H.R. 1904, H.R. 1922, H.R. 2094, H.R. 2251, H.R.
2705, H.R. 3079, H.R. 3616, S.Con.Res. 6, S. 175, S. 200, S.
220, S. 235, S. 241, S. 255, S. 257, S. 263, S. 264, S. 265, S.
266, S. 289, S. 312, S. 327, S. 471, S. 488, S. 500, S. 512, S.
520, S. 553, S. 752, S. 797, S. 800, S. 817, S. 867, S. 890, S.
916, S. 955, S. 1039, S. 1110, S. 1112, S. 1116, S. 1143, S.
1148, S. 1184, S. 1258, S. 1329, S. 1475, S. 1608, S. 1634, S.
1709, S. 1808, S. 1941, S. 1991.
Two of the bills included in S. 2739 are bills which
originated in the Committee on Science and Technology: H.R. 85
and H.R. 1126. H.R. 85, the Energy Technology Transfer Act,
establishes Advanced Energy Technology Transfer Centers to
facilitate in the dissemination of advanced energy
technologies. H.R. 1126, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum
Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988,
reauthorizes the title program for FY 2008-FY 2012.
Legislative History
On March 10, 2008, Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Jeff Bingaman introduced S. 2739, which was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar. On April 10, 2008, S. 2739
passed the Senate with amendment by: Y-91, N-4 (Record Vote No.
101). S. 2739 was received in the House on April 10, 2008, and
held at the desk. On April 29, 2008, S. 2739 was considered and
passed under suspension of the rules by: Y-291, N-117 (Roll
Call No. 226). The President signed S. 2739 on May 8, 2008, and
it subsequently became Public Law 110-229.
1.7--P.L. 110-234, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008 (H.R.
2419)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or as it is
commonly referred to, the Farm Bill, reauthorizes various
programs related to agriculture. Specifically, the Act expands
nutrition and food aid programs, expands food lunch programs,
restructures and reauthorizes farm aid programs, expands
conservation programs, reauthorizes research programs at the
Department of Agriculture, and expands bio-energy programs at
the Department of Agriculture.
The Committee on Science and Technology has jurisdiction
over three sections of the public law: Section 4403, Joint
nutrition monitoring and related research activities; Section
7529, Agricultural and rural transportation research and
education; and, Section 9001, Energy. The Committee on Science
and Technology has a long history of interest in joint
nutrition monitoring and research, which is a joint effort
between the Department of Agriculture and Health and Humans
Services to continuously collect nutrition, diet, and health
information, and analyze that data as it is collected. Section
7529 establishes a joint program between the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Transportation to carry out a
competitive grant program for institutions of higher education
to carry out agricultural and rural transportation research and
education activities. Finally, Section 9001 amends the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the ``Farm Bill'' of
2002) with a comprehensive energy title. Included in this title
are biomass research and development and biorefinery assistance
programs.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2007, Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin
Peterson introduced H.R. 2419, Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008, which was referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. On July 23, 2007, the Committee on Agriculture
favorably reported H.R. 2419, with an amendment (H.Rept. 110-
256). On July 23, 2007, the Committee on Foreign Affairs was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2419. H.R. 2419,
as amended, was considered under a rule on July 26 and 27,
2007, and passed the House on July 27, 2007, by: Y-231, N-191
(Roll Call No. 756).
H.R. 2419 was received in the Senate on September 4, 2007.
The Farm Bill was considered by the Senate on November 8, 13,
14, 15, and 16 and December 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2007.
On December 14, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2419, with an
amendment, by: Y-79, N-14 (Record Vote No. 434). The Senate
insisted on its amendment, requested a conference, and
appointed conferees for H.R. 2419.
On April 9, 2008, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to a conference with the Senate by voice
vote. From the Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker
appointed the following conferees for consideration of Sections
4403, 9003, 9006, 9010, 9015, 9019, and 9020 of the House bill,
and Sections 7039, 7051, 7315, 7501, and 9001 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Chairman
Bart Gordon, Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Nick
Lampson, and Michael McCaul. The conference met in late April
and early May, and the conference report was agreed to and
filed on May 13, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-627). On May 14, 2008, the
House agreed to the conference report by a recorded vote of: Y-
318, N-106 (Roll Call No. 315). On May 15, 2008, the Senate
agreed to the conference report by: Y-81, N-15. The President
vetoed H.R. 2419 on May 21, 2008. On May 21, 2008, the House
voted to pass H.R. 2419, the objections of the President to the
contrary, notwithstanding by the Yeas and Nays: Y-316, N-108
(Roll Call No. 346). On May 22, 2008, the Senate passed H.R.
2419 over the Presidential veto by: Y-82, N-13 (Record Vote No.
140). H.R. 2419 became Public Law No. 110-234.
Upon initial passage of H.R. 2419, it was discovered that
due to a clerical error, one of the fifteen titles of the bill
had not been delivered to the President. Therefore, only
fourteen of the original fifteen titles of H.R. 2419 became law
with the passage of H.R. 2419.
1.8--P.L. 110-246, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008 (H.R.
6124)
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 6124, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
is virtually identical to the conference report for H.R. 2419,
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Due to a
clerical error, only fourteen of the fifteen titles of H.R.
2419 were actually enacted into law (P.L. 110-234). Congresses'
solution to this error was to pass the entire Farm Bill again,
in the form of H.R. 6124, to ensure all fifteen titles became
law.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2008, the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, Collin Peterson, introduced H.R. 6124, which was
referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The House considered and
passed H.R. 6124 on May 22, 2008, under suspension of the rules
by the Yeas and Nays: Y-306, N-110 (Roll Call No. 353).
The Senate received H.R. 6124 on May 22, 2008. On June 5,
2008, the Senate passed H.R. 6124 by: Y-77, N-15 (Record Vote
No. 144). On June 18, 2008, H.R. 6124 was vetoed by the
President. On June 18, 2008, the House voted to pass H.R. 6124,
the objections of the President to the contrary,
notwithstanding by the Yeas and Nays: Y-317, N-109 (Roll Call
No. 417). On June 18, 2008, the Senate passed H.R. 6124 over
the Presidential veto by: Y-80, N-14 (Record Vote No. 151).
H.R. 6124 became Public Law No. 110-246.
1.9--P.L. 110-315, HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT (H.R. 4137)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Higher Education Opportunity Act is a comprehensive
reauthorization and expansion of programs related to higher
education. Much of the Act amends the Higher Education Act of
1965 (P.L. 89-329). The last comprehensive reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act occurred in 1998, under the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). P.L. 110-315
authorizes a broad array of federal student aid programs. These
include federal student aid programs under Title IV-Student
Assistance, assistance for students pursuing international
education under Title VI-International Education Programs, and
programs for students seeking graduate and professional degrees
under Title VII-Graduate and Post-secondary Improvement
Programs. The Act also provides aid to institutions of higher
education. This includes programs under Title II-Teacher
Quality Enhancement, Title III-Strengthening Institutions, and
Title V-Developing Institutions.
The Committee on Science and Technology has jurisdiction
over Title IX, Part G-Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Program. Section 971 of Part G
amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980
to establish a program that award grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to eligible minority serving
institutions to aid the institutions in acquiring and enhancing
the institutions' digital and wireless networking technologies.
Section 972 authorizes appropriations for this program.
Legislative History
On November 9, 2007, Education and Labor Committee Chairman
George Miller introduced H.R. 4137, which was referred to the
Committee on Education and Labor, and in additions to the
Committees on the Judiciary, Science and Technology, and
Financial Services. The Committee on Education and Labor
favorably reported H.R. 4137, with an amendment, on December
19, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-500). The Committees on the Judiciary,
Science and Technology, and Financial Services were discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 4137 on December 19, 2007.
Prior to being discharged, Chairman Miller and Chairman Gordon
exchanged letters acknowledging the Committee on Science and
Technology's jurisdiction over H.R. 4137. On February 7, 2008,
the House considered H.R. 4137 under a rule, and the bill
passed by the Yeas and Nays: Y-354, N-58 (Roll Call No. 40).
H.R. 4137 was received in the Senate on February 25, 2008,
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions was discharged of further consideration of H.R. 4137
by unanimous consent on July 29, 2008. On July 29, 2008, the
Senate passed H.R. 4137, with an amendment, by unanimous
consent, and the Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a
conference, and appointed conferees.
On July 29, 2008, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4137 and agreed to a conference by unanimous
consent. From the Committee on Science and Technology the
Speaker appointed the following conferees for consideration of
Sections 961 and 962 of the House bill and Section 804 of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Chairman Bart Gordon, Chairman of the Research and Science
Education Subcommittee Brian Baird, and Randy Neugebauer. The
conferees met on July 29, 2008, and agreed to the conference
report, which was filed on July 30, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-803). The
House agreed to the conference report on July 31, 2008, by the
Yeas and Nays: Y-380, N-49 (Roll Call No. 544). The Senate
agreed to the conference report on July 31, 2008, by: Y-83, N-8
(Record Vote No. 194). On August 14, 2008, the President signed
H.R. 4137, and it became Public Law 110-315.
1.10--P.L. 110-365, GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
(H.R. 6460)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008 amends
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to
as the Clean Water Act) to update and reauthorize the Great
Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-303). The Act authorizes
appropriations for this program through fiscal year 2013. In
addition, the Act limits the amount of appropriated funds that
may be used for site characterization. The program is modified
by the Act to add aquatic habitat restoration to the list of
authorized activities the Great Lakes National Program Office
is authorized to implement. The Act also revises the provision
concerning the nonfederal share of projects costs, and changes
other aspects of the program related to non-federal sponsors.
Legislative History
On July 10, 2008, Research and Science Education
Subcommittee Ranking Member Vernon Ehlers introduced H.R. 6460,
which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Science and
Technology. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
favorably reported H.R. 6460 on September 15, 2008 (H.Rept.
110-849). After an exchange of letters acknowledging
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology over
the bill, the Committee on Science and Technology was
discharged of H.R. 6460 on September 15, 2008. On September 18,
2008, the House considered and passed H.R. 6460 under
suspension of the rules by: Y-371, N-20 (Roll Call No. 615).
H.R. 6460 was received in the Senate on September 22, 2008,
and on September 25, 2008, the Senate passed the bill, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent. On September 27, 2008, the
House considered H.R. 6460, with a Senate amendment, under
suspension of the rules, and on September 28, 2008, the bill
passed by: Y-411, N-9 (Roll Call No. 665). On October 8, 2008,
the President signed H.R. 6460, and it became Public Law 110-
365.
1.11--110-376, UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2008 (S. 2606)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act
of 2008 amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974 to authorize appropriations for the U.S. Fire
Administration through 2012. The Act also authorizes a number
of changes to programs at the United States Fire Administration
(USFA). This includes authorizing the Superintendent of the
National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control to include
several new topics for fire service personnel training. The Act
also increases the percentage of authorized USFA appropriations
that may be used for assistance of State and local fire service
training programs. In addition, the Act authorizes the
Superintendent to conduct on-site training programs, and
authorizes the USFA Administrator to contract with outside
organizations to conduct on-site training programs. Section 5
of the Act directs the USFA Administrator to update the
National Fire Incident Reporting System to allow real-time,
web-based reporting. The Act authorizes the USFA Administrator
to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary
of the Interior, and the Wildland Fire Leadership Council in
assisting the Nation's fire service in rural and remote areas
and to improve fire prevention and control in the wildland-
urban interface. Additionally, the Act requires the USFA
Administrator to promote the adoption of voluntary national
consensus standards for firefighter health and safety by the
Nation's fire services. The Act requires the USFA Administrator
to include emergency medical services (EMS) in his liaison and
coordination activities across the Federal Government, and
authorizes the Administrator to conduct studies of the
operating and management aspects of fire based EMS. Finally,
the Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish
a fire service position at the National Operations Center.
Legislative History
On December 19, 2007, Harry Mitchell introduced H.R. 4847,
the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of
2008, which was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology. On February 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Technology
and Innovation marked up H.R. 4847, and favorably reported the
amended bill to the Full Committee. On February, 27, 2008, the
Committee on Science and Technology held a markup on H.R. 4847.
The bill was amended and ordered reported by voice vote. On
March 31, 3008, the Committee on Science and Technology
reported H.R. 4847, with an amendment (H.Rept. 110-559). On
April 3, 2008, the House considered H.R. 4847 under a rule, and
the bill passed by the Yeas and Nays: Y-412, N-0 (Roll Call No.
160). H.R. 4847 was received in the Senate on April 4, 2008. No
other action was taken on H.R. 4847.
On February 7, 2008, Christopher Dodd introduced S. 2606,
the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of
2008, which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs. Senate committee staff and staff from
the Committee on Science and Technology engaged in discussions
aimed at reconciling S. 2606 and H.R. 4847, as passed the
House. These discussions continued after the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs reported S. 2606 out
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on July 10,
2008 (Report No. 110-411). On September 18, 2008, the Senate
passed S. 2606, with an amendment, by unanimous consent.
On September 24, 2008, the House considered S. 2606 under
suspension of the rules, and the bill passed by the Yeas and
Nays: Y-418, N-2 (Roll Call No. 636). On October 8, 2008, the
President signed S. 2606, and it became Public Law 110-376.
1.12--P.L. 110-394, NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT
OF 2008 (H.R. 5618)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Sea Grant College Amendments Act of 2008
amends the National Sea Grant College Program to reauthorize
the program through fiscal year 2014, and make a number of
other changes to the program. The Act adds regional and
national projects as elements of the national sea grant college
program in Section 5, and also revises the program director's
duties. The Act also requires that sea grant colleges provide
extension services. Section 8 of P.L. 110-394 requires that
fellowship funds be used only for fellowships and related
administrative costs. The sea grant review panel is
redesignated as the National Sea Grant Advisory Board and its
duties are modified. Finally, the Act makes a number of
definitional and technical changes to the National Sea Grant
College Program Act.
Legislative History
On March 13, 2008, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam
introduced H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program
Amendments Act of 2008, which was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Oceans marked up H.R. 5618, and favorably reported the bill,
with an amendment, to the full Natural Resources Committee on
April 23, 2008. The Natural Resources Committee held a markup
session on April 30, 2008, and ordered H.R. 5618 favorably
reported, with an amendment, by voice vote. On June 9, 2008,
the Committee on Natural Resources favorably reported H.R.
5618, with an amendment (H.Rept. 110-701).
On June 9, 2008, H.R. 5618 was sequentially referred to the
Committee on Science and Technology. The Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a markup on June 12, 2008, and ordered
H.R. 5618 favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice
vote. On June 25, the Full Committee marked up H.R. 5618, and
ordered the bill favorably reported, with an amendment, by
voice vote. The Committee on Science and Technology favorably
reported H.R. 5618, with an amendment, on July 11, 2008
(H.Rept. 110-701, Part II).
H.R. 5618, as amended, was considered and passed on a voice
vote, by the House on July 14, 2008, under suspension of the
rules. The bill was received in the Senate on July 15, 2008,
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. On September 26, 2008, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation was discharged of further
consideration of H.R. 5618, and the Senate passed the bill,
with an amendment, by unanimous consent. On September 29, 2008,
the House passed H.R. 5618, with a Senate amendment, by
unanimous consent. The President signed H.R. 5618 on October
13, 2008, and the bill became Public Law 110-394.
1.13--P.L. 110-417, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 (S. 3001)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 authorizes activities of the Department of
Defense, authorizes certain military construction programs, and
authorizes national security activities of the Department of
Energy for fiscal year 2009. In addition, certain wartime
appropriations are authorized for fiscal year 2009.
The Science and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over
two sections of Public Law 110-417: Sections 3113 and 3114.
Section 3113 establishes a Nonproliferation and National
Security Scholarship and Fellowship Program, to grant
scholarships and fellowships to individuals to learn the skills
needed to work on nuclear nonproliferation and security issues
at the Department of Energy. Section 3114 establishes a
research and development program within the Department of
Energy to enhance nuclear forensics capabilities. Both of these
sections are drawn from H.R. 5929, the Nuclear Terrorism
Deterrence and Detection Act, which was initially referred to
the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the
Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland
Security, and Energy and Commerce.
Legislative History
On March 31, 2008, House Armed Services Committee Chairman
Ike Skelton introduced H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which was
referred to the Armed Services Committee. On May 16, 2008, H.R.
5658, as amended, was reported by the Committee on Armed
Services (H.Rept. 110-652). The House considered H.R. 5658
under a rule on May 21 and 22, 2008, and H.R. 5658, as amended,
passed the House on May 22, 2008, by: Y-384, N-23 (Roll Call
No. 365). On June 3, 2008, H.R. 5658 was received in the
Senate, and no further action was taken on H.R. 5658.
On May 12, 2008, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
Carl Levin introduced S. 3001, the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The bill was
reported back to the Senate the same day (Report No. 110-335),
and placed on the Legislative Calendar. S. 3001 was considered
by the Senate from September 9 through September 17, and on
September 17, 2008, S. 3001 passed the Senate with amendments
by: Y-88, N-8 (Record Vote No. 201).
S. 3001 was received in the House on September 18, 2008,
and held at the desk. On September 24, 2008, S. 3001 was
considered under suspension of the rules and passed with an
amendment by: Y-392, N-39 (Roll Call No. 631). On September 27,
2008, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 3001 by
unanimous consent, and on October 14, 2008, the President
signed S. 3001. S. 3001 subsequently became Public Law 110-417.
1.14--P.L. 110-422, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008 (H.R. 6063)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2008 reauthorizes programs at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for fiscal year
2009, and sets out certain policy objectives for NASA. The
baseline authorization in H.R. 6063 represents a 2.8 percent
increase over the level authorized for NASA in FY 2007. In
addition, the bill includes a special funding augmentation to
accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
(CEV), in order to minimize the Nation's human space flight gap
between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and fielding of the
CEV. The bill also includes provisions to encourage the use of
commercial services to transport cargo and crew to and from the
International Space Station, to ensure the health of civil
aviation research and development at NASA, and to better
understand and respond to climate change.
P.L. 110-422 also adds an additional Space Shuttle flight
to the program in order to deliver the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer to the International Space Station. In addition,
the law contains a prohibition against NASA taking any steps
prior to April 30th of 2009 that would preclude the President
from being able to continue to fly the Space Shuttle past 2010.
This allows for the incoming administration to have a chance to
review NASA's programs and objectives and potentially reorient
those objectives without excessive disruption to NASA and
NASA's highly skilled workforce.
Legislative History
On May 15, 2008, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
Chairman Mark Udall introduced H.R. 6063, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008.
The bill was referred to the Science and Technology Committee,
and referred by the Committee to the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
markup session on May 20, 2008, and ordered H.R. 6063 favorably
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On June 4, 2008,
the Science and Technology Committee marked up H.R. 6063, and
ordered the amended bill favorably reported to the House by
voice vote. On June 9, 2008, the Science and Technology
Committee reported the amended bill to the House (H.Rept. 110-
702). On June 12 and 18, 2008, the House considered H.R. 6063
under a rule. The bill was amended, and passed on June 18,
2008, by: Y-409, N-15 (Roll Call No. 421).
H.R. 6063 was received in the Senate on June 20, 2008, and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
6063 on September 25, 2008, by unanimous consent. On September
25, the Senate considered and passed H.R. 6063, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
H.R. 6063, as passed by the Senate, was received by the
House on September 26, 2008. On September 27, 2008, H.R. 6063,
as amended by the Senate, was considered and passed by the
House under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The
President signed H.R. 6063 on October 15, 2008, and the bill
subsequently became Public Law 110-422.
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
and Technology
2.1--H.R. 85, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 85 was to recast Section 917 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide more specificity and to
make other improvements to the Advanced Energy Technology
Transfer Center Program that was created by that Act.
According to Department of Energy (DOE) 2003 statistics,
buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the
economy, including industrial processes and transportation.
Buildings consume 39 percent of primary energy in the United
States and 70 percent of electricity. Innovations in energy-
efficient building technologies, materials, techniques and
systems combined with advances in photovoltaic and other
distributed clean energy technologies have the potential to
dramatically transform the pattern of energy consumption
associated with buildings. These technologies--coupled with a
whole building approach that optimizes the interactions among
building systems and components--enable buildings to use
considerably less energy, while also helping to meet national
goals for sustainable development, environmental protection,
and energy security.
During the first session of the 109th Congress, the
Committee on Science reported energy research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) legislation that authorized programs
enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L.
109-58). One of these programs, enacted as Section 917 of
EPACT, established an Advanced Energy Technology Transfer
Center program to improve the flow of state-of-the-art
information on energy use and conservation in buildings to the
building sector.
During the second session of the 109th Congress, Section 13
of H.R. 5656 was a rewrite of Section 917, adding detail to the
bill's sections on priorities, uses of grants, contents of
applications, and selection criteria. It also added provisions
on duration, evaluation, and renewal of grants, prohibited the
use of grant funds for construction of facilities, and removed
the advisory committee provisions of the original Section 917.
H.R. 85 continued the effort to update this program, making
minor improvements to Section 13 of H.R. 5656.
Legislative History
On January 4, 2007, H.R. 85 was introduced by
Representative Biggert. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Science and Technology.
On February 28, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
85. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by
voice vote. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the
measure, as amended, to the House. On March 8, 2007, the
Committee reported H.R. 85 to the House (H.Rept. 110-38). On
March 12, 2007, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
85 by a recorded vote of 395-1.
On March 13, 2007, H.R. 85 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On
September 17, 2007 the Committee reported H.R. 85 without
amendment with a written report (110-162).
H.R. 85 was eventually included as Section 601 of S. 2739,
the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. S. 2739 was
signed into law as P.L. 110-229 on May 8, 2008.
2.2--H.R. 362, 10,000 TEACHERS, 10 MILLION MINDS SCIENCE AND MATH
SCHOLARSHIP ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
In 1995, the first Trends in International Math and Science
Study (TIMSS) reported alarming data regarding American student
achievement in mathematics and science. American twelfth-
graders ranked behind comparable students from 17 other
countries out of 21 countries in the study. Of the 16 of those
countries that participated in an analysis of achievement in
physics, the United States ranked last. Follow-up TIMSS studies
and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
studies confirmed that American students were behind their
peers from many other industrialized nations. For example, in
the comprehensive 2003 PISA study, the United States ranked
28th out of 40 countries in mathematics achievement of 15-year-
old students. Several additional reports concluded that
improving the math and science achievement of American students
is critical to the vision of a competitive America continuing
to lead the world in technology and innovation. In particular,
the National Academies 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic
Future identified the following as its highest priority policy
recommendation:
LIncrease America's talent pool by vastly improving K-
12 science and mathematics education.
Other reports echoing this same sentiment came from the
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the
21st Century (the Glenn Commission), the Council on
Competitiveness, the Association of American Universities
(AAU), the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, AeA (formerly the American Electronics
Association), the Business Roundtable, the Electronic
Industries Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers,
and TechNet.
Having a leading science and technology enterprise is not
just a matter of national prestige. Science and technology is
largely responsible for the innovation that drove the American
economic dominance of the last half of the twentieth century
and that led to high-paying jobs and a high standard of living.
The Academies report advocated for a major investment in
the Nation's competitiveness. In addition to improving K-12
science and mathematics education, the report recommended
investing in scientific and engineering research, recruiting
and retaining the best scientists and engineers in the world,
and improving the innovation climate for industry.
The Gathering Storm report identified specific action items
to accomplish the general recommendations. Among them were
recommendations to annually recruit 10,000 science and
mathematics teachers by awarding scholarships, to strengthen
the skills of 250,000 teachers through summer institutes and
Master's degree programs, and to increase the number of U.S.
citizens who earn Bachelor's degrees in STEM fields by
providing 25,000 scholarships every year. The principal
provisions of H.R. 362 work towards the implementation of these
three action items.
The purpose of H.R. 362 was to improve K-12 mathematics,
science, and technology education through recruitment,
training, mentoring, and professional development of teachers;
to improve laboratory experiences in secondary schools; and to
increase the number of undergraduates entering science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.
Legislative History
On January 10, 2007, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 362. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On March 28, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 362.
A manager's amendment offered by Representatives Gordon and
Hall was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representatives Johnson and Ehlers was agreed to by voice vote.
Another amendment offered by Representative Johnson was agreed
to by voice vote. Two amendments offered by Representative
Giffords were agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Akins was agreed to by a voice vote. The
Committee ordered the measure reported, as amended, by voice
vote. On April 16, 2007, the Committee reported H.R. 362 to the
House (H.Rept. 110-85). On April 24, 2007, the House passed
H.R. 362 by a recorded vote of 389-22.
On April 25, 2007, the bill was received in the Senate, and
referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
362.
This bill text was generally incorporated in H.R. 2272, the
America COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272 was signed into law as P.L.
110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.3--H.R. 363, SOWING THE SEEDS THROUGH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
RESEARCH ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
While the U.S. continues to lead the world in measures of
innovation capacity--research and development (R&D) spending,
number of scientists and engineers, scientific output, etc.--
recent statistics on the level of U.S. support for research
relative to other countries indicates that this lead may be
slipping. At the same time, other nations--particularly
emergent nations such as China and India--have recognized the
importance of innovation to economic growth, and are pouring
resources into their scientific and technological
infrastructure, rapidly building their innovation capacity and
increasing their ability to compete with the United States in
the global economy.
A number of reports have outlined the issues that the
United States faces as it tries to maintain a position of
leadership in science and technology and have offered
recommendations for what the Nation should do to ensure its
economic and national security. The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
described how science and engineering are critical to American
prosperity, examines how the United States is doing relative to
other countries in science and technology today and made
recommendations on how federal programs in support of research
and education could be improved to position the Nation to make
the next generation of innovations needed to maintain U.S.
competitiveness and security going forward. Other reports on
this topic include the National Innovation Initiative from the
Council on Competitiveness, which emphasized the need to
strengthen the innovation infrastructure in the United States
to ensure future prosperity, and the National Defense Education
and Innovation Initiative, from the Association of American
Universities, which focused on actions universities and the
Federal Government can take to meet oncoming economic and
security challenges.
H.R. 363 focused on some of the recommendations made in
these reports that relate to science and technology research
funding. It strengthened federal support for science and
engineering researchers at the early stages of their careers,
expanded the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship program at NSF, established a Presidential
Innovation Award, established a coordination office for
research infrastructure, and authorized the National Science
Foundation to support research on innovation.
Legislative History
On January 10, 2007, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 363. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On February 28, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
363. A manager's amendment offered by Representatives Gordon
and Hall was agreed to by voice vote. The Committee ordered the
measure, as amended, reported by voice vote. On March 8, 2007,
the Committee reported H.R. 363 to the House (H.Rept. 110-39).
On April 24, 2007, the House passed H.R. 363 by a recorded vote
of 397-20.
On April 25, 2007 the bill was received in the Senate, and
referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
This bill text was generally incorporated in H.R. 2272, the
America COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272 was signed into law as P.L.
110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.4--H.R. 364, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADVANCED RESEARCH
PROJECTS AGENCY FOR ENERGY
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of the bill was to establish the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department
of Energy and set up an Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund
to conduct activities under the Act. H.R. 364 followed a
recommendation of the National Academies 2005 report, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, which, as part of a host of
recommendations, called on the Federal Government to create a
new energy research agency within the Department of Energy
patterned loosely on the successful Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of Defense.
According to the Gathering Storm report, ARPA-E should be
structured to ``sponsor creative, out-of-the-box,
transformational, generic energy research in those areas where
industry itself cannot or will not undertake such sponsorships,
where risks and potential payoffs are high, and where success
could provide dramatic benefits for the Nation. ARPA-E would
accelerate the process by which research is transformed to
address economic, environmental, and security issues. It would
be designed as a lean, effective, and agile--but largely
independent--organization that can start and stop targeted
programs based on performance and ultimate relevance.''
The push for new energy technologies is especially urgent
given the geopolitical forces that threaten global energy
supplies and economic stability, the rising costs of energy to
consumers, the looming threat of global climate change, and
probable regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to
addressing the Nation's energy challenges, the Gathering Storm
report also concluded that ARPA-E would contribute to U.S.
competitiveness by playing an important role in ``advancing
research in engineering, the physical sciences, and
mathematics; and in developing the next generation of
researchers.''
ARPA-E utilizes an organizational structure and approaches
projects in a way that is fundamentally different from that of
the traditional energy research enterprise. Critics of the
Department of Energy's management of research programs contend
that the stove-piped structure and bureaucratic culture of DOE
is not conducive to the rapid development of cross-cutting
energy solutions, or translating basic research discoveries
into technology applications for the marketplace. Potentially
revolutionary research may be too risky or multi-disciplinary
to fit into a specific program's mission at DOE, and the peer
review system tends to favor established investigators pursuing
incremental advances in well-understood concepts. DOE is also
criticized for requiring inordinate amounts of time to start up
research projects, not looking broadly enough for research
participants, and then sustaining support for projects and
people beyond a timeframe where meaningful results are likely.
Under H.R. 364, ARPA-E is a relatively flat and nimble
organization, similar to the small, flexible, non-hierarchical
reporting structure that supported a unique and highly
successful culture of innovation at DARPA. The director of
ARPA-E reports directly to the Secretary of Energy, and no
other programs report to ARPA-E. Projects will not undergo the
traditional peer-review process. Instead, Program Managers and
their superiors are given extraordinary autonomy and resources
to pursue unique technology pathways at will, to assemble
quickly teams of researchers and technology developers, and to
just as quickly change course or terminate research projects
that do not look fruitful.
As in DARPA, Program Managers for ARPA-E will be
exceptionally talented, creative and knowledgeable, experienced
in industry or academia, and passionate in pursuit of their
objectives. Due to the flexible hiring authority that is
written into Section 2 of the bill, talented Program Managers
can be recruited from a variety of fields, hired for a term of
approximately three years, and paid a salary commensurate with
what they would make in the private sector.
The Gathering Storm report calls for ARPA-E to be
authorized at $300 million in the first year, and quickly
escalate to $1 billion within five years. Initial funding for
ARPA-E in H.R. 364 is set at $300 million, and increases to $1
billion in the second year to allow ARPA-E to be fully
operational more quickly.
Legislative History
H.R. 364 was introduced by Representative Gordon, Chairman
of the Committee on Science and Technology, on January 10,
2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On May 10, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
met to consider H.R. 364. An amendment offered by
Representatives Lampson, Giffords, and Bartlett was agreed to
by voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Biggert
was defeated by voice vote. H.R. 364 was reported, as amended,
to the Full Committee.
On May 23, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 364. A
manager's amendment was offered by Representative Gordon, and
was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Representatives Hall, Gingrey, and
Biggert was defeated on recorded vote of 12-24. An amendment
offered by Representative Inglis was agreed to by voice vote.
An amendment offered by Representative Biggert was defeated by
a recorded vote of 11-19. Another amendment offered by
Representative Biggert was defeated by a recorded vote of 13-
23. An amendment offered by Representative Ehlers was defeated
by voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Bilbray
was defeated by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Smith of Nebraska was defeated by a recorded
vote of 13-25. An amendment offered by Representative Gingrey
was defeated by a recorded vote of 13-25. An amendment offered
by Representative Akin was defeated by voice vote. An amendment
offered by Representative Diaz-Balart, presented by
Representative McCaul, was defeated by a recorded vote of 12-
23. An amendment offered by Representative Gingrey was agreed
to by voice vote. The bill was approved for final passage by a
recorded vote of 25-12. H.R. 364, as amended, was ordered
reported by voice vote. No further legislative action was taken
on H.R. 364.
A similar provision was subsequently included as Section
5012 of H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272 was
signed into law as P.L. 110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.5--H.R. 547, ADVANCED FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the development of
markets for biofuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through
research and development, including data collection and
demonstration of research and development results.
Ethanol and Biodiesel Infrastructure Compatibility--There
are over 100 ethanol refineries in operation today, with many
more in various stages of planning. Ethanol is currently
blended with roughly 40 percent of the Nation's gasoline
supply, usually as an oxygenate and at concentrations of
approximately 10 percent of the fuel by volume. Similarly,
biodiesel is used as additive in diesel fuel because of its
good lubricating properties and lack of sulfur, but seldom in
concentrations higher than 20 percent.
Biofuels such as E85 and biodiesel have different physical
and chemical properties that make them incompatible with
existing transportation, distribution, and retail
infrastructure and hardware. These fuels are associated with a
variety of technical issues relating to corrosion of tank and
pipeline materials, increased buildup and dissolving of storage
tank sediment, filter clogging, electrical conductivity, water
and microbial contamination, varying flow rates, and thermal
and oxidative instability. The degrading and corrosive effects
are most problematic since this can affect the glues, corks,
rubbers, plastics and many metal compounds used in hoses,
gaskets, seals, elastomers, regulators, pipe welds, and other
fittings.
It may be possible to develop additives and blendstocks
that would mitigate certain negative effects of biofuels and
avoid the need for expensive modification and replacement of
existing infrastructure and hardware. It may also be possible
to develop safer and less destructive infrastructure
refurbishment methods and technologies. Therefore, Section 3 of
H.R. 547 directed the Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Research and Development of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, to develop
additives, blendstocks, technologies and methods to address
these concerns.
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel--In 2000, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) instituted a program to lower the
emissions of diesel fuels by approximately 97 percent. Federal
regulations mandated that after an initial phase-in period,
beginning June 1, 2006, all diesel fuel refined and sold in the
U.S. must be Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). ULSD is diesel
fuel containing less than 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur.
Prior to this time retailers sold Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD)
containing up to 500 ppm of sulfur. The reduction in the sulfur
content of diesel fuel served to mitigate the acid rain-causing
effects of sulfur compounds and also allowed for the
introduction in 2007 of advanced diesel engine technologies
that would otherwise foul with high concentrations of sulfur.
Major challenges remain at various points of the ULSD
distribution chain. Prior to and during the transition to ULSD,
there were widespread concerns throughout the industry that as
ULSD moves from the refinery through the pipelines, tanks,
trucks and related infrastructure it can absorb residual sulfur
left by other, high-sulfur fuel products. Products such as Low
Sulfur Diesel with up to 500 ppm sulfur, Jet Fuel with 3000
ppm, and even Heating Oil with up to 5000 ppm utilize much of
the same infrastructure as ULSD. The fuel industry feared that
contamination could result in diesel fuel arriving at fueling
stations with sulfur content that exceeded 15 ppm, thus
exposing `downstream' retailers and distributors to liability
and fines of up to $32,500 for the sale of noncompliant fuels.
While other aspects of the transition to ULSD have gone
smoothly by most all accounts, the development of less
expensive, robust, accurate and rapid testing methods would
enable more frequent testing of fuel sulfur content to assure
that regulated limits are not exceeded and rapid correction of
any contamination problems that may occur along the
distribution chain.
Further steps that can be taken to improve measurement
accuracy for diesel fuels involve working with analytical
instrument manufacturers and commercial suppliers of
calibration materials to transfer the inherent accuracy of
Standard Reference Materials developed by NIST to calibration
standards used for field testing instrumentation. Therefore,
Section 4 of H.R. 547 directed the Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, to develop portable, low cost, and
accurate technologies for testing sulfur content of diesel
fuels, and begin demonstrations of such technologies within one
year.
Section 5 directed NIST to compile a database of physical
properties for alternative fuels, and use these data to develop
Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) such as those NIST develops
for conventional fuels.
Legislative History
On January 18, 2007, Representative Gordon, the Chairman of
the Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 547.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Committee met on January 31, 2007 to consider H.R. 547.
A manager's amendment was offered by Representative Gordon and
adopted by voice vote. H.R. 547, as amended, was reported by
the Committee to the House on February 5, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-7).
On February 8, 2007, the House passed H.R. 547 by a recorded
vote of 400-3.
The bill was received in the Senate and, on February 17,
2007, was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works. No further action was taken on H.R. 547.
The text of H.R. 547 was partially incorporated in H.R. 6,
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. H.R. 6 was
signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December 19, 2007.
2.6--H.R. 632, H-PRIZE ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Hydrogen gas is considered by many experts to be a
promising fuel, particularly in the transportation sector. When
used as a fuel, its only combustion byproduct is water vapor.
The widespread adoption of hydrogen as a transportation fuel
has the potential to reduce or eliminate air pollution
generated by cars and trucks.
However, unlike coal or oil, the hydrogen gas used as a
fuel is not a naturally occurring energy resource. Hydrogen
must be produced from hydrogen-bearing compounds, like water or
natural gas, and that requires energy--and, unlike gasoline or
biofuels, more energy is always required to produce it than is
recovered when hydrogen is burned in a fuel cell. Hydrogen has
the potential to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil,
but the degree to which hydrogen will displace foreign energy
supplies depends on what energy source is used to generate
hydrogen gas in the first place.
If hydrogen can be produced economically from energy
sources that do not release carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere--from renewable sources such as wind power or solar
power, from nuclear power, or possibly from coal with carbon
sequestration, then the widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel
could make a major contribution to reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases.
While the promise of hydrogen is great, so are the
technical challenges. Experts suggest that major advances will
be required across a wide range of technologies for hydrogen to
be affordable, safe, cleanly produced, and readily distributed.
The production, storage, and use of hydrogen all present
significant technical challenges. While Department of Energy
(DOE) research programs have produced promising advances, much
work must still be done to meet the goal of developing
economically viable hydrogen technologies.
Prizes are one tool the Federal Government can employ to
stimulate efforts to overcome such technical hurdles. A 1999
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) panel examining the use
of prizes by federal agencies suggested the following design
principles for prize programs:
1. LTreatment of intellectual property resulting from
prize contests should be properly aligned with the
objectives and incentive structure of the prize
contest.
2. LContest rules should be seen as transparent,
simple, fair, and unbiased.
3. LPrizes should be commensurate with the effort
required and goals sought.
H.R. 632 created a prize program at DOE for advances in
hydrogen technologies to be administered through a private,
non-profit entity. DOE is to award three types of prizes in the
following categories:
1. LPrizes of not more than $1 million to be awarded
every other year to the best technology advancements in
components or systems related to each of hydrogen
production, hydrogen storage, hydrogen distribution,
and hydrogen utilization.
2. LA prize of not more than $4 million to be awarded
for prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles or
hydrogen-based products that best meet or exceed
objective performance criteria. Awards for the
prototype prize are to be given in alternate years from
the technology advancement prizes.
3. LA prize of at least $10 million to be awarded for
transformational changes in technologies for the
production and distribution of hydrogen that meet or
exceed far-reaching objective criteria. The federal
contribution is limited to $10,000,000, and a private
fundraising goal of $40,000,000 is set. Prize money
over $10,000,000 may be provided as matching funds for
every dollar of private funding raised by the winner
for the continued development and commercialization of
their winning technology.
Legislative History
On January 23, 2007, Representative Lipinski introduced
H.R. 632. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Energy and Environment Subcommittee met on May 10, 2007
to consider H.R. 632. No amendments were offered. The bill was
reported by voice vote to the Committee.
The Committee met on May 23, 2007 to consider H.R. 632. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by
Representative Inglis and was agreed to by a voice vote. The
Committee voted by voice vote to report the measure, as
amended, to the House. On June 5, 2007, the Committee reported
H.R. 632 to the House (H.Rept. 110-171). On June 6, 2007, the
House voted to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 632 on a
recorded vote of 408-8.
On June 7, 2007, H.R. 632 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee Energy and Natural Resources. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 632.
The text of H.R. 632 was generally incorporated as Section
654 of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. H.R. 6 was signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December
19, 2007.
2.7--H.R. 694, MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 694 amended the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act of 1980 to direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Program to assist eligible educational institutions
in acquiring, and augmenting use of, digital and wireless
networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of
educational services at such institutions. The bill defined as
eligible institutions: (1) historically Black colleges or
universities, (2) a Hispanic-, Alaskan Native-, or Native
Hawaiian-serving institution; (3) a tribally controlled college
or university; or (4) an institution with a sufficient
enrollment of needy students as defined under the Higher
Education Act of 1965. It also directed the Secretary to: (1)
establish an advisory council to advise on the best approaches
toward maximum Program participation by eligible institutions;
and (2) ensure that grant awards are made to all types of
eligible institutions. Finally, the bill required Program
assessment every three years by the National Academy of Public
Administration.
Legislative History
Representative Towns introduced H.R. 694 on January 24,
2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology, and the Committee on Education and Labor.
On September 4, 2007, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 694 on a recorded vote of 331-59.
On September 4, 2007, H.R. 694 was received in the Senate
and subsequently referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. No further legislative action was
taken on H.R. 694.
The text of H.R. 694 was later incorporated in Title IX,
Part G, of H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
H.R. 4137 was signed into law as P.L. 110-315 on August 14,
2008.
2.8--H.R. 906, GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH AND DATA MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of the H.R. 906 is to re-orient the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) to produce more policy-
relevant information and facilitate greater exchange of that
information with regional, State, and local governments and
with other non-governmental user groups. The requested budget
for the major climate change science programs in 2007 was
estimated by the Congressional Research Service to be $1.7
billion dollars. The participating agencies include virtually
every department in the Federal Government: NASA, NSF, NOAA,
DOE, USDA, DOI, HHS, EPA, the Smithsonian Institution and DOD.
The core agencies that have contributed to climate change
science are NASA, NOAA, NSF, and DOE.
The Climate Program preceded the USGCRP and was established
by the National Climate Program Act (P.L. 95-367) in 1978. The
Climate Program was intended to provide conduct climate
research, provide climate information, and to support policy
decisions to ``assist the Nation and the world to understand
and respond to natural and human-induced climate processes and
their implications'' (P.L. 95-367, 3). It was established as
an interagency program coordinated through a National Climate
Program Office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). By the mid-1980s Congress began to
consider expanding the Climate Program. At the time, the
program was thought to be producing high quality science, but
it was not providing information that would lead to policy
responses to threats from climate change.
After several years of work, Congress passed the U.S.
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606) which
established the U.S. Global Change Research Program we have
today. The law codified the interagency structure put in place
by the Reagan Administration and defined the agencies that
would participate in the program. The law also required
development of a series of 10-year Plans for the conduct of
research on global change by the Federal Government to:
``advance scientific understanding of global change and provide
usable information on which to base policy decisions related to
global change,'' an evaluation of the Plan by the National
Research Council, the coordination of agency budgets for global
change research, and a report to Congress every four years on
the consequences of climate change. While research Plans have
been produced periodically by the Program and reviewed by the
National Research Council as required by the law, the
production of periodic assessments of the findings of the
global change program and the effects of global change on
natural systems and sectors of the economy has been lacking.
H.R. 906 directed the President to designate an interagency
committee to coordinate all federal research activities in the
area of global change and to facilitate the use of that
information by agencies with authority over resources likely to
be affected by global change. The interagency committee is
directed to develop and implement a Research and Assessment
Plan to guide and communicate the results of the program,
respectively. The Plan is revised on a five-year cycle. The
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is designated as
the lead agency for the program and $10 million per year is
authorized to fund activities that are included in the Plan,
that involve two or more participating agencies, and for which
no funding is provided in individual agency budgets. The
Director of OSTP is required to conduct at least one workshop
in each of the regions of the U.S. identified under the Plan to
facilitate information exchange between the federal program and
regional, State, and local governments and other interested
non-federal parties.
The Plan must be reviewed for its scientific merit by the
National Academy of Sciences. In order to ensure the policy-
relevance of information produced through this Program, H.R.
906 included a review of the Research and Assessment Plan by
the Center for Best Practices of the National Governors
Association. The Center will convene a group under a contract
from the Federal Government to assess the Plan from the
perspective of regional, State, and local governments. The Plan
is also subject to a public comment period of at least 60 days.
The President is required to submit to Congress an
assessment that integrates the scientific findings of the
program, analyzes current trends in global change and projects
the trends for 25- and 100-year periods into the future;
analyzes changes in the environment and key socioeconomic
sectors for major geographic regions of the U.S.; and analyzes
the implications of the potential impacts of global change in
other regions of the world on the U.S. and on U.S.
international assistance and other international interests. In
addition, H.R. 906 requires a policy assessment intended to
provide information about the range of policy options available
to adapt and mitigate climate change. It also includes
authorization for several targeted studies by the National
Academy of Sciences on two subjects with important implications
for the U.S., especially for coastal communities: the potential
for significant sea level rise due to ice sheet melting and the
potential for increased intensity of hurricanes and typhoons.
H.R. 906 also directed the President to designate an
interagency committee to coordinate the collection, management,
archiving, and distribution of the many data bases and data
sets controlled by various agencies of the Federal Government.
The committee is required to report to Congress on the status
of global observing networks, the maintenance of climate and
global change data records, and the status of efforts to better
coordinate the data collection, archiving and distribution
functions of all participating federal agencies.
Finally, H.R. 906 directed the President through the
Secretary of State to facilitate U.S. leadership and
participation in international global change research efforts
and energy research.
Legislative History
On February 7, 2007, Representative Udall introduced H.R.
906. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 906 on June 6, 2007. Representative Udall offered a
manager's amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. The
Subcommittee reported the bill, as amended, to the Committee by
a voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 906 on June 27, 2007.
Representative Udall offered a manager's amendment, which was
adopted by voice vote. Another amendment offered by
Representative Udall was adopted by voice vote. Representative
Gingrey offered an amendment, which was agreed to by voice
vote. An amendment offered by Representative Woolsey was agreed
to by voice vote. Representative Johnson offered an amendment,
which was also agreed to by voice vote. The Committee voted by
voice vote to report the bill, as amended, to the House. On
April 24, 2008, the Committee reported H.R. 906 to the House
(H.Rept. 110-605, Part 1). No further legislative action was
taken on H.R. 906.
H.R. 906 was eventually incorporated into H.R. 3221, the
New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and
Consumer Protection Act as Subtitle G of Title IV. H.R. 3221
was introduced on July 30, 2007. H.R. 3221 passed the House on
August 4, 2007 on a recorded vote of 241-172.
2.9--H.R. 1068, A BILL TO AMEND THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF
1991
Background and Summary of Legislation
High-performance computing and networking is an essential
component of U.S. scientific, industrial, and military
competitiveness, and the U.S. is still highly competitive in
this field. The depth and strength of U.S. capability stems in
part from the sustained research and development program
carried out by federal research agencies under the National
Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD) program
codified by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. That
Act is widely credited with reinvigorating U.S. high-
performance computing capabilities after a period of relative
decline during the late 1980s.
The Federal Government promotes high-performance computing
and networking in several different ways. First, it funds
research and development at universities, government
laboratories and companies to help develop new hardware and
software; second, it funds the purchase of high-performance
computers for universities and government laboratories and
supports access to high-speed networks; and third, it provides
access to high-performance computers for a wide variety of
researchers by allowing them to use government-supported
computers at universities and government laboratories.
The NITRD program includes activities at the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The program includes several program
component areas including high-end computing (often referred to
as supercomputing); large scale networking; human-computer
interaction and information management; cyber security; high
confidence software and systems; social, economic and workforce
implications of information technology; and software design and
productivity.
The purpose of H.R. 1068 was to revitalize interagency
coordination and planning for the NITRD program and to focus
greater attention and resources on federal high-performance
computing programs.
Legislative History
On February 15, 2007, Representative Baird introduced H.R.
1068. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On February 28, 2007, the Committee considered H.R. 1068.
No amendments were offered. The Committee voted by voice vote
to report the bill to the House. On March 8, 2007, the
Committee reported H.R. 1068 to the House on March 8, 2007
(H.Rept. 110-40). On March 12, 2007, the House suspended the
rules and passed H.R. 363 by a recorded vote of 397-20.
On April 25, 2007 the bill was received in the Senate, and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
1068.
The bill text of H.R. 1068 was generally incorporated as
Section 7024 of H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272
was signed into law as P.L. 110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.10--H.R. 1126, TO REAUTHORIZE THE STEEL AND ALUMINUM ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1988
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1126 was to reauthorize a program of
energy efficiency research and development (R&D) at the
Department of Energy (DOE) focused on the domestic metals
industry. Specifically, the bill reauthorized the Steel and
Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act
of 1988, and made minor modifications to that Act.
DOE's steel-related energy efficiency R&D program was
established in 1986. The program was expanded to a broader
`metals initiative' in 1988 when the President signed into law
the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology
Competitiveness Act of 1988. Reauthorization of appropriations
for the program occurred in 1992 with the passage of the Energy
Policy Act. Authorization of appropriations expired in 1997,
although Congress continued to appropriate funds for the
program each year since then as part of the Industries of the
Future program at DOE.
The bill amended the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation
and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. Primarily, the bill
authorized appropriations each year for fiscal years 2008
through 2012 for the Department of Energy. The bill also
updated priorities to be considered in research planning,
repealed a section related to National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) programs that have been inactive, and
reinstated the annual report requirement for DOE.
Legislative History
On February 16, 2007, Representative Lipinski introduced
H.R. 1126. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology.
On February 28, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
1126. No amendments were offered. The Committee ordered the
bill reported by voice vote. The bill was reported to the House
on March 8, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-41). On March 12, 2007, the House
suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1126 by voice vote.
On March 13, 2007, H.R.1126 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee Energy and Natural Resources. On
September 17, 2007 the Committee reported H.R. 1126, without
amendment (S.Rept. 110-181). On June 11, 2008, the Senate moved
by unanimous consent to indefinitely postpone floor action on
the measure.
The bill text of H.R. 1126 was generally incorporated as
Section 602 of S. 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act
of 2008. S. 2739 was signed into law as P.L. 110-229 on May 9,
2008.
2.11--H.R. 1205, CORAL REEF CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 1205 amended the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000
to extend the award of remaining coral reef conservation
program grant funds, in addition to projects addressing
emerging priorities or threats, to other appropriate projects,
including monitoring and assessment, research, pollution
reduction, education, and technical support, and revises the
criteria for project approval.
The bill also included cooperative research and activities
designed to minimize the likelihood of physical reef damage in
the activities that may be taken under an existing program to
conserve coral reefs and reef ecosystems.
It authorized the Administrator to: (1) make community-
based planning grants to certain entities that are eligible to
receive a coral reef conservation grant to work with local
communities and federal and State entities to implement plans
for increased protection of high priority coral reefs; (2)
maintain an inventory of all vessel grounding incidents
involving coral reefs; and (3) identify all coral reefs with a
high incidence of vessel impacts and identify measures to
reduce such impacts.
It established the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force to coordinate
federal actions to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems,
and authorized the Secretary of Commerce to conduct activities
to improve and promote the resilience of coral reefs and coral
reef ecosystems.
It authorized appropriations: (1) for a research facility
for coral reef research and protection, and coastal ecology and
development, at the American Samoa Community College; and (2)
to provide funds to the University of Guam for coral reef
research and protection. Finally, it authorized the
Administrator to enter into, renegotiate, or extend a
cooperative agreement with any university or local academic
institution or other research center with established programs
that support coral reef conservation.
Legislative History
On February 27, 2007, Representative Faleomavaega
introduced H.R. 1205. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and the Committee on Science and Technology.
On October 22, 2007, the Committee discharged H.R. 1205. On
October 22, 2007, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
1205 on a voice vote.
On October 23, 2007, H.R. 1205 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
1205.
2.12--H.R. 1467, 10,000 TRAINED BY 2010 ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
Health care information technology (``health IT''), if
properly implemented, will cut down on the estimated 44,000-
98,000 annual American deaths related to medical errors and on
the nearly $300 billion spent annually on inefficient and
unnecessary treatments. Electronic health care technology
cannot be effective, however, without a workforce in place to
manage the technology and unless those who will use health IT
to perform their duties are properly trained.
Despite federal assistance to other areas of health IT,
there is no systematic plan for training of the current health
care workforce to use health information technology in the
current jobs. Additionally, the need for individuals who
specialize in managing health IT is expected to grow, and
nearly 75 percent of health organizations say that there are
not enough qualified applicants to fill open health IT
management positions.
H.R. 1467 authorized the National Science Foundation to
award grants to institutions of higher education to develop and
offer education and training programs.
Legislative History
On March 9, 2007, Representative Wu introduced H.R. 1467.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On May 23, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1467.
No amendments were offered, and the Committee voted by voice
vote to report the bill to the House. On June 5, 2007, the
Committee reported H.R. 1467 to the House (H.Rept. 110-172). On
June 6, 2007, the House agreed to a motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 1467 by a voice vote.
On June 7, 2007 the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1467.
2.13--H.R. 1657, 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
H.R. 1716 authorized the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a
Science and Technology Scholarship Program to award
scholarships to students at institutions of higher education to
recruit and prepare them for careers in the National Weather
Service and in NOAA marine research, atmospheric research, and
satellite programs.
It required individuals to be selected to receive
scholarships through a competitive process primarily based on
academic merit, with consideration given to financial need and
to the goal of promoting the participation of women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities as identified under
provisions of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities
Act.
It further required the Administrator to enter into
contractual agreements with selected individuals under which
such individuals, in exchange for receiving a scholarship,
agree to serve as full-time employees of NOAA, for a 24-month
period of obligated service for each academic year for which a
scholarship is provided in positions needed by NOAA in marine
research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs.
It instructed the Administrator to make publicly available
a list of academic programs and fields of study for which
scholarships may be utilized in marine research, atmospheric
research, and satellite programs and to update such list as
necessary.
Legislative History
On March 22, 2007, Representative Rohrabacher introduced
H.R. 1657. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology.
On September 17, 2007, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 1657 on a recorded vote of 360-16.
On September 18, 2007, H.R. 1657 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action took place on
H.R. 1657.
2.14--H.R. 1716, GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 1716 addressed a significant opportunity for energy
savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions: energy
consumption in buildings. According to Department of Energy
(DOE) 2003 statistics, buildings consume more energy than any
other sector of the economy, including industrial processes and
transportation. Buildings consume 39 percent of primary energy
in the United States and 70 percent of electricity. Innovations
in high-performance building technologies, materials,
techniques and systems, combined with advances in photovoltaic
and other distributed clean energy technologies, have the
potential to dramatically transform the pattern of energy
consumption associated with buildings. These building systems
and components--coupled with a whole building approach that
optimizes the interactions among building systems and
components--enable buildings to use considerably less energy,
while also helping to meet national goals for sustainable
development, environmental protection, and energy security.
Achieving this depends on architects, engineers, contractors
and other buildings professionals working together from the
earliest stages of planning.
H.R. 1716 provided interdisciplinary education and training
in high-performance building design and construction to the
next generation of architects and engineers. The purpose of
this bill was to authorize higher education curriculum
development and graduate training in advanced energy and green
building technologies.
Legislative History
On March 27, 2007, Representative McCaul introduced H.R.
1716. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On May 23, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1716.
An amendment offered by Representative McCaul was adopted by
voice vote. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the
bill, as amended, to the House. On June 5, 2007, the Committee
reported H.R. 1716 to the House (H.Rept. 110-173). On June 6,
2007, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1716 by a
recorded vote of 416-0.
On June 7, 2007, the bill was received in the Senate, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1716.
2.15--H.R. 1834, NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, whose members
were appointed by President George W. Bush, released a report
containing recommendations for the establishment of a
comprehensive and coordinated ocean policy for the Nation. The
report concluded, among many other findings, that increased
scientific knowledge of the oceans and coasts and the
associated technological development to gather such information
were imperative for sustainable resource use, economic
development, and conservation of marine biodiversity. In order
to attain these goals, a comprehensive national strategy is
needed, and legislation is required to implement many of the
Commission's recommendations.
In 1971, NOAA administratively established the Manned
Undersea Science and Technology (MUST) program to pioneer
exploration of undersea habitats. In 1980, the MUST program was
reconstituted as the National Undersea Research Program (NURP)
within NOAA's Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR).
NURP was created to provide marine scientists with the
requisite tools and expertise to investigate the undersea
environment. NURP is comprised of a network of six regional
centers and one national technology institute, located at major
universities. These university-based centers also provide
unique training and educational opportunities for students.
Federal grants fund the regional centers and national
technology institute and each facility undergoes periodic
external review to ensure performance and accountability. NURP
supports on average over 100 peer-reviewed research projects
each year that are relevant to NOAA's overall mission and
address national ocean research priorities. Since 1995,
Congress has appropriated over $178 million specifically for
NURP.
In 2000, President William J. Clinton's Panel on Ocean
Exploration--a multi-disciplinary group of ocean experts--
released a historic report entitled ``Discovering Earth's Final
Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration.'' In 2001,
NOAA responded to the panel's recommendations and established
the Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) to support expeditions for
the purpose of discovery and documentation of ocean resources.
Also located in OAR, the OE program operates under a multi-
purpose mission to map the physical, biological, chemical and
archaeological aspects of the oceans and the Great Lakes; to
expand understanding of ocean dynamics and to describe the
complex interactions of the living ocean. The OE program has
conducted multiple voyages every year since 2001, often in
collaboration with other NOAA programs and federal agencies
such as NURP, the National Marine Sanctuary Program and the
National Science Foundation. The Congress has appropriated
$118.5 million to support this program since its establishment
in 2001.
H.R. 1834 implemented a key recommendation of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy to provide specific and separate
authorizations for these two programs within NOAA. The purpose
of H.R. 1834 was to authorize the national ocean exploration
program and the national undersea research program within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The
authorizations would further strengthen NOAA's standing as the
preeminent civilian federal ocean agency by granting the agency
explicit authority to conduct scientific research that directly
contributes to increasing scientific knowledge of the world's
oceans. The legislation addressed the national need to develop
and advance new innovations in oceanographic research,
communication and navigation technologies to support ocean
exploration and science. Additionally, the legislation
emphasized the importance of outreach and public education to
ensure that future scientific discoveries and benefits are
disseminated to decision-makers in both the public and private
sectors, and conveyed to the general public to increase public
awareness and appreciation of the Great Lakes and the world's
oceans and their importance to our economic and environmental
well-being.
Legislative History
On March 29, 2007, Representative Saxton introduced H.R.
1834. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Natural
Resources and the Committee on Armed Services.
On October 10, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to consider H.R. 1834. No amendments were
offered. The Subcommittee ordered the bill to be reported to
the Committee by voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 1834 on October 24,
2007. Representative Lampson offered a manager's amendment,
which was adopted by a voice vote. The Committee ordered the
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On December 18,
2007, the Committee reported H.R. 1834 to the House (H.Rept.
110-311, Part 2). The House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
1834 on a recorded vote of 352-49 on February 14, 2008.
On February 25, 2008, H.R. 1834 was received in the Senate
and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1834.
2.16--H.R. 1867, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent
federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act
of 1950 (P.L. 81-507). NSF's mission is unique among the
Federal Government's scientific research agencies in that it is
to support science and engineering across all disciplines. NSF
funds research and education activities at more than 2,000
universities, colleges, K-12 schools, businesses, and other
research institutions throughout the United States. Virtually
all of this support is provided through competitive, merit-
reviewed grants and cooperative agreements. Although NSF's
research and development budget accounts for only about three
percent of all federally funded research, the role of NSF in
promoting fundamental research is vital to the Nation's
scientific enterprise, as NSF provides approximately 20 percent
of the federal support for basic research conducted at academic
institutions.
Basic research pays enormous dividends to society. Economic
growth, public health, national defense, and social advancement
have all been tied to technological developments resulting from
research and development. In fact, economists estimate that
innovation and the application of new technology have generated
at least half of the phenomenal growth in America's gross
domestic product since World War II. In recent years, NSF-
funded research in areas such as nanotechnology, information
technology, computing, genetics, and climate has had a
tremendous impact on society.
While the Administration's American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI) brought greater recognition and more money for
NSF in fiscal year (FY) 2007, funding for NSF was stagnant for
several years prior to ACI, and NSF needs to see steady growth
over the long-term to maximize the agency's potential
contribution to the Nation's research enterprise. NSF is
currently able to fund only about 25 percent of the grant
proposals submitted because of limited funds; in some
directorates, the percentage of grant proposals funded is as
low as 10 percent. More funding for basic science is needed to
feed the innovation pipeline and to ensure future economic
growth, as well as to strengthen homeland defense and national
security.
NSF was most recently authorized by the National Science
Foundation Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368), which authorized
appropriations for NSF for FY 2003 through FY 2007. In addition
to continuing authorizations of appropriations for three more
years, several policy and administrative issues--including ones
related to the Foundation's responsibilities for funding major
research instrumentation at universities, for mentoring
postdoctoral research associates, for reporting research
results, for funding science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education programs, and for implementing
responsible and clear cost-sharing guidelines have arisen since
the last authorization bill.
The purpose of H.R. 1867 was to authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the National Science
Foundation and to impose requirements related to: major
research instrumentation funded by the Foundation; application
of merit review criteria used by the Foundation; mentoring and
ethics training for students and postdoctoral research
associates funded under Foundation grants; and reporting on
allocation of funds for education and human resources
activities supported by the Foundation.
Legislative History
H.R. 1867 was introduced by Representative Baird on April
17, 2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Subcommittee on Research and Science Education met to
consider H.R. 1867 on April 19, 2007. Representative Baird, on
behalf of Representative Johnson, offered two amendments, which
were adopted by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Hooley was also adopted by voice vote. The bill,
as amended, was reported to the Committee by voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 1867 on April 25, 2007.
A manager's amendment offered by Representative Baird, an
amendment offered by Representative Hall, and an amendment
offered by Representative Gingrey passed on separate voice
votes. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the bill, as
amended, to the House. H.R. 1867 was reported to the House on
April 30, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-114). On May 2, 2007, the House
considered H.R. 1867. The bill passed, as amended, by a
recorded vote of 399-17.
H.R. 1867 was received in the Senate on May 3, 2007. No
further legislative action took place on H.R. 1867.
The text of H.R. 1867 was incorporated in Title VII of H.R.
2272, the America COMPETES Act. H.R. 1868 was signed into law
as P.L. 110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.17--H.R. 1868, TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND MANUFACTURING STIMULATION
ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Founded in 1901, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) has developed and promoted measurement,
standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate
trade, and improve quality of life. NIST is a non-regulatory
agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology
Administration. The institution operates in two primary
locations: Gaithersburg, MD and Boulder, CO. It also operates
two institutes jointly with other organizations: the Center for
Advanced Research in Biotechnology in Rockville, MD (with the
University of Maryland) and JILA in Boulder, CO (with the
University of Colorado). NIST's staff includes approximately
2,700 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support
personnel. In addition, 1,800 associates complement the staff,
and NIST partners with about 1,500 manufacturing specialists
and staff at affiliated centers around the country. Three NIST
scientists have earned the Nobel Prize in the last ten years.
NIST carries out its mission through four cooperative
programs: the Baldrige National Quality Program, the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), and a program that develops tools to
measure, evaluate, and standardize, enabling U.S. companies to
innovate and remain competitive. In addition, NIST operates two
national research facilities: the NIST Center for Neutron
Research and the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology.
NIST's last comprehensive authorization was by the American
Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-245), which
authorized all of NIST's programs for fiscal years 1992 and
1993 (FY 1992 and FY 1993). A portion of NIST was authorized by
the Technology Administration Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-309), which
authorized only the laboratory programs of the Institute for FY
1998 and FY 1999. Since those bills, NIST submitted legislative
authorization requests to Congress (most recently in 2002) and
completed a major laboratory upgrade at its Gaithersburg, MD
campus (the Advanced Metrology Laboratory). It also embarked on
laboratory upgrades to its Boulder, CO campus and requested
funds for upgrades to the Center for Neutron Research. In FY
2007 the NIST budget request included significant increases for
its laboratory activities.
The purpose of H.R. 1868 was to authorize appropriations
for FY 2008-2010 for NIST and to require a triennial planning
document for the Institute; to establish advisory boards for
the Institute's two industrial technology programs; to create
manufacturing science grant programs and research fellowships;
to create a new technology innovation program; and to make
technical corrections to the NIST statute.
Legislative History
On February 15, 2007, H.R. 1868 was introduced by
Representative Wu. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Science and Technology.
On April 19, 2007, the Subcommittee of Technology and
Innovation met to consider H.R. 1868. Representatives Wu and
Gingrey offered a joint technical amendment, which was agreed
to by a voice vote. Representative Matheson offered an
amendment, which was also agreed to by a voice vote. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure reported, as amended, to the
Committee by a voice vote.
On April 25, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1868.
Representative Biggert offered an amendment, which was agreed
to by a voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative
Gingrey was also adopted by a voice vote. Finally, an amendment
offered by Representatives Johnson and Gingrey was agreed to by
voice vote. The Committee ordered the measure reported, as
amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported the bill to
the House on April 30, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-115). On May 3, 2007,
the House considered H.R. 1868. The bill, as amended, passed by
a recorded vote of 385-23.
On May 7, 2007, the Senate received H.R. 1868 and referred
the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
1868.
This bill was subsequently included in Title VII of H.R.
2272, the America COMPETES Act. H.R. 2272 was signed into law
as P.L. 110-69 on August 9, 2007.
2.18--H.R. 1933, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in
the United States comes from coal. According to the Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) carbon
dioxide emissions in the United States and its territories were
6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005. In the United
States, most anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is
emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. In
particular, the electric power sector accounts for nearly 40
percent of the man made CO2 emissions in the U.S.,
according to EIA. For the foreseeable future, the U.S. will
continue to rely on coal to meet our energy demand. With that
understanding, the challenge lies in balancing our
environmental goals with our energy needs. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) report The Future of Coal (2007)
concludes ``that CO2 capture and sequestration is
the critical enabling technology that would reduce CO2
emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the
world's pressing energy needs.''
Crafting a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) strategy for
the United States calls for an understanding of the technical
challenges that exist with the development, demonstration and
deployment of carbon dioxide capture technologies and the
development of safe, effective large-scale containment of
carbon dioxide. Appropriate investment in continued research is
necessary to answer outstanding concerns with large-volume
storage of CO2 in underground reservoirs.
The Department of Energy has produced an Atlas of the
CO2 storage capacity in the United States and
Canada. This Atlas will be updated as the Department continues
to conduct field injection tests. Sequestration demonstrations
will help to address the outstanding safety and environmental
issues associated with large underground reservoirs of carbon
dioxide. Once the CO2 is injected, do we have the
capability of successfully monitoring and verifying the
movement of the subsurface CO2? The demonstrations
will provide greater information about the probability of the
CO2 leaking, the ability to detect a leak, how the
CO2 would leak and how fast it would leak.
Ultimately, the goal is to determine with increased certainty
the measurable benefits of CCS strategies to reduce emissions
of heat-trapping gases.
There is also recognition that additional federal
investment in carbon dioxide capture technologies is needed to
bring these technologies to full-scale deployment. The MIT
Report points out that there is no operational experience with
carbon capture from coal plants and notes the absence of
operational experience with an integrated capture and
sequestration system. The MIT report states that ``the priority
objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-
scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and
environmental performance of the technologies that make up all
of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS
system--capture, transportation and storage.''
The purpose of the H.R. 1933 was to amend the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and
storage research, development, and demonstration program of the
Department of Energy. H.R. 1933 followed the recommendation in
the MIT report and reauthorized the Department of Energy's
research and development and field testing programs, and
specifically authorized large-scale demonstrations of both
carbon dioxide capture technologies and carbon dioxide
containment.
Legislative History
On April 18, 2007, Representative Udall introduced H.R.
1933. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On June 21, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to consider H.R. 1933. Representative Udall and
Representative Costello each proposed amendments which were
both adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee ordered the
measure, as amended, to be reported to the Committee by voice
vote.
On June 27, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1933.
Representative Udall, Representative Matheson, Representative
Ross and Representative Johnson each offered amendments and all
of them were adopted by separate voice votes. Representative
McCaul offered an amendment which was defeated by a recorded
vote of 15-22. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the
bill, as amended, to the House. On August 2, 007, H.R. 1933 was
reported to the House (H.Rept. 110-301). No further legislative
action was taken on H.R. 1933.
The bill text of H.R. 1933 was ultimately included in Title
VII of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. H.R. 6 was signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December
19, 2007.
2.19--H.R. 2304, ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Geothermal energy is heat from the Earth's core that is
trapped in the Earth's crust. It can be tapped and used either
to generate electricity or for direct use (e.g., heating
buildings, greenhouses, or aquaculture operations). It is very
attractive as an energy resource because it is not only
renewable and emits no greenhouse gases, but can also provide
continuously dispatchable, baseload power, day and night, 365
days a year. Geothermal energy is also a domestic resource,
creating domestic jobs and increasing national security.
In locations where high temperatures coincide with
naturally-occurring, underground, fluid-filled reservoirs, the
resulting hot water or steam can be tapped directly to run a
geothermal power plant. Such locations are referred to as
hydrothermal (hot water) resources, and they have been the
focus of traditional geothermal energy development. The United
States is the world's largest producer of electric power from
geothermal energy with approximately 2,800 megawatts (MW) of
geothermal electrical generating capacity currently connected
to the grid, mostly in California and the Intermountain West,
where high grade hydrothermal systems have been found close to
the surface. However, significant hydrothermal potential
remains untapped. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates
there are between 95,000 MW and 127,000 MW of hydrothermal
resources sufficient for electrical power generation in the
United States, though many of these resources remain
undiscovered and unconfirmed, as they are in locations without
obvious surface manifestations.
Even that large number, however, pales in comparison to the
potential of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). EGS differ from
hydrothermal systems in that they lack either a natural
reservoir (i.e., the cracks and spaces in the rock through
which fluid can circulate), the fluid to circulate through the
reservoir, or both. In EGS development, sometimes referred to
as `heat mining,' an injection well is drilled to a depth where
temperatures are sufficiently high; if necessary, a reservoir
is created, or `cracked,' in the rock using one of various
methods to apply pressure; and a fluid is introduced to
circulate through the reservoir and absorb the heat. The fluid
is extracted through a production well, the heat is used to run
a geothermal power plant or for some direct use application and
the fluid is re-injected to start the loop all over again.
Although it has been the subject of preliminary
investigations in the United States, Europe, and Australia, the
EGS concept has yet to be demonstrated as a commercially viable
source of power production. However, experts familiar with the
resource and the associated technologies believe the technical
and economic hurdles are surmountable. In January 2007, a panel
led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced a
report entitled The Future of Geothermal Energy, which
contained an updated assessment of EGS potential in the United
States. The authors of the report conservatively estimate that
two percent of the EGS resource could be economically
recoverable--an amount more than 2,000 times larger than all
the primary energy consumed in the United States in 2005.
To develop technologies capable of tapping lower grade
resources in particular, further research and development in
both hydrothermal and EGS is essential. H.R. 2304 was intended
to reinvigorate geothermal energy R&D in the United States in
order to unlock the potential of this vast resource, across the
full spectrum of grades, for the benefit of the Nation.
Legislative History
On May 14, 2007, Representative McNerney introduced H.R.
2304. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On June 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
met to consider H.R. 2304. An amendment offered on behalf of
Representative McNerney was adopted by a voice vote. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure, as amended, to be reported to
the Committee by a voice vote.
On June 13, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2304.
An amendment offered on behalf of Representative Hall was
agreed to by voice vote. Representative Bartlett proposed three
amendments which were adopted, en bloc, by voice vote.
Representative McCaul proposed two amendments which were
adopted, en bloc, by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Biggert was also adopted by voice vote.
Representative Biggert proposed another amendment that was
defeated by voice vote, and Representative Matheson proposed an
amendment that was withdrawn. The Committee ordered the
measure, as amended, reported by a voice vote. On June 21, 2007
the Committee reported H.R. 2304 to the House (H.Rept. 110-
203). No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 2304.
This bill text of H.R. 2304 was generally incorporated in
Title VII of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007. H.R. 6 was signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December
19, 2007.
2.20--H.R. 2313, MARINE RENEWABLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Moving water contains a high energy concentration, measured
in watts per meter (for waves) or watts per square meter (for
tides and currents), compared with other renewable energy
resources, such as wind and solar. This creates an opportunity
to extract comparable amounts of energy with a smaller
apparatus. Other benefits of marine renewable energy include:
the vast size of the resource--the Electric Power Research
Institute has estimated that marine renewables could provide 10
percent of United States electricity needs; no fuel costs; the
fact that it is a non-emitting, predictable domestic resource--
waves can be predicted as far as three days in advance, and all
other marine renewables can be predicted indefinitely into the
future; and the low profile nature of devices for marine
energy, which makes them unlikely to incur opposition on
aesthetic grounds.
The challenge lies in developing technologies to
effectively and efficiently harness the energy contained in
ocean movement or thermal gradients. The potential of marine
renewable energy technologies has been debated for many years,
but they now appear poised for a technological breakthrough.
Prototypes or small pilot installations have recently been
installed and hooked into the power grid in Australia,
Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
H.R. 2313 provided federal support for research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application of
marine renewable energy technologies to ensure that U.S.
companies have the support they need to bring their
technologies to commercial viability and can be competitive in
this emerging global market. The bill also provided support to
ensure that emerging technologies are developed in an
environmentally sensitive way. Finally, the bill instructed the
Secretary to establish one or more National Centers for Marine
Renewable Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
facilities where researchers and developers of marine renewable
energy technologies could easily research and test their
technologies in a facility at an environmentally screened
location with an established grid connection.
Legislative History
On May 15, 2007, Representative Hooley introduced H.R.
2313. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On June 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
met to consider H.R. 2313. Representative Lampson proposed an
amendment, which was adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee
ordered the measure, as amended, to be reported to the
Committee by a voice vote.
On June 13, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2313.
Representative Hooley proposed an amendment, Representative
Diaz-Balart proposed two amendments, Representative Bartlett
proposed an amendment, Representative Hall proposed an
amendment, Representative Gingrey proposed an amendment, and
Representative Akin proposed an amendment, all of which were
adopted by voice vote. Representative Smith proposed an
amendment that was withdrawn. The Committee ordered the
measure, as amended, reported by a voice vote. On June 21,
2007, the Committee favorably reported H.R. 2304 to the House
(H.Rept. 110-202). No further legislative action was taken on
H.R. 2313.
The bill text of H.R. 2313 was generally incorporated in
Title VII of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007. H.R. 6 was signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December
19, 2007.
2.21--H.R. 2339, PRODUCED WATER UTILIZATION ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
As the population of the United States increases,
additional potable water supplies are required to sustain
individuals, agricultural production, and industrial users,
particularly in the Mountain West and desert Southwest. During
the development of domestic energy sources, including coal-bed
methane, oil, and natural gas, water may be extracted from
underground sources and brought to the surface, often
increasing energy production from subsurface geological
formations in the process. Produced water frequently contains
increased levels of potentially harmful dissolved solids,
rendering much of the water non-potable and unsuitable for
agricultural or industrial uses, and encouraging re-injection
of the water to subsurface geological formations to safely
dispose of it. This may lead to reduced production of domestic
energy resources and increased costs to producers.
The environmentally responsible surface utilization of
produced water would increase water supply, reduce the amount
of produced water returned to underground formations, and
increase domestic energy production by reducing costs
associated with re-injection of produced water to the
subsurface. At a time when usable water supplies are more vital
than ever to support our growing economy, safe and sustainable
uses of produced water need to be researched and pursued, for
human, agricultural and industrial uses. This legislation
addressed environmental concerns, water use issues and energy
production benefits.
H.R. 2339 directed the Secretary to establish a program of
research, development, and demonstration of technologies for
environmentally sustainable utilization of produced water for
irrigational, municipal, and industrial uses, authorizing $20
million each year for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The
program addressed produced water recovery, produced water
utilization and re-injection of produced water. The program
also established a complementary R&D program at the appropriate
DOE National Laboratory.
Legislative History
On May 16, 2007, Representative Hall, Ranking Member of the
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 2339. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 2339 on May 6, 2008. Representative Hall offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was agreed to by
voice vote. The bill, as amended, was reported favorably to the
Committee by voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 2339 on July 16, 2008.
No amendments were offered. The Committee voted by voice vote
to report the bill, as amended in Subcommittee, to the House.
On July 30, 2008, the Committee reported H.R. 2339 to the House
(H.Rept. 2339). On July 30, 2008, the House suspended the rules
and passed H.R. 2339 by voice vote.
On July 31, 2008, H.R. 2339 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 2339.
2.22--H.R. 2342, NATIONAL INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION ACT
OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 2342 directed the President to establish a National
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System to: (1) support
national defense, marine commerce, energy production, basic and
applied research, ecosystem-based marine and coastal resource
management, public safety and public outreach training and
education; (2) promote awareness of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources; (3) improve the ability to measure, track,
explain, and predict weather and climate change and natural
climate variability; (4) fulfill the plan contained in the
document entitled ``Ocean.US Publication No. 9, The First
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Development Plan'';
and (5) fulfill the Nation's international obligations to
contribute to the global Earth and ocean observation systems.
The bill made the National Ocean Research Leadership
Council responsible for coordination and long-term operations
plans, policies, protocols, and standards for the System and
for coordination with other Earth observing activities.
It made the existing Interagency Working Group responsible
for, among other things, implementation of operations plans and
policies, budget development, identification of observation
coverage gaps or capital improvements needs, data management
and communication protocols and standards, observation data
variables, and establishment of a competitive matching grant or
other program to promote research and development of innovative
observation technologies.
It made the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the lead federal agency for
the System.
Legislative History
On May 16, 2007, Representative Allen introduced H.R. 2342.
The bill was referred the Committee on Natural Resources, and
the Committee on Science and Technology.
On March 31, 2008, the Committee discharged H.R. 2342. On
March 31, 2008, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
2342 by voice vote.
On April 1, 2008, H.R. 2342 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
2342.
2.23--H.R. 2400, OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING INTEGRATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 2400 directed the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish an
integrated ocean and coastal mapping program for the Great
Lakes and coastal State waters, the territorial sea, the
exclusive economic zone, and the U.S. continental shelf that
enhances ecosystem approaches in decision-making for
conservation and management of marine resources and habitats,
established research priorities, supported the siting of
research and other platforms, advanced safety of navigation,
and advanced ocean and coastal science.
The bill directed the Administrator to convene or use an
existing interagency committee on ocean and coastal mapping to
implement such program and to coordinate federal ocean and
coastal mapping and surveying activities with other federal
efforts (including the Digital Coast, Geospatial One-Stop, and
the Federal Geographic Data Committee), international mapping
activities, coastal states, user groups, and non-governmental
entities. It also authorized the Administrator to convene an
ocean and coastal mapping advisory panel consisting of
representatives from non-governmental entities to provide input
regarding activities of the committee.
It also directed the Administrator to develop a plan for an
integrated ocean and coastal mapping initiative within NOAA
that: (1) identifies all ocean and coastal mapping programs
within NOAA, establishing priorities; (2) encourages the
development of innovative ocean and coastal mapping
technologies and applications through research and development
(R&D) cooperative agreements at joint or cooperative research
institutes or centers and with other non-governmental entities;
and (3) documents available and developing technologies, best
practices in data processing and distribution, and leveraging
opportunities with other federal agencies, coastal states, and
non-governmental entities.
It authorized the Administrator to establish joint ocean
and coastal mapping centers (including a joint hydrographic
center) of excellence in institutions of higher education to
conduct specified activities, including: (1) research and
development of innovative ocean and coastal mapping
technologies, equipment, and data products; and (2) mapping of
the U.S. outer continental shelf.
Legislative History
On May 21, 2007, Representative Bordallo introduced H.R.
2400. The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural
Resources, and the Committee on Science and Technology.
On July 23, 2007, the Committee discharged H.R. 2400. On
July 23, 2007, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
2400 by voice vote.
On July 24, 2007, H.R. 2400 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
2400.
2.24--H.R. 2406, HEALTHCARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE
INTEGRATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
While many sectors of the U.S. economy have fully
integrated information technology (IT) into their operations,
the U.S. health care system continues to rely on pen and paper
for the bulk of its information needs. This system is costly,
antiquated, and prone to dangerous or life-threatening medical
errors. More than 98,000 Americans die and more than one
million patients suffer injuries each year as a result of
broken health care practices and system failures. According to
the National Academies, between 30 and 40 percent of health
care costs--more than half a trillion dollars per year--is
spent on `overuse, under-use, misuse, duplication, system
failures, and unnecessary repetition, poor communication, and
inefficiency.' In addition, the lack of integrated, inter-
operable electronic health care records (EHRs) means that, in
our health care system, patients themselves must act as their
own comprehensive health care record which often adds
additional error in treatment.
IT offers enormous potential benefits to improve the
functioning and efficiency of U.S. health care. A fully
realized inter-operable health care IT system could reduce
errors, improve communication, help eliminate redundancy, and
provide numerous other benefits that would protect patients and
save up to tens of billions of dollars per year. The central
challenge to achieving such a system is inter-operability--the
ability of data systems, medical devices, and software from
different vendors based on a diverse array of platforms to
share patient EHRs, electronic physician orders for lab tests
and drug prescriptions, electronic referrals to specialists,
electronic access to information about current recommended
treatments and research findings, and other information. Data
security and privacy requirements present additional
challenges, as electronic systems must comply with federal and
State laws mandating patient privacy.
The provisions of H.R. 2406 are based on recommendations in
a 2004 report from the President's IT Advisory Committee
entitled ``Revolutionizing Health Care through Information
Technology,'' and a 2005 report from the National Academies
entitled ``Building a Better Delivery System.''
The purpose of H.R. 2406 was to establish an initiative for
health care information enterprise integration at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It directed NIST
to work with the private sector to establish technical
standards for health care IT for federal agencies that will
promote the inter-operability of federal health care
information systems. It created a program of grants to
universities and consortia to conduct multi-disciplinary
research in health care IT research centers, directed the
National High-Performance Computing Program to coordinate
federal research and development programs related to health
care IT, and further directed NIST to establish a task force to
develop recommendations on standards harmonization. Finally, it
authorized $8 million for NIST in FY 2009 and FY 2010.
Legislative History
On May 21, 2007, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 2406. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On October 24, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
2406. Representative Gordon offered an amendment, which was
adopted by a voice vote. Representative Hill offered an
amendment, which passed by a vote of 21-13. Representative
Gingrey offered an amendment, which failed by a vote of 13-20.
The measure, as amended, was ordered reported by voice vote. On
November 15, 2007, the Committee reported the bill to the House
(H.Rept. 110-451). No further legislative action was taken on
H.R. 2406.
2.25--H.R. 2698, FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was created to
develop the Nation's air commerce system and promote aviation
safety. As part of the Airport Development and Airway Trust
Fund established by Congress in 1982, a comprehensive research
and development program was put in place to maintain a safe and
efficient air transportation system. In 2003, Congress passed
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act [P.L. 108-
176] that authorized funding for FAA's activities, including
research and development, for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
P.L. 108-176 also established the Next Generation Air
Transportation System's Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) in Title VII--Aviation Research, to manage work related
to planning, research, development, and creation of a
transition plan for the implementation of the Next Generation
Air Transportation System.
The purpose of H.R. 2698 was to reauthorize appropriations
for the Federal Aviation Administration's research and
development programs for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and
2011 and to clarify responsibilities and activities of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System's Joint Planning and
Development Office; amend provisions related to FAA's Centers
of Excellence; establish an interagency initiative on the
impact of aviation on the climate; authorize a runway research
program; extend the Airport Cooperative Research Program; and
authorize a number of other R&D initiatives. The funds
authorized by this Act were aimed at improving the safety,
capacity, and efficiency of the Nation's air transportation
system to meet expected air traffic demands of the future.
Legislative History
On June 13, 2007, Representative Udall introduced H.R.
2698. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On June 14, 2007, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
met to consider H.R. 2698. No amendments were offered. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure to be reported to the
Committee by a voice vote.
On June 22, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2698.
Representative Gordon offered an amendment, Representative
Chandler offered an amendment, and Representative Matheson
offered an amendment, each of which were adopted by voice vote.
Representative Rothman offered an amendment which was
withdrawn. The Committee ordered the measure, as amended,
reported by a voice vote. The bill was reported to the House on
September 17, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-329). No further legislative
action was taken on H.R. 2698.
This bill text of H.R. 2698 was generally incorporated into
H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. H.R. 2881
passed the House on September 20, 2007, but no further
legislative action was taken on the measure.
2.26--H.R. 2773, BIOFUELS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 2773 was to enhance research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application of
biofuels related technologies and promote a greater degree of
federal coordination of research and development materials
related to biofuels.
High gasoline prices, a desire to reduce our dependence on
foreign sources of energy, and concerns over climate change
have greatly increased interest in bio-based fuels as an
alternative to petroleum for transportation fuel. Over the last
several years, in part as a result of the Renewable Fuel
Standard included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the use of
biofuels--most notably corn-based ethanol--has grown
significantly. Ethanol is most commonly blended with gasoline
at a level of 10 percent or less. And, this still only
represents a small portion (less than five percent) of the
total gasoline sold.
Proposals in Congress and by the Administration have called
for significant increases in the use of biofuels. Currently
biofuel supply relies almost exclusively on corn-based ethanol.
Concerns have been raised about further expansion of corn-based
ethanol to meet the targets set for biofuel production.
Competition with food and feed supply, water and nutrient
demand associated with corn production, and continued questions
about the energy balance of corn-based ethanol production all
suggest that biomass sources for biofuel production must be
diversified.
The majority of this focus to diversify the feedstocks has
been on cellulosic materials including grasses, wood, and waste
materials. However, current technologies for the development of
fuel from these sources continue to be expensive and not cost-
competitive with corn-based ethanol. If we are going to move
toward broader use of biofuels, technology will be necessary to
create reasonably priced fuels from cellulosic materials.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Title III),
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created bioenergy research and
development programs to focus federal research funding on the
development of biofuels derived from cellulosic materials. This
research is ongoing and operates under a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department of Energy and the
Department of Agriculture.
H.R. 2773 expanded federal biofuels research efforts and
authorized several studies to provide necessary information to
the Committee that will allow the Committee to make additional
research commitments in the future. More specifically, the bill
attempted to better coordinate and compile information from
federal biofuels research programs, focus some of the biofuels
research on infrastructure needs and efficiency of
biorefineries, study some of the continuing challenges facing
broader use of biofuels, and increase the funding levels for
Department of Energy biofuels research.
Legislative History
H.R. 2773 was introduced by Representative Lampson on June
19, 2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 2773 on June 21, 2007. A manager's amendment offered by
Representative Lampson was agreed to by voice vote. An
amendment offered by Representatives Woolsey and Bartlett was
agreed to by voice vote. The Subcommittee voted by voice vote
to report the bill, as amended, to the Committee.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 2773 on June 27, 2007.
The Committee considered 11 amendments to H.R. 2773. A
manager's amendment offered by Representative Gordon was agreed
to by voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Hall
was defeated on a recorded vote of 12-20. An amendment offered
by Representative Hall was agreed to by voice vote. An
amendment offered by Representative Matheson was agreed to by
voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Biggert was
agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative
Bartlett and Representative Woolsey was agreed to by voice
vote. An amendment offered by Representative Hill was agreed to
by voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Bartlett
was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Lampson was agreed to by voice vote. An
amendment offered by Representatives Smith of Nebraska and
Lampson was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by
Representative Smith of Nebraska was defeated on a recorded
vote of 11-17. The Committee voted to report the bill, as
amended, to the House by voice vote. On August 3, 2007, H.R.
2773 was reported to the House (H.Rept. 2773). No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2773.
The bill text of H.R. 2773 was generally incorporated in
various sections of H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007. H.R. 6 was signed into law as P.L. 110-130 on
December 19, 2007.
2.27--H.R. 2774, SOLAR ENERGY AND ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
The first two components of H.R. 2774 were specifically
related to concentrating solar power (CSP). A 2006 report by
the Western Governors' Association assessed the overall near-
term potential for CSP capacity in the American Southwest,
taking into account areas of high solar ray intensity, near-
level land, non-sensitivity to CSP use, and proximity to
transmission. The resulting set of potential plant sites
totaled 200 GW of potential power production. To put this in
perspective, the electric generating capacity of the entire
United States is currently about 1,000 GW. Some significant
challenges remain to widespread implementation of CSP, however.
CSP plants produce electric power by converting the sun's
energy into high-temperature heat using various mirror
configurations. The heat is then channeled through a
conventional generator. These plants consist of two parts: one
that collects solar energy and converts it to heat, and another
that converts heat energy to electricity. Thermal energy
storage technology allows this heat to be retained for later
use in generating electricity, such as during periods of
passing clouds or into the evening. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 established a CSP research and development program, but
storage was not included in the language. H.R. 2774 established
a program dedicated to advancing research and development in
thermal energy storage for CSP, authorizing $5 million for this
program in FY08, and steadily increasing to $12 million in
FY12.
The bill also tasked the Department of Energy (DOE) with
conducting two studies: (1) one on methods to integrate
concentrating solar power with regional electricity
transmission systems, and to identify new transmission or
transmission upgrades needed to bring electricity from high
concentrating solar power resource areas to growing electric
power load centers throughout the United States; and (2) one on
methods to reduce the amount of water consumed by concentrating
solar power systems, given the strain on water resources in the
Southwest.
The third component of H.R. 2774 addressed the solar
industry in general. Having a certified, well-trained workforce
to install and maintain solar energy products is critical to
the success of the industry. H.R. 2774 created such a program,
authorizing $10 million in each year from FY08 through FY12.
The bill instructed DOE to ensure sufficient geographic
distribution of training programs nationally, and to only award
grants for programs certified by the Institute of Sustainable
Power or equivalent industry-accepted quality-control
certification institution, or for new and growing programs with
a credible path to certification.
Legislative History
On June 19, 2007, Representative Giffords introduced H.R.
2774. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On June 21, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to consider H.R. 2774. Representative Giffords
offered an amendment, which was adopted by a voice vote. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure, as amended, to be reported to
the Committee by a voice vote.
On June 27, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2774.
Representative Bartlett offered two amendments, Representative
Johnson offered three amendments, Representative Hall (on
behalf of Representative Smith of Texas) offered an amendment,
and Representative Wu offered an amendment, all of which were
adopted by voice vote. Representative Inglis offered an
amendment that was defeated on a recorded vote of 7-17.
Representative Hall offered an amendment that was withdrawn.
The Committee ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a
voice vote. On August 3, 2007 the Committee favorably reported
H.R. 2774 to the House (H.Rept. 110-303). No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2774.
The bill text of H.R. 2774 was generally incorporated in
H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. H.R. 6
was signed into law as P.L. 110-140 on December 19, 2007.
2.28--H.R. 2850, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Chemical manufacturing can result in harm to human health
and the environment due to the usage of hazardous materials and
the generation of dangerous byproducts. Green chemistry seeks
to mitigate harmful outcomes by using safer materials and
manufacturing processes. By considering chemical hazards in the
design of products and processes, chemists can design chemicals
to be safe, just as they can design them to have other
properties. For example, one positive green chemistry was the
development of pesticide alternatives that are effective at
killing target organisms, but are benign to non-target
organisms and do not persist in the environment.
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, such as EPA,
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.
The purpose of H.R. 2850 is to focus and to integrate the
Federal Government's green chemistry R&D activities, and to
make them a higher priority. The legislation is also designed
to increase education and training in green chemistry.
Legislative History
On June 25 2007, Representative Gingrey introduced H.R.
2850. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On July 11, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2850.
An amendment offered by Representative Lipinski was adopted by
voice vote. An amendment offered by Representative Johnson was
also adopted by a voice vote. The bill was ordered to be
reported, as amended, by voice vote. On September 4, 2007, the
House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 2850 by voice vote.
On September 5, the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
2850.
2.29--H.R. 3775, INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE)
Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) at the Department of
Energy (DOE), works to improve the energy intensity of U.S.
industry through coordinated research and development and
dissemination of innovative energy efficiency technologies and
practices. The ITP invests in high-risk, high-value cost-shared
R&D projects to reduce industrial energy use and process waste
streams, while stimulating productivity and growth. Competitive
solicitations are the principal mechanism used by ITP to
conduct cost-shared R&D. Solicitations reflect the priorities
of the Program and selection of projects follows merit-based
criteria that emphasize projected energy, environmental, and
economic benefits. In addition, ITP makes available information
and resources on other financial assistance and research
opportunities and case studies from past ITP projects. The ITP
portfolio details over 1,000 technology development projects in
which ITP has been involved.
While the U.S. industrial sector has become much more
energy efficient over the past 30 years, there are still ample
opportunities to achieve efficiency gains. However, energy-
intensive industries face enormous competitive pressures that
make it difficult to make the necessary R&D investments in
technology development. Energy-intensive industries tend to
exhibit relatively low levels of R&D spending, and are often
unwilling to accept the risks associated with undertaking
complex capital-intensive technology development and
implementation. Constantly changing market conditions, energy
prices, and other business concerns affect the ability and
willingness of industry to pursue energy efficiency
opportunities. As the role of energy in industry changes, the
ITP should have the resources to sustain and expand operations,
adapt, and reshape its strategy where needed. Without a
sustained commitment by the private and public sectors to
invest in technology R&D and adopt new technologies, the
ability to close the gap between U.S. energy supply and demand
will be greatly limited.
The budget for Industrial Technologies Program has
decreased dramatically in recent years. The Fiscal Year 2007
budget request for Industrial Technologies was $45.6 million,
an $11.3 million reduction from the Fiscal Year 2006
Appropriation. By comparison, appropriated levels as recently
as Fiscal Year 2000 were as high as $175 million. These funding
levels reflect a dramatic shift in priorities away from
industrial efficiency R&D. This legislation is needed to ensure
continued gains in industrial energy efficiency and
environmental performance through research and development.
The purpose of H.R. 3775 is to authorize and support
research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application of new industrial processes and technologies that
will optimize energy efficiency and environmental performance
of energy intensive industries; to enhance research and
development through better coordination of inter-departmental
research; and to expand Industrial Assessment Centers programs
at universities to promote student training and adoption of
energy efficient technologies and practices by small- and
medium-sized industries.
Legislative History
On October 9, 2007, Representative Lampson introduced H.R.
3775. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 3775 on October 10, 2007. No amendments were offered. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure to be reported to the
Committee on a voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 3775 on October 16,
2007. Representatives Lampson and Inglis offered a manager's
amendment, which was adopted by a voice vote. The Committee
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On
October 22, 2007, the Committee reported H.R. 3775 to the House
(H.Rept. 110-401). On October 22, 2007, the House agreed to
suspend the rules and pass the bill by voice vote.
On October 23, 2007, H.R. 3775 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
3775.
2.30--H.R. 3776, ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Stationary Storage Technologies: Today, electricity is
generated as it is used, with very little being stored for
later use. Though this system has worked for decades, it is not
an efficient means of managing the electric power supply.
Demand for electric power varies greatly throughout the day and
throughout the year. Therefore, the electricity supply system
must be sized to generate and transmit enough electricity to
meet the maximum anticipated demand, or peak demand. The
inefficiency of this system becomes evident when considering
that peak electricity demand for any given year could be for a
very short period of time--a few days or even hours--leaving
considerable excess generation capacity. Rather than maintain
massive generation systems that are designed around a short-
lived peak demand, energy storage technologies would provide a
means to stockpile energy for later use, and consequently
reduce the need to generate more power during times of peak
electricity demand. Optimally, energy storage systems could be
charged at night during off-peak consumption hours, and then
discharge the energy during times of peak demand. Using
existing generation capacity at night time to store energy for
use during the day is more efficient, cheaper, helps to
equalize the demand load, and ease the strain on the
electricity grid.
The expanded use of energy storage would also help to avoid
capital intensive upgrades of transmission and distribution
facilities, as well as reduce the need to run certain
generation plants that may have higher operating costs and/or
have a poor emissions profile. Energy storage also can improve
electricity reliability and energy security by providing an
alternate source of power during an outage of the primary power
source.
Advances in energy storage technologies are often regarded
as key to increasing the reliability and widespread use of many
renewable energy technologies. Renewables such as wind and
solar produce electricity only when wind speeds are high enough
and sunlight is bright enough to generate power. Strategically
distributed storage would permit electricity from these
renewable sources to be stored and used during times of high
demand or low resource availability.
Smaller energy storage systems may also be deployed in
distributed stationary applications, such as residences or
neighborhoods, in order to supply back-up energy and level the
load on the electric grid. Advances in smaller energy storage
systems, specifically batteries, may also allow for entirely
new vehicles such as plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies to
enter the mass market.
Energy Storage Technologies for Vehicles: Concerns about
energy independence and climate change have caused a renewed
interest in enhancing the role of electricity in the
transportation sector. The benefits of this have been seen to
some degree in the rise in popularity of Hybrid Electric
Vehicles (HEV) because of their high fuel efficiency and lower
emissions. Switching vehicles' primary energy source from
petroleum-based fuels to electric batteries reduces overall
consumption of conventional liquid fuels. Additionally, several
recent studies have shown that, regardless of its source,
electricity used as a vehicle fuel reduces greenhouse gas
emissions. However, greater electrification of the vehicles
sector is constrained by the technological limits of energy
storage technologies used in conventional hybrids, specifically
the Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries.
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV's) are seen by some
as the next logical step towards greater electrification of the
transportation sector, and the eventual move towards market
acceptance of all-electric drive vehicles. PHEV's allow for
electricity to be used as an additional or even primary source
of power for a vehicle, with a secondary role for the gasoline
engine as a back-up power system. Advocates claim that 100
miles per gallon would be reasonable for PHEV's, approximately
twice the gasoline mileage of today's hybrids. However, current
NiMH batteries for conventional hybrids are not optimal for
this application.
While significant technological advances are still likely
in NiMH, and even the ubiquitous Lead Acid batteries, many in
the industry believe the future of PHEV's depends on
breakthroughs in new battery technologies, such as the lithium
ion (Li-Ion) batteries. To expand the use of electricity in the
vehicles sector batteries must be smaller, lighter, more
powerful, higher energy and cheaper--all of which require
considerable research and development. Achieving these needed
breakthroughs will require meaningful federal support and
public-private partnerships with a range of stakeholders.
Enhanced federal research and development of advanced
energy storage technologies offers a number of economic,
environmental and security benefits including greater
efficiency and reliability in the electricity delivery system,
better integration of renewable energy supplies into the
electric grid, and less reliance on conventional transportation
fuels. However, significant challenges remain in developing
these technologies and establishing a viable domestic supply
chain. H.R. 3776 authorizes the Department of Energy to conduct
research and development programs on energy storage
technologies, and expands this research to the demonstration of
promising storage technologies and the manufacturing methods to
allow for their production in the U.S.
Legislative History
On October 9, 2007, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 3776. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On October 10, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to consider H.R. 3776. No amendments were
offered. The Subcommittee ordered the measure to be forwarded
to the Committee by a voice vote.
On October 16, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
3776. Representative Gordon offered a manager's amendment which
was adopted by voice vote. Representatives Biggert and Inglis
offered an amendment which was also adopted by voice vote. The
Committee ordered the measure reported, as amended, by voice
vote. The bill was reported to the House on October 22, 2007
(H.Rept. 110-402). On October 22, 2007, the House agreed to a
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3776 by a voice vote.
On October 23, 2007, H.R. 3776 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3776.
This bill text of H.R. 3776 was generally incorporated in
H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. H.R. 6
was signed into law as P.L. 110-240 on December 19, 2007.
2.31--H.R. 3877, MINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
In 2006, the number of miner fatalities in United States
mines amounted to 72, the highest number since 2001 and a sharp
rise after years of progress in lowering these numbers. From
January through October of 2007, there have been 26 miner
fatalities. The high number of fatalities has spurred a number
of Congressional investigations as well as the passage of
legislation targeted towards improving mine safety.
Mine collapses have emphasized the need for effective
tracking of miners underground as well as the need for
emergency communications between miners inside the mine and
personnel outside the mine. Mines generally have reliable and
effective communications systems that often include hard-wired
networks, but these systems are often compromised during
catastrophic events. Experience has shown that such
technologies must function in post-disaster environments and
enable two-way communication.
Further research regarding underground communications and
the applicability of existing technology to the underground
mine environment is necessary in order to foster the
development of next generation mine tracking and communications
technology. Currently, communications for underground mines is
unregulated and many necessary metrics and standards have not
been developed in this niche field. Government-sponsored
research and the development of consensus standards in this
field would aid in the acceleration of next-generation
technology to better protect underground miners. As a technical
agency with significant experience in developing consensus
industry standards and providing measurement services to other
industries, the National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST) is well poised to assist in these tasks for the field of
mine communications. NIST has a long history of working in
close collaboration with industry to facilitate research and
development in longer-term, high-risk research which will yield
national benefits.
The purpose of H.R.3877 is to authorize a research,
development, and demonstration program at NIST to accelerate
the development of innovative mine communications and tracking
technology; and to require the director of NIST to work with
industry and relevant federal agencies to determine research
priorities, which may include emergency communications systems,
systems for deep underground mines, hybrid wireless and
infrastructure based systems, or other optional priorities.
This project will include the establishment of best practices
and adaptation of existing technology. The bill authorizes to
NIST such sums as are necessary to carry out these programs for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010, to be derived from amounts
authorized to NIST in the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and
Science Act (Public Law 110-69).
Legislative History
On October 17, 2007, Representative Matheson introduced
H.R. 3877. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology.
On October 24, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R.
3877. Representative Matheson offered an amendment, which was
adopted by a voice vote. The Committee ordered the measure
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On October 29, 2007 the
Committee favorably reported H.R. 3877 to the House (H.Rept.
110-411). On October 29, 2007, the House agreed to suspend the
rules and pass H.R. 3877 by voice vote.
On October 30, 2007, H.R. 3877 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3877.
2.32--H.R. 3916, BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2008
Background and Summary of Legislation
The United States has nearly 7,500 miles of land border
with Canada and Mexico, over which half a billion people and
2.5 million rail cars pass per year. In addition, over 300 U.S.
ports receive around nine million cargo containers each year.
The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processes
approximately 1.18 million people entering the U.S. through
established ports of entry every day. CBP is also responsible
for monitoring areas between legal entry points along the
Northern and Southern borders and for intercepting individuals
attempting to smuggle contraband or cross the border illegally.
In fiscal year 2005 (FY 2005), U.S. Border Patrol agents
apprehended 1.19 million people attempting to enter the country
illegally. In addition, over 26,000 kilograms of marijuana was
seized in Northern Border States in 2005 and over 30,000
kilograms of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine were seized
within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in 2006. However,
the Government Accountability Office estimates that one in ten
serious drug and weapon violators and undocumented immigrants
pass through airports and land borders undetected.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invests nearly
$1.5 billion annually in research and development (R&D)
projects at its Science and Technology (DHS S&T) Directorate
and Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of which approximately
$25 million is directed to border security-specific projects.
However, many promising technologies are still not feasible for
full implementation along the border because of numerous
obstacles including high cost, lack of robustness in harsh
conditions, lack of personnel trained to properly use high-tech
equipment, and technical problems. DHS S&T has primary
responsibility for bringing new technologies to full readiness,
with support from other agencies such as the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, many
capability gaps identified by end-users, including situational
awareness and officer safety, require further basic and applied
research to meet existing or anticipated challenges.
Border security research accounts for only 3.7 percent of
DHS S&T's research budget in FY 2008 and 4.0 percent in the
President's FY 2009 request. Further investment has the
potential to significantly improve border security through
effective, efficient, and evolving defenses against a wide
range of threats including undocumented border crossings, human
trafficking, drug smuggling and terrorism.
H.R. 3916 strengthens control of our nation's borders
through R&D of effective, efficient, and evolving defenses. The
bill focuses on key long-term technologies that could
substantially improve the security of our nation's borders such
as: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, tunnel detection, anti-
counterfeit technologies, Global Positioning System
technologies, and mobile biometric technologies. In addition,
the bill instructs the Science and Technology Directorate to
improve processes for setting research priorities and serving
the needs of technology end-users.
Legislative History
On October 22, 2007, Representative Hall, Ranking Member of
the Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 3916.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, as
well as the Committee on Science and Technology.
On February 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation met to consider H.R. 3916. Representative Mitchell
offered an amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. The
measure was ordered reported to the Committee, as amended, by a
voice vote.
On February 27, 2008, the Committee met to consider H.R.
3916. Representative McNerney, Representative McCaul, and
Representative Hall offered amendments to the bill, which were
all adopted by separate voice votes. The measure was ordered
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On June 4, 2008, the
Committee reported H.R. 3916 to the House (H.Rept. 110-684). No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3916.
2.33--H.R. 3957, WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION RESEARCH ACT OF
2007
Background and Summary of Legislation
Drought and recent water shortages in several regions of
the United States have increased concern about water supply at
all levels of government. Since 1950, the United States
population has increased nearly 90 percent. In that same
period, public demand for water has increased 209 percent.
Thirty-six states are anticipating local, regional, or
statewide water shortages by 2013. Some states are already in
the middle of a severe drought.
Although some water efficiency strategies require an
initial capital investment, in the long run, conserving water
provides significant cost savings for water and wastewater
systems. Water efficiency and re-use programs help systems
avoid, down-size, and postpone expensive infrastructure
projects, by developing new water supplies.
In conjunction with its statutory responsibilities to
ensure water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA has a program of research and
development on water treatment technologies, health effects of
water pollutants, security from deliberate contamination, and
watershed protection. Current annual funding for these
activities is approximately $50 million. EPA currently has no
research and development effort that addresses water supply,
water-use efficiency or conservation.
H.R. 3957 establishes a research and development program
within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) to promote water use efficiency and
conservation. The research program includes the development of
technologies and processes to expand water supplies through
storage, treatment, and reuse of rainwater, stormwater, and
greywater; research on water storage and distribution systems;
research on behavioral, social, and economic barriers to
achieving greater water efficiency; and research on the use of
watershed planning.
Legislative History
On October 24, 2007, Representative Matheson introduced
H.R. 3957. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 3957 on May 6, 2008. No amendments were offered. The
Subcommittee voted to report the measure to the Committee by
voice vote.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 3957 on July 16, 2008.
Representative Matheson offered a manager's amendment to make
technical corrections to the bill and the amendment was adopted
by voice vote. Representative Johnson offered an amendment
which was adopted by voice vote. Representative Gingrey offered
an amendment which was also adopted by voice vote. Finally, an
amendment offered by Representative Giffords was adopted by
voice vote. The Committee voted to report the measure, as
amended, to the House by voice vote. On July 30, 2008, the
Committee reported H.R. 3957 to the House (H.Rept. 110-802). On
July 30, 2008, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
3957 by voice vote.
On July 31, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works. No further legislative action
was taken on H.R. 3957.
2.34--H.R. 4174, FEDERAL OCEAN ACIDIFICATION RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
Ocean hydrogen ion concentration (a measure of acidity) has
increased 30 percent since pre-industrial times. Studies have
also projected that by the end of the century carbon dioxide
emission scenarios could result in the lowest levels of ocean
pH in 20 million years. The potential impacts of ocean
acidification are diverse and far-reaching, and may include
adverse impacts on marine ecosystems, food webs for many fish
and marine mammals, and the economies of many coastal states
that rely upon the seafood industry and coastal and ocean
tourism. Increasing acidity and changes in ocean chemistry have
been shown to be corrosive to shell-forming plankton, a major
food source for baleen whales and commercially important fish
species such as salmon, mackerel, herring, cod, and others.
Some studies have also suggested that ocean acidification could
be detrimental to shellfish including scallops, clams, and
lobsters. Evidence indicates that calcification rates will
decrease and carbonate dissolution rates will increase for
these calcifying organisms leaving them unable to compete
ecologically, perhaps even threatening them to the point of
extinction.
Shallow water corals will probably face similar threats due
to decreased growth rates and increased shell corrosion. Corals
comprise some of the richest habitats on Earth. According to
NOAA, about 4,000 species of fish, including approximately half
of all federally-managed fisheries, depend on coral reefs and
related habitat for a portion of their life cycles, and they
estimate that the value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs
exceeds $100 million. Juvenile fish may face physiological
challenges including respiratory stress and acidosis associated
with increased ocean acidification. Deep sea corals and other
animals are also threatened by changes in ocean chemistry and
may find parts of the deep ocean uninhabitable by the end of
this century. The Administration's Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology
Council highlighted ocean acidification as a research priority
in their 2007 report, Charting the Course for Ocean Science in
the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research
Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. The report
explains that ocean acidification and other physical and
biogeochemical changes may irreversibly alter ecosystems.
Sustained ocean observations, process and applied research, and
modeling are recommended in the report as necessary tools and
research to help determine changes over time and to help
identify and quantify ecosystem impacts.
Ocean acidification is an emerging issue and scientific
experts have testified to the need for increased research and
monitoring. There is significant uncertainty as to the rate and
magnitude of change that will occur in the ocean and as to what
the full impacts to marine organisms and ecosystems will be.
H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act of 2008, establishes an interagency program to
develop and coordinate a comprehensive plan to better
understand and address the impacts of ocean acidification, to
provide for assessment of ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts
of ocean acidification and to provide for research on
adaptation strategies to conserve marine ecosystems. National
investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring
will improve understanding of ecosystem responses and provide
marine resource managers the information they need to develop
strategies for the protection of critical species, habitats,
and ecosystems. The bill designates JSOST as the coordinating
body for interagency activities on ocean acidification and
requires JSOST to involve the extramural ocean community in the
development of the plan, including universities, states,
industry and environmental groups. The bill also authorizes
ocean acidification activities at the National Science
Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Legislative History
On November 14, 2007, Representative Allen introduced H.R.
4174. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider
H.R. 4174 on June 18, 2008. Representatives Baird and Inglis
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was
adopted by voice vote. The Subcommittee reported the bill, as
amended, to the Committee by voice vote.
On June 25, 2008, the Committee met to consider H.R. 4174.
A manager's amendment offered by Representatives Baird and
Inglis was adopted by voice vote. The Committee ordered the
measure, as amended, reported by a voice vote. On July 9, 2008,
the Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R.4174 to
the House (H.Rept. 110-749). The House suspended the rules and
passed the bill by voice vote on July 9, 2008.
On July 10, 1008, H.R. 4174 was received in the Senate and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 4174.
2.35--H.R. 5161, GREEN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
Infrastructure, such as roads and parking lots, comprised
of surfaces that are impervious to water, can have significant
impacts on an area's natural hydrology, potentially resulting
in flooding, pollution, or aquatic ecosystem destruction.
Stormwater runoff washes over agricultural land, lawns, urban
areas, and other types of human land-use areas, introducing
chemicals like fertilizers, heavy metals, and harmful bacteria
into water ecosystems such as streams, lakes, and rivers.
Transportation infrastructure is a major contributor to this
type of pollution. This type of non-localized pollution is
responsible for over 80 percent of the contamination of the
Nation's surface water. Thus, development of new transportation
infrastructure has a significant and far-ranging environmental
impact.
To be effective in countering the negative impact of
rainfall runoff, mitigation measures must meet the goals of
reducing the speed and volume of flow and treating or reducing
pollutants. Green transportation infrastructure uses innovative
materials, structural measures, and design techniques to
address these goals. However, many local governments are
constrained by environmental regulations that stipulate
specific methods for reducing water pollution, and are unable
to include innovative green infrastructure technologies and
techniques in their storm-water management plans. There are
numerous other barriers to full adoption of green
infrastructure, including technical problems, regulatory
challenges, and slow industry adoption of new practices. The
installation of green transportation infrastructure can be
impeded by problems of high cost and availability of space for
technologies. Climate conditions can also present unique
challenges to implementation. Furthermore, governments or
private companies who propose the use of green transportation
infrastructure are not given approval simply because the
innovative technologies have not been previously considered by
the regulating authority. The problem then becomes self-
perpetuating, as these local governments block all potential
demonstration projects, and continue to deny builders permits
on the basis that there have been no successful demonstration
projects. The slow adoption of these technologies has also led
to a shortage of trained contractors who are able to properly
design and install integrated systems, making implementation
more difficult and costly.
H.R. 5161 authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation
to provide grants to national and regional university
transportation centers to carry out research on and technology
transfer in the field of green transportation infrastructure.
Grant recipients are selected via a merit-based competition,
with preference given to those institutions demonstrating
expertise in the environmental effects of transportation
infrastructure; research capacity and technology transfer
resources; partnerships with government and industry; and other
attributes. Authorized activities include research and
development of innovative infrastructure technologies;
establishment of regional technology transfer programs; studies
of the impact of government regulations on implementation of
green infrastructure programs; and public education campaigns
aimed at public and private stakeholders. The bill requires the
Secretary of Transportation to convene an annual meeting of
centers to foster collaboration and dissemination of findings.
H.R. 5161 authorizes $6 M per fiscal year for fiscal years 2009
and 2010 for grants to the university transportation centers.
To promote technology transfer, the bill requires the Federal
Highway Administration to incorporate education and training on
green transportation infrastructure into its National Highway
Institute curriculum. Finally, the bill defines green
transportation infrastructure as infrastructure that preserves
and restores natural processes and landforms, uses natural
design techniques to manage storm water; and minimizes life
cycle energy consumption and air pollution.
Legislative History
On January 29, 2008, Representative Wu introduced H.R.
5161. The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
On February 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation met to consider H.R. 5161. Representative Ehlers
offered an amendment to the bill, which was adopted by a voice
vote. The measure, as amended, was reported to the Committee by
a voice vote.
On February 27, 2008, the Committee met to consider H.R.
5161. Representative Wu and Representative Inglis both proposed
amendments which were adopted by separate voice votes.
Representative Inglis proposed an additional amendment which
was withdrawn. The Committee ordered the measure reported, as
amended, by a voice vote. On April 10, 2008, the Committee
favorably reported the bill to the House (H.Rept. 110-576, Part
1). No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 5161.
2.36--H.R. 5789, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT; H.R. 5819,
SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was
established in 1982 by the Small Business Innovation
Development Act (P.L. 97-219) to increase the participation of
small, innovative firms in federal research and development
(R&D) activities and to develop commercializable technologies.
The Act outlined four broad congressional goals: to stimulate
technological innovation; to use small business to meet federal
R&D needs; to foster and encourage participation by socially
and economically disadvantaged persons in technological
innovation; and to increase the private sector
commercialization of innovations derived from federal R&D
investment. SBIR has been reauthorized three times, in 1986,
1992 and 2000, with authorization extended through September
30, 2008. The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program
was established in 1992 by the Small Business Technology
Transfer Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-564, Title II), and reauthorized
in 1997 and in 2001, through September 2009.
Since its inception in 1982 until 2005, over $18.9 billion
in SBIR awards have been made for more than 88,800 research
projects. The award levels for Phase I and II awards have not
been adjusted for inflation since 1992 for SBIR and since 2001
for STTR. Currently, eleven departments and agencies sponsor
SBIR programs.
H.R. 5789 and H.R. 5819 reauthorize SBIR and STTR through
2010. In addition, the bills make improvements to the programs
by enhancing the size and allowing for increased flexibility of
awards, allowing greater participation by businesses that have
secured non-governmental funding, and giving agencies the
administrative funding needed for encouraging
commercialization.
Legislative History
On April 15, 2008, Representative Wu introduced H.R. 5789.
It was referred to the Committee on Small Business, and to the
Committee on Science and Technology.
On April 15, 2008, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation met to consider H.R. 5789. Representative Ehlers
offered an amendment and Representative Gingrey offered two
amendments, none of which were adopted. Representative Wilson
and Representative Smith of Nebraska both offered amendments,
which were both adopted by separate voice votes. The
Subcommittee ordered the measure, as amended, reported to the
Committee by a voice vote. No further legislative action was
taken on H.R. 5789.
On April 16, 2008, Representative Velasquez introduced H.R.
5819, which incorporated provisions from H.R. 5789. H.R. 5819
was referred to the Committee on Small Business, and the
Committee on Science and Technology.
On April 18, 2008, the Committee discharged H.R. 5819. On
April 23, 2008, the House voted to pass H.R. 5819 on a recorded
vote of 368-43.
On April 24, 2008, H.R. 5819 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship. No further legislative action was taken on
H.R. 5819.
2.37--H.R. 5940, NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF
2008
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Science and Technology Committee was instrumental in
the development and enactment of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
153), which authorizes the interagency National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI). The 2003 statute put in place formal
interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating mechanisms
for NNI. The National Science and Technology Council, through
the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)
Subcommittee, plans and coordinates the NNI, and the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides technical
and administrative support to the NSET.
There are twenty-six federal agencies that participate in
the NNI, with 13 of those agencies reporting a nanotechnology
research and development budget. The total estimated NNI budget
for fiscal year 2008 is $1.49 billion. P.L. 108-153 also
provides for formal reviews of the content and management of
the program by the National Academy of Sciences and by the NNI
Advisory Panel, a statutorily created advisory committee of
non-government experts. These reviews have found that the
coordination and planning processes among the participating
agencies in the NNI are largely effective.
The NNI supports productive, cooperative research efforts
across a spectrum of disciplines, and it is establishing a
network of national facilities for support of nanoscale
research and development. However, the formal reviews by
external experts noted above, as well as the findings of the
Committee's oversight hearings on the NNI, have identified
aspects of the interagency program that could be strengthened
and improved. These areas are environmental, health and safety
research; technology transfer and the fostering of
commercialization of research results; and educational
activities.
The purpose of H.R. 5940 is to improve the content and
various aspects of the planning and coordination of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). This includes
provisions to strengthen the planning and implementation of the
environment, health, and safety research component of the NNI;
to increase emphasis on nanomanufacturing research, technology
transfer, and commercialization of research results flowing
from the program; to create a new NNI component of focused,
large-scale research and development projects in areas of
national importance; and to enhance support for K-16
nanotechnology-related education programs.
Legislative History
On May 1, 2008, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology introduced H.R. 5940. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 5940 on May 7, 2008. An
amendment offered by Representative Johnson and an amendment
offered by Representative Baird were adopted by separate voice
votes. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the bill, as
amended, to the House. On June 4, 2008, the Committee reported
H.R. 5940 to the House (H.Rept. 110-682). On June 5, 2008, the
House agreed to a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R.
5940 by a recorded vote of 407-6.
On June 6, 2007, H.R. 5940 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action occurred on H.R.
5940.
2.38--H.R. 6323, HEAVY DUTY HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2008
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 6323 is to establish a research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application program
to promote research of appropriate technologies for heavy duty
hybrid vehicles, and for other purposes.
Large, heavy duty trucks that rely on a diesel or gasoline
internal combustion engine for power typically have relatively
low fuel economy and high emissions. This is especially evident
in trucks with duty-cycles that include frequent starts and
stops, long periods of engine idling, or addition power for
auxiliary systems such as bucket lifters, trash compactors,
off-board power tools, air conditioning, refrigeration, or
other work-related equipment. Switching a portion of the
driving and auxiliary power loads away from the internal
combustion engine to an alternate power source would enable
these vehicles to realize considerable fuel savings and
emissions reductions compared to conventional models. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that an average
delivery truck using a hybrid drive system could save
approximately 1,000 gallons of diesel per year compared to one
with a conventional drive system.
Despite substantial investment in both the defense and
commercial sectors, the cost of research and development and
the final price of heavy duty hybrid vehicles remain
prohibitively high, even for military applications.
Consequently, there remain significant technical obstacles to
development and final commercial application of these
technologies that federally-sponsored R&D activities can help
to overcome. Managing a comprehensive federal R&D program is
complicated by the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all
hybrid solution for the entire heavy duty vehicle sector. The
power demands of heavy duty trucks are as varied as the
applications. For example, through the course of an average
drive cycle the charging and discharging of a hybrid system on
a refuse truck with its frequent starts and stops, dumpster
lifting, and trash compaction will be considerably different
than that of a utility truck, which may idle in one place for
several hours to operate a boom or other equipment. Class 8
long haul tractor trailers present an even greater challenge
they seldom brake enough to charge batteries through
regenerative braking. The energy storage devices and related
control systems may be altogether different for each of these
platforms. Future generations of heavy trucks may also include
plug-in hybrid electric models that can store more electric
energy in larger banks of batteries and charge these batteries
through direct connection to the electricity grid either while
in operation on a job site or in a parking lot or garage.
The majority of federal funding for hybrid vehicle R&D has
focused on passenger vehicles which far outnumber heavy trucks.
However, the federal R&D portfolio should address the
significant potential for fuel savings and emissions reductions
through improvements in the heavy duty vehicle sector, and take
advantage of the ability of this sector to deploy new
technologies more quickly. The Department of Energy (DOE) has
funded limited research on the hybridization of trucks, most
recently through the 21st Century Truck Partnership which
conducts research and development through joint public and
private efforts. Other federal agencies involved in the 21st
Century Truck Partnership include the Department of Defense,
the Department of Transportation, and EPA. DOE does not
currently offer any competitive grants that target the
development of technologies applicable for use in hybrid
trucks.
H.R. 6323 directs the Secretary of DOE (Secretary) to
establish a grant program for the development of advanced heavy
duty hybrid vehicles. The bill gives the Secretary the
discretion to award between three and seven grants based on the
technical merits of the proposals received. At least half of
the awarded grants must be for the development of plug-in
hybrid trucks. H.R. 6323 also directs the Secretary to conduct
a study of alternative power train designs for use in advanced
heavy duty hybrid vehicles. Grant applicants may include
partnerships between manufacturers or electrical utilities in
to conduct research authorized by the bill. Awards under H.R.
6323 will be for up to $3 million per year for three years.
Appropriations are authorized for $16 million per year for
fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
Legislative History
On June 17, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to consider a Chairman's Mark of the ``Heavy
Hybrid Truck Research and Development Act of 2008,'' a bill
authored by Representative Sensenbrenner. An amendment offered
by Ms. Biggert was agreed to by voice vote. The Subcommittee
reported the Chairman's Mark, as amended, to the Committee on a
voice vote.
The Chairman's Mark, as reported by the Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, was introduced on June 19, 2008 as H.R.
6323, the ``Heavy Hybrid Truck Research and Development Act of
2008'' by Representative Sensenbrenner. The bill was referred
to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On July 16, 2008, the Committee met to consider H.R. 6323.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Representative Hall on behalf of Mr. Sensenbrenner was agreed
to by voice vote. An amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by Mr. Reichert was agreed to by voice
vote. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the bill, as
amended, to the House. On September 16, 2008, the Committee
reported H.R. 6323 to the House (H.Rept. 110-855). On September
24, 2008, the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R.
6323 by voice vote.
On October 2, 2008, H.R. 6323 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
6323.
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on
Science and Technology and Passed by the House of Representatives
3.1--H.CON.RES. 34, HONORING THE LIFE OF PERCY LAVON JULIAN, A PIONEER
IN THE FIELD OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE
FIRST AND ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN CHEMIST TO BE INDUCTED INTO THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 34 honors the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a
pioneer in the field of organic chemistry research and
development and the first and only African American chemist to
be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences and lists his
many achievements including becoming. the first to discover a
process to synthesize physostigmine, the drug used in the
treatment of glaucoma; pioneering a commercial process to
synthesize cortisone from soy beans and yams, enabling the
widespread use of cortisone as an affordable treatment of
arthritis; and being awarded over 130 patents.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 34, was introduced by Representative Eddie
Bernice Johnson and solely referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology on January 18, 2007. The resolution was marked
up and ordered reported on January 24, 2007. It was reported by
the Committee on Science and Technology (H.Rept. 110-4) on
January 29, 2007 and placed on the House Calendar. On January
30, 2007, the House debated the resolution under suspension of
the rules and passed the resolution, 418-0, on January 31,
2007. It was received in the Senate on January 31, 2007 and on
February 1, 2007 the resolution was agreed to in Senate without
amendment by Unanimous Consent.
3.2--H.CON.RES. 76, HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
GEOPHYSICAL YEAR (IGY) AND ITS PAST CONTRIBUTIONS TO SPACE RESEARCH,
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 76 honors the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) and its contributions to
the scientific investigations of the Earth and outer space; and
encourages the public, and especially American youth, to attend
IGY celebrations and seminars, such as those being planned at
locations around the United States by the National Academy of
Sciences and other organizations, and to participate in
discussions about the future of space science and Earth
science.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 76 was introduced by Congressman Mark Udall on
March 1, 2007 and was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On March 28, 2007 the Committee ordered
the resolution reported by voice vote. On April 16, 2007, the
House of Representatives considered the resolution under
suspension of the rules. On April 17, 2007 the House passed the
resolution 406-0. On April 18, 2007, the resolution was
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary which reported the bill without amendment on May 24,
2007. On June 20, 2007, the Resolution was agreed to in the
Senate without amendment.
3.3--H.CON.RES. 95, HONORING THE CAREER AND RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF
FRANCES E. ALLEN, THE 2006 RECIPIENT OF THE A.M. TURING AWARD
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 95 honors the pioneering life work of Frances
Allen in computer research and development and salutes the
Turing Award Committee for recognizing, through the selection
of Frances Allen, that creative women have contributed mightily
to the development of this important field. It also gives
highlights of Frances Allen's 45 year career at IBM including
her being the first woman to be named an IBM Fellow; her
becoming President of the IBM Academy of Technology; her
fundamental contributions to the theory and practice of program
optimization, compiler design and machine architecture; and her
work in encouraging women to study computer science.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 95 was introduced by Congresswoman Woolsey on
March 20, 2007 and referred to the House Committee on Science
and Technology. On April 24, 2007 the Committee considered
H.Con.Res. 95 and ordered it reported by a unanimous voice
vote. On May 1, 2007, the House of Representatives considered
the resolution under suspension of the Rules and ordered it
reported by voice vote. On May 2, 2007, the resolution was
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
3.4--H.CON.RES. 147, RECOGNIZING 200 YEARS OF RESEARCH, SERVICE TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
BY THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND ITS
PREDECESSOR AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 147 recognizes 200 years of research, service to
the people of the United States, and stewardship of the marine
environment by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and its predecessor agencies beginning with the
Act of February 10, 1807 (chapter VIII; 2 Stat. 413), signed by
President Thomas Jefferson, which authorized and requested the
President `to cause a survey to be taken of the coast of the
United States . . . together with such other matters as he may
deem proper for completing an accurate chart of every part of
the coasts.' The resolution details the agency's
accomplishments and recognizes the contributions made over the
last 200 years by the past and current employees and officers
of the Coast Survey, the National Geodetic Survey, and the
Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It also
encourages the people of the United States to salute and share
in the planned celebrations of these historic programs during
2007 with ceremonies designed to give appropriate recognition
to one of our oldest and most respected federal agencies on the
occasion of its bicentennial anniversary.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 147 was introduced by Congressman Henry Brown on
5/10/2007 and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources,
and its Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. and in
addition to the Committee on Science and Technology, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. The
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a
legislative hearing on June 5, 2007. The bill was discharged
from both Committees and on December 4, 2007, the House
suspended the Rules and agreed to the resolution by a vote of
414-0. On December 6, 2007, H.Con.Res. 147 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
3.5--H.CON.RES. 222, COMMENDING NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER IN
VIRGINIA ON THE CELEBRATION OF ITS 90TH ANNIVERSARY ON OCTOBER 26 AND
27, 2007
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 222 commends the men and women of NASA Langley
Research Center for their accomplishments and role in inspiring
the American people and commends NASA Langley Research Center
in Virginia on the celebration of its 90th anniversary on
October 26 and 27, 2007 Langley began in 1917, as the Nation's
first civilian aeronautical research laboratory was established
by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in Virginia,
and named Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory. Now called
the National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA) Langley
Research Center, is one of the Nation's most prolific and most
honored aerospace laboratories with a rich history of
pioneering aviation breakthroughs, exploring the universe, and
conducting ground breaking climate research, having helped give
birth to the space age by conceiving and managing Project
Mercury, the first United States manned space program, training
the original seven astronauts, proving the feasibility of the
lunar orbiter rendezvous, developing the lunar excursion module
concept and research facilities for simulating landing on the
Moon, and successfully sending the first Viking landers and
orbiters to Mars.
Legislative History
H.Con.Res. 222 was introduced on October 2, 2007 by
Congresswoman JoAnn Davis and the rest of the Virginia
Delegation and referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology. The bill was discharged from the Committee on
Science and Technology on October 16, 2007 and considered under
Suspension of the Rules. On October 17, 2007 it was agreed to
by a vote of 421-0. On October 18, 2007 the resolution was
received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without
amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
3.6--H.CON.RES. 225, HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DAWN OF THE
SPACE AGE, AND THE ENSUING 50 YEARS OF PRODUCTIVE AND PEACEFUL SPACE
ACTIVITIES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
This resolution honors the 50th anniversary of the dawn of
the Space Act, on October 4, 1957 with the launch of Sputnik 1,
an event that was followed soon after by the American launch of
Explorer 1 as well as the ensuing 50 years of productive and
peaceful space activities.
It recognizes the value of investing in America's manned
and unmanned space program which evolved from cold war
competition into an endeavor that has been marked by
significant international cooperation, a significant increase
in our understanding of the universe and its origin, large
scale monitoring of the Earth's weather and climate, satellites
transforming communications, navigation, and positioning, and a
renewed commitment to research and to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education akin to that which
followed the dawn of the Space Age.
The resolution further declares it to be in America's
interest to continue to advance knowledge and improve life on
Earth through a sustained national commitment to space
exploration in all its forms, led by a new generation of well
educated scientists, engineers, and explorers.
Legislative History
Chairman Bart Gordon and eleven co-sponsors introduced
H.Con.Res. 225 on October 3, 2007 and the resolution was
referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. On October
16, 2007 the resolution was discharged from the Committee on
Science and Technology and the resolution passed the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules. On October 17,
2007 the resolution was received in the Senate and on October
18, 2007 was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. On October 30, 2007, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered the resolution to
be reported without amendment favorably and on November, 2007
the resolution was reported without a written report and placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
3.7--H.CON.RES. 251, COMMENDING THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
LABORATORY FOR ITS WORK OF PROMOTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR 30 YEARS
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 251 commends the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory for its work of promoting energy efficiency for 30
years and seeking other avenues of energy independence because
these actions have enhanced our national security, sustained
our environment and created jobs.
In 1977 the Solar Energy Research Institute opened and was
designated a National Laboratory of the United States
Department of Energy. In September 1991 President George H.W.
Bush changed the institute's name to the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). NREL is now the principal research
laboratory for the United States Department of Energy's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and it also provides
research expertise for the Office of Science and the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. NREL's focused
research and development capabilities are positioned to advance
national energy goals by developing innovations to change the
way we power our homes and businesses, and fuel our cars.
The resolution also recognizes the achievements of the
scientists and employees of the NREL and their exemplary
service to the United States for 30 years and directs the Clerk
of the House to transmit a copy of this resolution to the NREL
for appropriate display.
Legislative History
Congressman Perlmutter and three co-sponsors introduced
H.Con.Res. 251 on November 8, 2007 and the bill was referred to
the House Committee on Science and Technology. On December 5,
2007, the bill was discharged from the Committee on Science and
Technology and passed the House of Representatives under
suspension of the rules by voice vote. On December 12, 2007,
the resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
3.8--H.CON.RES. 287, CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNITED
STATES EXPLORER I SATELLITE, THE WORLD'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC SPACECRAFT,
AND THE BIRTH OF THE UNITED STATES SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 287 celebrates the 50th anniversary of the
United States Explorer I satellite, the world's first
scientific spacecraft, and the birth of the United States space
exploration program.
The launch of Explorer I marks the birth of the era of
United States space exploration, and initiated a half-century
of advances in both robotic and human exploration of space.
Since the launch of Explorer I, the United States has launched
spacecraft to explore each of the solar system's planets and
the Earth's Moon; to observe the Earth and the interactions of
its atmospheric, oceanic, and land systems, to conduct studies
of the Sun and its interactions with Earth; to investigate
asteroids and comets; to understand the origin of the universe
and the formation of the stars, galaxies, and planets; and to
extend human presence into space.
Explorer I was launched as part of the International
Geophysical Year, a major scientific initiative of 67 nations
to collect coordinated measurements of the Earth. It carried a
scientific instrument designed and built by the late Dr. James
A. Van Allen of the University of Iowa to detect cosmic rays.
These cosmic ray measurements from Explorer I led to the
discovery of regions of energetic charged particles trapped in
the Earth's magnetic field, later named the Van Allen radiation
belts. Therefore, the resolution also celebrates the
achievement of the late Dr. James A. Van Allen and his science
team and all of the individuals at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and Army Ballistic Missile Agency who, through the
successful launch of Explorer I, brought the United States into
the space age and science into the realm of space.
The next 50 years of United States accomplishments in outer
space will rely on individuals possessing strong mathematics,
science, and engineering skills and the educators who will
train such individuals enabling the development of advanced
technologies, skills, and capabilities that support United
States competitiveness and economic growth. Therefore, the
resolution also supports science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education programs, which are critical for
preparing the next generation to lead future United States
space endeavors.
The resolution also recognizes the role of the United
States space program in strengthening the scientific and
engineering foundation that contributes to United States
innovation and economic growth and looks forward to the next 50
years of United States achievements in the robotic and human
exploration of space.
Legislative History
On January 29, 2008, Representative Mark Udall and six co-
sponsors introduced H.Con.Res. 287 which was referred to the
Committee on Science and Technology. On February 6, 2008, the
resolution was discharged from the Committee on Science and
Technology and the resolution passed the House of
Representatives by voice vote. On February 7, 2008, the
resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
3.9--H.CON.RES. 366, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT INCREASING
AMERICAN CAPABILITIES IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
SHOULD BE A NATIONAL PRIORITY
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 366 expresses the sense of Congress that
increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics, and
technology education should be a national priority since the
economic competitiveness of the Nation depends on strong
science, mathematics, and technology capabilities throughout
the workforce. It states that our national competitiveness
strategy must include the goals of ensuring that all young
persons achieve a level of technological literacy adequate to
prepare them for the demands of a scientific and
technologically oriented society and fulfilling the need for a
deep pool of talented American leaders in science and
technological research and development. Numerous research
reports indicate the Nation is not achieving these goals.
The most recent United States National Assessment of
Educational Progress reveals that a majority of those 17 years
of age are poorly equipped for informed citizenship and
productive performance in the workplace and while women and
minorities continue to be under-served by and under-represented
in science and mathematics, by 2016, 35.4 percent of our
workforce will be comprised of minority workers, and 46.6
percent will be women.
Therefore, the Congress finds that this Nation should
dedicate its resources to the development of a broad pool of
citizens who are functionally literate in science, mathematics,
and technology. Furthermore, it declares that a national
science education policy in the coming decade should address
the crucial need areas of substantially increasing science
scholarships and providing adequate financial resources to
permit students from under-represented populations to study
science, mathematics, and technology and actively involving
National Science Foundation involvement in curriculum
development with strong emphasis on reinforcing science and
mathematics concepts at each grade level. It finds that this
national challenge can be met through strong leadership from
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; other
Federal, State, and local governments; and with long-term
commitments from the civic, business, and engineering
communities.
Legislative History
On June 3, 2008, H.Con.Res. 366 was introduced by
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and eight co-sponsors and
was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
On June 4, 2008 the resolution was discharged from the
Committee on Science and Technology and passed the House of
Representatives by voice vote under suspension of the rules. On
June 5, 2008 the resolution was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
3.10--H.CON.RES. 375, TO HONOR THE GOAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF
ASTRONOMY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Con.Res. 375 promotes the goal of the International Year
of Astronomy. The year 2009 represents the 400th Anniversary of
Galileo's astronomical use of the telescope and has been
designated the International Year of Astronomy (IYA) by the
United Nations and UNESCO.
Astronomy is one of the oldest basic sciences and
contributes fundamentally to the ultimate context of all other
sciences. Astronomical observations and discoveries have
profound implications for the development of science,
philosophy, culture, and our general conception of our place in
the Universe. Astronomy and astronomical discoveries continue
to capture the imagination of the American people.
The United States is the home of the most advanced
astronomical research in the world. The many creative programs
and activities planned in the United States for IYA 2009 are
strongly supported by the staff, missions, and observatories of
the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
Therefore, the resolution honors the goal of the
International Year of Astronomy to celebrate astronomical
discoveries, encourages the public to participate in IYA
celebrations and activities and discover more about the
Universe and the science of astronomy, and applauds the efforts
of the employees, centers, and laboratories of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation in promoting public understanding of the
astronomical sciences during the celebration of the
International Year of Astronomy.
Legislative History
On June 20, 2008, Representative Gabrielle Giffords
introduced H.Con.Res. 375, which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. On July 9, 2008 the
resolution was discharged from the House Committee on Science
and the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by
voice vote under suspension of the rules.
On July 10, 2008, the resolution was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. On July 31, 2008, the resolution was ordered
reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
3.11--H.RES. 59, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS
WEEK
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 59, the House of Representatives supports
the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week and its aims to
increase understanding of and interest in engineering and
technology careers and to promote literacy in math and science
and commits the House of Representatives to work with the
engineering community to make sure that the creativity and
contribution of that community can be expressed through
research, development, standardization, and innovation.
Legislative History
H.Res. 59 was introduced January 12, 2007 by Congressman
Lipinski and referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology. On January 24, 2007 the Committee on Science and
Technology considered H.Res. 59 and ordered it reported by
unanimous voice vote. On January 29, 2007, the resolution was
reported by the Committee on Science and Technology (H.Rept.
110-5) and placed on the House Calendar. On January 30, 2007,
the House considered H.Res. 59 under suspension of the rules
and on January 31, 2007 passed the resolution 417-0.
3.12--H.RES. 72, RECOGNIZING THE WORK AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF MR. BRITT
`MAX' MAYFIELD, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER'S TROPICAL
PREDICTION CENTER UPON HIS RETIREMENT
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 72, the House of Representatives honors Mr.
Britt `Max' Mayfield's commitment to improving the accuracy of
hurricane forecasting as Director of the National Hurricane
Center's Tropical Prediction Center, thanks Mr. Mayfield for
his service, commends Mr. Mayfield's dedication to expanding
educational opportunities for State and local emergency
management officials, acknowledges the critical role that Mr.
Mayfield has played in forecast and service improvements, and
recognizes the support and work of the staff of the National
Hurricane Center's Tropical Prediction Center during Mr.
Mayfield's tenure as Director of the Center.
Legislative History
H.Res. 72 was introduced on January 17, 2007 by Congressman
Mahoney and referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology. On January 31, 2007, the Committee marked up H.Res.
72 and ordered it reported by voice vote. On February 7, 2007,
the resolution was passed by the House of Representatives under
suspension of the rules.
3.13--H.RES. 252, RECOGNIZING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN HERSCHEL
GLENN, JR.'S HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT IN BECOMING THE FIRST UNITED STATES
ASTRONAUT TO ORBIT THE EARTH
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 252, the House of Representatives honors the
45th anniversary of John Herschel Glenn, Jr.'s landmark mission
piloting the first manned orbital mission of the United States
and recognizes the profound importance of John Glenn's
achievement as a catalyst to space exploration and scientific
advancement in the United States.
Legislative History
H.Res. 252 was introduced on March 15, 2007 by Congressman
Space and referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology. On March 28, 2007, the Committee on Science and
Technology marked up H.Res. 252 and ordered it reported by a
unanimous voice vote. On May 1, 2007, the House of
Representatives passed H.Res. 252 a voice vote under suspension
of the rules.
3.14--H.RES. 316, CONGRATULATING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ROGER D. KORNBERG,
ANDREW FIRE, CRAIG MELLO, JOHN C. MATHER, AND GEORGE F. SMOOT FOR BEING
AWARDED NOBEL PRIZES IN SCIENCE
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 316, the House of Representatives recognizes
Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather,
and George F. Smoot for advancing scientific discovery and
dedicating their careers to scientific research leading to
their being awarded Nobel Prizes in science and recognizes the
National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration for their support of the physics Nobel
Prize winners.
Legislative History
This resolution was introduced April 18, 2007 by
Congressman McNerney and referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On April 24, 2007, the Committee
considered H.R. 2007 and ordered it reported by voice vote. On
May 1, 2007 the House of Representatives passed the bill by
voice vote under suspension of the rules.
3.15--H.RES. 402, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF
NATIONAL HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 402, the House of Representatives supports
the goals and ideals of National Hurricane Preparedness Week;
encourages the staff of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, especially at the National Weather Service and
the National Hurricane Center, to continue their outstanding
work to educate people in the United States about hurricane
preparedness; and urges the people of the United States to
recognize such a week as an opportunity to learn more about the
work of the National Hurricane Center to forecast hurricanes
and to educate citizens about the potential risks associated
with hurricanes.
Legislative History
H.Res. 402 was introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart
on May 15, 2007 and was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On May 21, 2007 the resolution passed
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules.
3.16--H.RES. 421, HONORING THE TRAILBLAZING ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE
`MERCURY 13' WOMEN, WHOSE EFFORTS IN THE EARLY 1960S DEMONSTRATED THE
CAPABILITIES OF AMERICAN WOMEN TO UNDERTAKE THE HUMAN EXPLORATION OF
SPACE
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 421, the House of Representatives recognizes
and honors the contributions of Myrtle Cagle, Geraldyn `Jerrie'
Cobb, Jan Dietrich, Marion Dietrich, Mary Wallace `Wally' Funk,
Jane Briggs Hart, Jean Hixson, Gene Nora Stumbough Jessen,
Irene Leverton, Sarah Lee Gorelick Ratley, Bernice Trimble
Steadman, Geraldine `Jerri' Sloan Truhill, and Rhea Hurrle
Allison Woltman; and encourages young women to follow in the
footsteps of the Mercury 13 women and pursue careers of
excellence in aviation and astronautics, as well as in
engineering and science.
Legislative History
H.Res. 421 was introduced on May 21, 2007 and referred to
the House Committee on Science and Technology. On June 6, 2007,
the resolution passed the House of Representatives under
suspension of the rules.
3.17--H.RES. 446, HONORING THE LIFE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ASTRONAUT
WALTER MARTY SCHIRRA AND EXPRESSING CONDOLENCES ON HIS PASSING
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 446, the House of Representatives honors the
life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra and
expresses condolences on his passing and recognizes the
profound importance of Astronaut Schirra's record as a pioneer
in space exploration and long-time contributor to NASA's
mission as a catalyst to space exploration and scientific
advancement in the United States.
Legislative History
This resolution was introduced May 5, 2007 by Congressman
Kagen and was referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology. On June 6, 2007 the bill was passed by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules.
3.18--H.RES. 487, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF MODELING AND
SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY TO THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND RECOGNIZING MODELING AND SIMULATION AS A NATIONAL CRITICAL
TECHNOLOGY
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 487, the House of Representatives commends
those who have contributed to the modeling and simulation
efforts which have developed essential characteristics of our
nation; urges that, consistent with previous legislation passed
by this and previous Congresses, science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics remain key disciplines for primary
and secondary education; encourages the expansion of modeling
and simulation as a tool and subject within higher education;
recognizes modeling and simulation as a National Critical
Technology; affirms the need to study the national economic
impact of modeling and simulation; supports the development and
implementation of governmental classification codes that
include separate classification for modeling and simulation
occupations; and encourages the development and implementation
of ways to protect intellectual property of modeling and
simulation enterprises.
Legislative History
H.Res. 487 was introduced June 14, 2007 by Congressman
Randy Forbes and was referred to the House Committee on Science
and Technology. On June 22, 2007, H.Res. 487 was considered by
the Committee and ordered reported by a voice vote. On July 16,
2007 the resolution passed the House of Representatives by
voice vote.
3.19--H.RES. 593, CONGRATULATING SCIENTISTS F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND, MARIO
MOLINA, AND PAUL CRUTZEN FOR THEIR WORK IN ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY,
PARTICULARLY CONCERNING THE FORMATION AND DECOMPOSITION OF OZONE, THAT
LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT
DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 593, the House of Representatives
congratulates scientists F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and
Paul Crutzen for their work in atmospheric chemistry,
particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of
ozone,that led to the development of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; and encourages the
continued research of the interaction of humans and their
actions with the Earth's ecosystem.
Legislative History
H.Res. 593 was introduced by Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez
on July 17, 2007. On September 17, 2007, it passed the House of
Representatives by a voice vote.
3.20--H.RES. 716, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS 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
Background and Summary of the Legislation
The National Cyber Security Alliance has designated October
as National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Through H.Res. 716,
the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of
National Cyber Security Awareness Month including educating
United States citizens about computer security.
More than 200,000,000 American adults use the Internet in
the United States, 70 percent of whom connect through broadband
connections, to communicate with family and friends, manage
finances and pay bills, access educational opportunities, shop
at home, participate in online entertainment and games, and
stay informed of news and current events. United States small
businesses increasingly rely on the Internet to manage their
businesses, expand their customer reach, and enhance their
connection with their supply chain. Nearly 100 percent of
public schools in the United States have Internet access, with
a significant percentage of instructional rooms connected to
the Internet to enhance children's education by providing
access to educational online content and encouraging self-
initiative to discover research resources. The growth and
popularity of social networking websites has attracted millions
of teenagers, providing access to a range of valuable services,
making it all the more important to teach teenaged users how to
avoid potential threats like cyber bullies, predators, and
identity thieves they may come across while using such
services.
Cyber security is a critical part of the Nation's overall
homeland security. The Nation's critical infrastructures rely
on the secure and reliable operation of information networks to
support the Nation's financial services, energy,
telecommunications, transportation, health care, and emergency
response systems. Internet users and information infrastructure
holders face an increasing threat of malicious attacks through
viruses, worms, Trojans, and unwanted programs such as spyware,
adware, hacking tools, and password stealers, that are frequent
and fast in propagation, are costly to repair, and can cause
extensive economic harm. Coordination between the numerous
Federal agencies involved in cyber security efforts, including
the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and
others is essential to securing America's critical cyber
infrastructure.
Millions of records containing personally-identifiable
information have been lost, stolen or breached, threatening the
security and financial well-being of United States citizens, so
consumers face significant financial and personal privacy
losses due to identity theft and fraud.
Therefore, the Congress intends to work with federal
agencies, national organizations, businesses, and educational
institutions to encourage the voluntary development and use
implementation of existing and future computer security
voluntary consensus standards, practices, and technologies in
order to enhance the state of computer security in the United
States.
Legislative History
On October 9, 2007, Representative Langevin and nine co-
sponsors introduced H.Res. 716, which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. On October 16, 2007, the
bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and the
House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice vote
under suspension of the rules.
3.21--H.RES. 736, HONORING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AERONAUTICS
RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS EMBODIED IN ``THE BREAKING OF THE SOUND
BARRIER''
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 736, the House of Representatives recognizes
and honors the contributions of the scientists and engineers of
NACA and its partners who pioneered the technologies to enable
supersonic flight, recognizes and honors the bravery of Charles
Yeager, and the bravery of the many other test pilots who,
sometimes at the cost of their lives, enabled the aeronautics
developments that made that first supersonic flight possible;
and recognizes the importance of strong and robust aeronautics
research activities to the well being of America.
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and
its successor agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), developed and sustained the world's
preeminent aeronautics research program after NACA's formation
in 1915.
The speed of sound once presented a seemingly impenetrable
and dangerous barrier to piloted flight, leading NACA, the U.S.
Air Force, and Bell Aircraft to undertake a joint project to
develop and test the X-1 aircraft and achieve piloted
supersonic flight.
On the morning of October 14, 1947, an X-1 aircraft piloted
by Captain Charles `Chuck' Yeager was dropped from a B-29
carrier aircraft and `broke the sound barrier' and achieved
supersonic flight for the first time in history. This flight
provided proof of the feasibility of piloted supersonic flight,
and delivered the data required to improve high speed
performance and develop technologic accomplishments of the X-1
aircraft and achieved advances in a wide range of aeronautics
research areas.
Legislative History
On October 12, 2007, Representative Rohrabacher and nine
co-sponsors introduced H.Res. 736, which was referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On October 16, 2007,
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice
vote under suspension of the rules.
3.22--H.RES. 751, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CHEMISTRY
WEEK
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 751, the House of Representatives recognizes
that the important contributions of chemical scientists and
engineers to technological progress and the health of many
industries have created new jobs, boosted economic growth, and
improved the Nation's health and standard of living; recognizes
the need to increase the number of Americans from under-
represented groups participating in science and technology
fields like chemistry; and supports the goals of National
Chemistry Week as founded by the American Chemical Society; and
encourages the people of the United States to observe National
Chemistry Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies,
activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of
chemistry to our everyday lives.
Chemistry is a vitally important field of science and
technology that has transformed the world and enhanced and
improved the quality of life around the globe. The power of the
chemical sciences has created the enabling infrastructure that
delivers the foods, fuels, medicines and materials that are the
hallmarks of modern life. The contributions of chemical
scientists and engineers are central to technological progress
and to the health of many industries, including the chemical,
pharmaceutical, electronics, agricultural, automotive, and
aerospace sectors, and these contributions boost economic
growth, create new jobs, and improve our health and standard of
living. The American Chemical Society, the world's largest
scientific society, founded National Chemistry Week in 1987 to
educate the public, particularly school age children, about the
important role of chemistry in society and to enhance the
appreciation of the chemical sciences.
October 22, 2007 marks the 20th anniversary of National
Chemistry Week when more than 10,000 National Chemistry Week
volunteers from industry, government and academia reach and
educate millions of children through hands-on science
activities in local schools, libraries, and museums. The theme
of National Chemistry Week in 2007, `The Many Faces of
Chemistry,' was chosen to emphasize the extensive variety of
careers available in the world of chemistry and to honor the
tremendous diversity of people who have contributed and will
contribute to the advancement of chemistry and all of its
branches. In order to ensure our nation's global
competitiveness, our schools must cultivate the finest
scientists, engineers, and technicians from every background
and neighborhood in our society to create the innovations of
tomorrow that will keep our nation strong. Yet a
disproportionately low number of minority, underprivileged
female students are pursuing careers in science and technology,
and it is crucial that we focus attention on increasing the
participation of these under represented groups in science and
technology fields.
Legislative History
On October 16, 2007, Representative Reyes and 12 co-
sponsors introduced H.Res. 751, which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. On October 22, 2007, the
bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and the
House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice vote
under suspension of the rules.
3.23--H.RES. 891, CELEBRATING 35 YEARS OF SPACE-BASED OBSERVATIONS OF
THE EARTH BY THE LANDSAT SPACECRAFT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SUSTAINING
THE LONGEST UNBROKEN RECORD OF CIVIL EARTH OBSERVATIONS OF THE LAND
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 891, the House of Representatives expresses
its appreciation to all of the dedicated scientists, engineers,
and program personnel who have contributed to the successful
development and operation of the Landsat program over the past
35 years; looks forward to another 35 years of continuous
Landsat-like observations of the Earth; urges the continuation
of the Landsat program and data record so as to sustain
Landsat's value to scientific research, especially the study of
global and climate change, and to the myriad applied uses of
the data for societal benefit; and believes that the Nation
should continue to support the research, technological
improvements, educational outreach, and development of
decision-making tools required to expand the use of Landsat
data separately and as integrated with other Earth observations
data.
The year 2007 represents 35 years of continuous collection
of space-based observations of the Earth's land cover by the
United States Landsat satellites, which have enabled increased
scientific understanding of the interrelationships of the
Earth's land cover, energy balance, and biogeochemical
processes as well as the realization of numerous societal
benefits from the applied uses of the data. On July 23, 1972,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched
Landsat 1, originally called the Earth Resources Technology
Satellite, as the first civilian Earth observation satellite to
study the Earth's land cover and monitor natural resources.
Since 1972, the United States Geological Survey has led the
data archiving and distribution efforts for the Landsat
program, which has continued to collect data without
interruption through the successful launches of Landsats 2, 3,
4, 5, and 7, and has established the longest and most
comprehensive record of global land surface data ever
collected. Landsat greatly enhanced remote sensing science,
helped give rise to a global change research plan and
international initiatives to study the Earth system, and led to
new types of careers in engineering and natural sciences.
Landsat data have been used for multiple scientific and applied
purposes including cartography, land surveys and land use
planning, agricultural forecasting, water resource management,
forest management, mapping of sea ice movement, assessment of
tropical deforestation, food security, mineral and oil
exploration, and global change research. Landsat data are
collected at a scale that enables the study of both natural and
human-induced changes in land cover over time and their impacts
on the Earth's ecosystems. The U.S. Climate Change Science
Program has recognized Landsat and its long-term data record as
instrumental to the study of climate and environmental change,
noting that `Landsat data are invaluable for studying the land
surface and how it affects and is affected by climate.'
Legislative History
On December 18, 2007, Representative Mark Udall and three
other Members introduced H.Res. 891, which was referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On April 22, 2008
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice
vote under suspension of the rules.
3.24--H.RES. 907, CONGRATULATING THE X PRIZE FOUNDATION'S LEADERSHIP IN
INSPIRING A NEW GENERATION OF VIABLE, SUPER-EFFICIENT VEHICLES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
H.Res. 907 congratulates the X PRIZE Foundation's
leadership for inspiring a new generation of viable, super-
efficient vehicles that help break our addiction to oil through
the Automotive X PRIZE competition, congratulates the X PRIZE
Foundation on their innovation and vision to bring together
some of the finest minds in the public and private sectors,
including government, academia, and industry, to advise and
participate in the Automotive X PRIZE competition, and applauds
the X PRIZE Foundation's ongoing commitment to find solutions
to some of humanity's greatest challenges as exemplified in the
Automotive X PRIZE.
The United States is heavily dependent on foreign sources
of oil that are concentrated in tumultuous countries and
regions. The national security and economic prosperity of the
United States demand that we move toward a sustainable energy
future. The ability of foreign governments to assert great
control over oil production allows unfriendly regimes to use
energy exports as leverage against the United States and our
allies. The continued reliance on the use of greenhouse gas
intensive fuels may impact global climate change. The
automotive sector is heavily dependent on oil, which makes
Americans vulnerable to oil price fluctuation and is a major
source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Many promising technologies exist that can lead to a
breakthrough vehicle that will meet the need for sustainable
transportation. The breakthroughs are often achieved by the
free market fueling the entrepreneurial spirit of inventors and
investors. The Automotive X PRIZE is a private, independent,
technology-neutral competition being developed by the X PRIZE
Foundation to inspire a new generation of viable, super-
efficient vehicles that help break our addiction to oil and
stem the effects of climate change. The Automotive X PRIZE will
award a multi-million dollar reward to teams that can design,
build, and demonstrate production-capable vehicles that achieve
100 MPG or its equivalent.
Legislative History
On December 19, 2007, Representative Dan Lungren and two
co-sponsors introduced H.Res. 907, which was referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On February 6, 2008
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice
vote under suspension of the rules.
3.25--H.RES. 917, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS
WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 917, the House of Representatives supports
the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week and its aim to
increase understanding of and interest in engineering and
technology careers and to promote literacy in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics and will work with the
engineering community to make sure that the creativity and
contribution of that community can be expressed through
research, development, standardization, and innovation.
The National Engineers Week has grown into a formal
coalition of more than 75 professional societies, major
corporations, and government agencies, dedicated to ensuring a
diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce by
increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and
technology careers among all young students, by promoting pre-
college literacy in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM), and raising public understanding and
appreciation of engineers' contributions to society.
The February 17-23, 2008, has been designated by the
President as National Engineers Week and the theme is
`Engineers Make a World of Difference.' The National Engineers
Week, which was founded in 1951 by the National Society of
Professional Engineers, is among the oldest of America's
professional outreach efforts. The National Engineers Week is
celebrated during the week of George Washington's birthday to
honor the contributions that our first President, a military
engineer and land surveyor, made to engineering. The during
National Engineers Week, more than 45,000 engineers connect
with some 5,500,000 students and teachers in kindergarten
through high school as they help students and teachers
determine practical applications of their academics and help
students discover that STEM subjects can be fun.
Engineers have helped meet the major technological
challenges of our time--from rebuilding towns devastated by
natural disasters to designing an information superhighway that
will speed our country into the future. Engineers are a crucial
link in research, development, and demonstration in
transforming scientific discoveries into useful products, and
we will look more than ever to engineers and their knowledge
and skills to meet the challenges of the future. Engineers play
a crucial role in developing the consensus engineering
standards that permit modern economies and societies to exist.
The 2006 National Academy of Sciences report entitled `Rising
Above the Gathering Storm' highlighted the worrisome trend that
fewer students are now focusing on engineering in college at a
time when increasing numbers of today's 2,000,000 United States
engineers are nearing retirement.
Legislative History
H.Res. 917 was introduced on January 15, 2008 by
Representative Lipinski and 19 co-sponsors and referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On February 13,
2008, the Committee on Science and Technology was discharged
from further consideration of the resolution and H.Res. 917 was
passed the House of Representatives under suspension of the
rules by a vote of 408-0.
3.26--H.RES. 943, REMEMBERING THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER DISASTER AND
HONORING ITS CREW MEMBERS, WHO LOST THEIR LIVES ON JANUARY 28, 1986
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 943, the House of Representatives honors the
22nd anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster,
celebrates the courage and bravery of the crew of the
Challenger, and Christa McAuliffe and her passion for
encouraging America's children to pursue careers in science and
mathematics, commits itself and the Nation to using the lessons
learned in inquiries into the Space Shuttle Challenger accident
to ensure that the space agency always operates on a strong and
stable foundation, and recognizes the continued dedication of
the United States to the goal of space exploration for the
benefit of all mankind.
January 28, 2008, marks the 22-year anniversary of the
tragic accident of the Space Shuttle Challenger, Mission 51-L,
and the loss of seven of America's bravest and most dedicated
citizens. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred off
the coast of central Florida, at 11:39 a.m. on January 28,
1986. The Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds
into its flight after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket
booster failed at lift-off. The seven-person crew on the
Shuttle included Commander Francis R. Scobee, Pilot Michael J.
Smith, Mission Specialist Judith A. Resnik, Mission Specialist
Ellison S. Onizuka, Mission Specialist Ronald E. McNair,
Payload Specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, and Payload Specialist
Sharon Christa McAuliffe. Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher
from Concord, New Hampshire, was on board as the first member
in the Teacher in Space Project. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) selected Christa McAuliffe from a
field of 11,000 applicants to be a part of the Challenger crew
and teach lessons to school children from space. The Committee
on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives
conducted oversight hearings on the Challenger disaster and
released a report on October 29, 1986, on the causes of the
accident. The House of Representatives continues to support
NASA and its ongoing efforts to explore and educate the
American public about space.
Legislative History
On January 28, 2008, Representative Hodes and sixty co-
sponsors introduced H.Res. 943, which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. On February 6, 2008 the
bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and the
House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice vote
under suspension of the rules.
3.27--H.RES. 966, HONORING AFRICAN AMERICAN INVENTORS, PAST AND
PRESENT, FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP, COURAGE, AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS
TO OUR NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 966, the United States House of
Representatives recognizes and appreciates the significant
achievements to our national research enterprise made by
African-American and other minority scientists, technologists,
engineers, and mathematicians; honors and extends its
appreciation and gratitude toward all African-American
inventors, for the significant and honorable research and
educational contributions that improve the lives of all
citizens and that have gone unacknowledged too long; and looks
for opportunities to make sure that the creativity and
contribution of minority scientists, technologists, engineers,
and mathematicians can be expressed through research,
development, standardization, and innovation.
The African-American and other minority scientists,
technologists, engineers, and mathematicians have made
significant achievements in our national research enterprise
and inspired future generations. The National Society of Black
Engineers (NSBE) lifts up African-American researchers of the
past and present, including special contributors named in this
Resolution.
Garrett Augustus Morgan made outstanding contributions to
public safety. The firefighters in the early 1900s wore the
safety helmets and gas masks that he invented, and for which he
was awarded a gold medal at the Second International Exposition
of Safety and Sanitation in New York in 1914. Two years later,
he himself used the mask to rescue men trapped by a gas
explosion in a tunnel being constructed under Lake Erie.
Following the disaster which took 21 lives, the City of
Cleveland honored him with a gold medal for his heroic efforts.
In 1923, he received a patent for a traffic signal to regulate
vehicle movement in city areas, and this device was a direct
precursor to the modern traffic light in use today.
Ernest Everett Just was a trailblazer in the fields of cell
biology and zoology. His research and papers on marine biology
were so well received in 1915 that Ernest Everett Just was
awarded the first Spingarn Medal by the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People at age 32. Ernest Everett
Just dedicated years of research toward the study of cells and
cell structures in order to understand and find cures for
cellular irregularities and diseases such as sickle cell anemia
and cancer and became one of the most respected scientists in
his field. Racial bigotry in the United States caused much of
his work and his achievements to go unrewarded. In other
countries, he was treated as a pioneer and was recruited to
work with Russian scientists and invited to be a guest
researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology, the
world's greatest scientific research laboratory at the time. He
was welcomed at the Naples Zoological Station in Italy and the
Sorbonne in France, where he conducted research and was
regarded as one of the most outstanding zoologists of his time.
Archibald Alphonso Alexander excelled in design and
construction engineering. Employed by the Marsh Engineering
Company, he designed the Tidal Basin bridge in Washington, DC.
After studying bridge design in London, Archibald Alphonso
Alexander and George Higbee formed a general contracting
business that focused on bridge design. His designs include
Washington, DC's Whitehurst Freeway, the heating plant and
power station at the University of Iowa, and an airfield in
Tuskegee, Alabama. He went on to become the first Republican
territorial governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
David Nelson Crosthwait Jr. made significant and practical
contributions to the engineering of heating and cooling
systems. He held numerous patents relating to heat transfer,
ventilation, and air conditioning, the areas in which he was
considered an expert. David Nelson Crosthwait Jr. served as
Director of research laboratories for C.A. Dunham Company in
Marshalltown, Iowa, where he served as technical advisor from
1930 to 1970. He designed the heating systems for Radio City
Music Hall and Rockefeller Center in New York City and authored
texts and guides on heating and cooling with water. During the
1920s and 1930s, he invented an improved boiler, a new
thermostat control, and a new differential vacuum pump to
improve the heating systems in larger buildings.
African-American innovators continue to improve the daily
lives of Americans through their inventions and stir the
creative spirit of future generations.
Legislative History
On February 7, 2008, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
and 19 co-sponsors introduced H.Res. 966, which was referred to
the House Committee on Science and Technology. On February 13,
2008 the bill was discharged from the House Committee on
Science and the House of Representatives considered the
resolution under suspension of the rules. On February 14, 2008,
the resolution passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
387-0.
3.28--H.RES. 1112, RECOGNIZING 2008 AS THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE
REEF
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1112, United States House of Representatives
recognizes the International Year of the Reef; supports strong
programs in environmental and marine research at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal
agencies to better understand the threats faced by coral reef
systems; supports the efforts of the International Coral Reef
Initiative to promote public awareness and encourage public
stewardship of the world's coral reefs; and encourages further
research and development efforts to preserve coral reefs around
the world.
The International Coral Reef Initiative has designated 2008
as the International Year of the Reef. The International Year
of the Reef is a global effort to raise public awareness of the
value of coral reefs and the significance of the threats faced
by coral reef systems, and to mobilize action to develop and
implement innovative solutions and strategies to protect and
conserve these important natural resources.
Over 225 organizations in 50 countries and territories
participated during the first International Year of the Reef in
1997. Coral reef systems provide economic, environmental, and
cultural benefits to millions of people around the world and
are vital in protecting shorelines and supporting coastal
economies. Coral reef systems are the most diverse ecosystem on
earth, supporting at least 1,000,000 known species of plants
and animals and 25 percent of all marine life. Over 50 percent
of all federally managed fisheries species in the U.S. depend
upon coral reefs for part of their life cycle. Coral reef
systems provide for one-fourth of the total fish catch in the
developing world. Coral reefs around the world are confronted
by many grave threats, including destructive fishing methods,
damage by marine vessels and divers, development, pollution,
ocean acidification, increasing sea temperatures, bleaching,
and invasive species. Increased public awareness, as well as
public and private investment, can prevent the further
degradation of the world's coral reef systems in order to
preserve this precious resource for future generations:.
Legislative History
On April 16, 2008, Representative Brian Baird and five co-
sponsors introduced H.Res. 1112, which was referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On April 22, 2008
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice
vote under suspension of the rules.
3.29--H.RES. 1117, DECLARING THE SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF EARTH DAY AND FOR
DEVELOPING THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES TO ACHIEVE
THOSE GOALS
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1117, the House of Representatives supports
the goals and ideals of Earth Day and thanks the many
organizers and participants across the country for their
tireless efforts in support of the environment; encourages the
Department of Energy to step up its efforts in research,
development, and demonstration of renewable energy technology
and energy conservation techniques; and encourages all segments
of American society to work together in ensuring that the
research and development necessary to uncover solutions to our
major environmental problems occurs in a timely manner.
The need to educate Americans on the importance of
stewardship of the environment led to the first Earth Day in
1970, the passage of a variety of environmental laws, and
substantial environmental improvements over the intervening
years. Substantial air quality and other environmental problems
persist in many areas of our country. Today increasing numbers
of Americans are concerned with the relatively rapid changes in
our environment and decreasing biodiversity. The need to
improve our interaction with the environment has led to the
need for more sophisticated environmental research and
development of solutions to environmental problems. Today the
importance of scientific evidence in making correct decisions
about environmental problems has never been more important.
Earth Day activities increase our understanding of the
environment and its relationship to our personal decisions
regarding energy conservation, use of renewable energy, use of
natural resources, and recycling. Earth Day has become the
preeminent day of environmental celebrations, clean-ups, and
educational events across the country:
Legislative History
On April 17, 2008, Representative Jerry McNerney introduced
H.Res. 1117, which was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On April 22, 2008 the bill was
discharged from the House Committee on Science and the House of
Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice vote under
suspension of the rules.
3.30--H.RES. 1118, HONORING THE LIFE AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF JOHN ARCHIBALD
WHEELER AND EXPRESSING CONDOLENCES ON HIS PASSING
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1119, the House of Representatives honors
the life and accomplishments of Professor John Archibald
Wheeler and expresses condolences on his passing and recognizes
the profound importance of Dr. Wheeler's record as a pioneer in
nuclear and theoretical physics and a long-time contributor to
advancing mankind's understanding of the nature and workings of
the universe.
John Archibald Wheeler was born July 9, 1911, in
Jacksonville, Florida, graduated from high school at age 15,
and earned a Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins University at
age 21. He then moved to Copenhagen to work in the field of
nuclear physics with pioneering physicist Niels Bohr. While
still in his 20s, Dr. Wheeler, then a Professor of Physics at
Princeton, along with Dr. Bohr in 1939 worked out the first
explanation of how the newly discovered nuclear fission
actually worked. He spent the war years at Hanford, Washington
working on the theoretical understanding of nuclear reactions
that led to production of plutonium for the bomb dropped on
Nagasaki and later worked on the development of the American
hydrogen bomb under Project Matterhorn B. He then returned to
Princeton where, after discussion with Albert Einstein, he
switched from the study of nuclear physics to working on
extending the theory of general relativity, including in 1957
creating the concept of wormholes to describe tunnels in space-
time and in 1967 coining the term black hole as part of the
theory of gravitational waves. Dr. Wheeler was a visionary who
could see farther on the horizon than most people by way of his
physical intuition. Dr. Wheeler was a beloved academic who
trained some of the best minds in the next generation of
physicists, a gifted communicator sometimes called a physics
poet, and an active researcher for over 70 years. Dr. Wheeler
was, in the words of Dr. Max Texmark, the last Titan, the only
physics superhero still standing until the time of his death on
April 13, 2008.
Legislative History
On April 17, 2008, Representative Bill Foster introduced
H.Res. 1118, which was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On June 4, 2008, the bill was
discharged from the House Committee on Science and the House of
Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice vote under
suspension of the rules.
3.31--H.RES. 1180, RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
OF OUTSTANDING WOMEN SCIENTISTS, TECHNOLOGISTS, ENGINEERS, AND
MATHEMATICIANS IN THE UNITED STATES AND AROUND THE WORLD
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1180, the House of Representatives
recognizes the important contributions of women to science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and the health of many
industries that have created new jobs, boosted economic growth,
and improved the Nation's competitiveness and standard of
living, recognizes the need to increase the number of women
participating in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, supports the role of women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, and encourages the people of the
United States to give appropriate recognition to women
scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians who
have made important contributions to our everyday lives.
While women have been vitally important to the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and have
transformed the world and enhanced and improved the quality of
life around the globe, a disproportionately low number of
female students are pursuing careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, and it is crucial that we focus
attention on increasing the participation of women. Our schools
must continue to cultivate female scientists, technologists,
engineers, and mathematicians from every background and
neighborhood in our society to create the innovations of
tomorrow that will keep our nation strong. There is a need to
encourage industry, government, and academia to reach and
educate millions of children on the important contributions
women have made to science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.It is important to emphasize the extensive variety
of careers available in the world of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics and to honor the tremendous women
that have contributed and will contribute to the advancement of
knowledge in these disciplines.
Legislative History
Representative David Reichert and three co-sponsors
introduced H.Res. 1180 on May 7, 2008, which was referred to
the House Committee on Science and Technology. On June 4, 2008,
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by voice
vote under suspension of the rules.
3.32--H.RES. 1312, COMMEMORATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SPACE
FOUNDATION
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1312, the House of Representatives
recognizes the contributions made by the Space Foundation and
commemorates the Space Foundation's 25 years of excellence and
support to the Nation.
On March 21, 1983, the United States Space Foundation was
founded by a small group of pioneering individuals in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. The Space Foundation has become the leading
nonprofit organization advancing the exploration, development,
and use of space and space education for the benefit of all
humankind. The Space Foundation embraces all aspects of space
including commercial, civil, and national security. The Space
Foundation has contributed to space education programs in all
50 States and also in Europe and Asia. The Space Foundation is
regarded internationally as a leading space advocacy
organization, and is a member of the United States Delegation
to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space. The Space Foundation hosts the National Space Symposium
and Strategic Space and Defense, two of the top conferences for
space professionals.
Legislative History
Representative Doug Lamborn and three co-sponsors
introduced H.Res. 1312, which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology on June 26, 2008. On July
9, 2008 the bill was discharged from the House Committee on
Science and the House of Representatives agreed to the
resolution by unanimous consent under suspension of the rules.
3.33--H.RES. 1313, CELEBRATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST
AMERICAN WOMAN IN SPACE, DR. SALLY K. RIDE, AND HONORING HER
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SPACE PROGRAM AND TO SCIENCE EDUCATION
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1313, the House of Representatives
celebrates the 25th anniversary of Dr. Sally K. Ride as the
first American woman in space and extends its appreciation and
gratitude for Dr. Ride's excellence in service to the Nation as
an astronaut, educator, and advocate for the next generation of
women scientists and engineers.
Sally K. Ride of Los Angeles, California, a physicist by
training and an accomplished athlete, was selected as a
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronaut
candidate in 1978, as part of the eighth class of NASA
astronauts and one of only six women in the class. June 18,
1983, Dr. Ride was lofted into space aboard the Space Shuttle
Challenger as part of the STS-7 crew, making her the first
American woman in space. October 5, 1984, Dr. Ride made her
second space flight as a mission specialist on STS 41-G, a
mission that demonstrated the ability to refuel satellites in
orbit and launched NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Satellite,
which spent over 20 years providing valuable scientific data on
the Earth's absorption and re-radiation of solar energy. When
training for Dr. Ride's third space flight assignment ceased
after the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger and her
crew. In 1986, Dr. Ride was called to serve on the Presidential
Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident.
As an educator, author of children's books, and advocate
for the next generation of women in science, mathematics, and
technology, Dr. Ride's work has contributed to the wellbeing of
our youth. Dr. Ride has worked tirelessly and passionately to
encourage young women to follow the sciences, mathematics, and
technology by promoting science festivals, camps, and other
opportunities through which young women can acquire hands-on
learning about science.
Legislative History
On June 26, 2008 Representative Nick Lampson and three co-
sponsors introduced H.Res. 1312 which was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. On July 9, 2008 the bill
was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
considered under suspension of the rules. On July 10, 2008, the
House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by a voice
vote.
3.34--H.RES. 1315, COMMEMORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1315, the House of Representatives honors
the men and women of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary,
acknowledges the value of NASA's discoveries and
accomplishments, and pledges to maintain America's position as
the world leader in aeronautics and space exploration and
technology.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was
established on July 29, 1958. On May 5, 1961, NASA successfully
launched America's first manned spacecraft, Freedom 7, piloted
by Alan B. Shepard, Jr. In July of 1969 President John
Kennedy's vision of landing a man on the moon and returning him
safely to Earth was realized with the Apollo 11 mission,
commanded by Neil A. Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin `Buzz'
Aldrin, Jr., and Command Module pilot Michael Collins. On April
12, 1981, NASA began a new era of human space flight and
exploration with the launch of the first Space Shuttle
Columbia, commanded by John W. Young and piloted by Robert L.
`Bob' Crippen.
NASA has also greatly expanded our knowledge and
understanding of our planet and solar system through various
unmanned vehicles utilized on numerous missions, NASA space
probes have landed on or flown by eight of the planets in our
solar system.
The work done by NASA has expanded the scope of human
knowledge, created new technologies, and inspired young men and
women to enter scientific and engineering careers. NASA now
serves as a model for international cooperation and American
leadership through the International Space Station and other
scientific endeavors. Thanks to NASA and the far-reaching gaze
of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have seen further into our
universe than ever before. The aeronautics research by NASA has
led to great discoveries and advances in aircraft design and
aviation.
Legislative History
Representative McCaul and 27 co-sponsors introduced H.Res.
1315 on June 26, 2008 and the resolution was referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. On July 9, 2008 the
bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
considered under suspension of the rules. On July 10, 2008, the
House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by a voice
vote.
3.35--H.RES. 1390, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A 4-H
NATIONAL YOUTH SCIENCE DAY
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1390, the House of Representatives expresses
support for the designation of a 4-H National Youth Science
Day, requests that the President issue a proclamation calling
upon the people of the United States to observe 4-H National
Youth Science Day, encourages the people of the United States
to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities,
and encourages young people of all ages and backgrounds to
pursue science studies and enter into science careers.
Despite the need for science education, especially outside
the classroom, being crucial to our country's ability to remain
globally competitive, barely 18 percent of 12th grade students
perform at or above the proficient level in science. Today only
32.4 percent of undergraduates in the United States are leaving
college with a Bachelor's degree in science or engineering,
compared to 63.3 percent in Japan, 62.1 percent in Germany, and
56.2 percent in China. Current scientists and engineers are
retiring in record numbers, creating a potentially large void
of skilled workers. American businesses will have difficulty
staffing for our science- and technology-driven global economy
unless they have a workforce that has been trained in
scientific fields.
4-H and other out-of-school programs that focus on science,
engineering and technology are an important part of educating
and developing leaders who are well-trained and technically
competent. 4-H is preparing America's future workforce by
developing their passion for science, engineering, and
technology at an early age. 4-H's educational programs have an
unparalleled reach of more than 6,000,000 youth in all 50
States. 4-H, in partnership with more than 106 land-grant
universities, shapes programs in the sciences that are
important to today's workforce and critical for managing the
world's resources for years to come. Youth, parents, teachers,
schools, and youth organizations have the ability to
participate in fun, accessible, science-related activities that
encourage youth exploration and experimentation at an early
age. This makes October 8, 2008 an appropriate day to designate
as 4-H National Youth Science Day.
Legislative History
Representative Cardoza and nine co-sponsors introduced
H.Res. 1390, which was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on July 30, 2008. On September 22, 2008
the bill was discharged from the House Committee on Science and
the House of Representatives agreed to the resolution by
unanimous consent under suspension of the rules.
3.36--H.RES. 1466, HONORING DR. GUION S. ``GUY'' BLUFORD, JR., AND THE
25TH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS HISTORIC FLIGHT AS THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN
IN SPACE
Background and Summary of the Legislation
Through H.Res. 1466, the House of Representatives salutes
the 25th anniversary of the pioneering accomplishments of Dr.
Guion `Guy' S. Bluford, Jr. as the first African-American in
space and extends its gratitude and deep appreciation for Dr.
Bluford's dedication, commitment, and excellence as an
astronaut and a leader in support of the Nation's space
program.
Born in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Guion S. `Guy'
Bluford, Jr., was trained as an aerospace engineer and an Air
Force pilot, conducted several combat missions, logged over
5,000 hours on numerous aircraft, conducted scientific research
on computational fluid dynamics, and became a National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronaut in 1979.
In the early morning hours of August 30, 1983, Dr. Bluford
became the first African-American to enter outer space as a
crew member of the STS-8 Space Shuttle mission. Dr. Bluford's
pioneering STS-8 flight was the first mission to both launch
and land at night. This mission successfully deployed a
satellite, tested operations of the Shuttle's robotic arm, and
released Getaway Special canisters to support science
experiments.
On October 30, 1985, Dr. Bluford launched again with the
crew of STS 61-A, the first Shuttle crew to include eight
members, to conduct the United States-German cooperative D-1
Spacelab mission that was dedicated to advancing our
understanding of the human vestibular and orientation systems
and to conducting microgravity research in materials science,
life sciences, and communication and navigation. Dr. Bluford
went on to successfully complete two additional Shuttle
missions with the Space Shuttle Discovery's launch of the STS-
39 on April 28, 1991, and the STS-53 on December 2, 1992.
Among his other technical assignments, Dr. Bluford worked
on Space Shuttle systems, the Shuttle robotic arm, payload
safety and flight software verification in the Shuttle Avionics
Integration Laboratory and the Flight Systems Laboratory, and
on Spacelab systems and experiments. In remarking on his
pioneering role as the first African-American in space, Dr.
Bluford recounted, `I wanted to set the standard, do the best
job possible so that other people would be comfortable with
African-Americans in space and African-Americans would be proud
of being participants in the space program . . . and encourage
others to do the same.' In 1993, Dr. Bluford left NASA and
retired as a Colonel in the Air Force to continue his
distinguished service to the United States space program
through leadership positions in private industry and space-
related organizations.
Legislative History
Representative Donna Edwards introduced H.Res. 1466 which
was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology
on September 21, 2008. On September 22, 2008 the bill was
discharged from the House Committee on Science and the House of
Representatives agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent
under suspension of the rules.
3.37--H.RES. 1471, HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUCCESSFUL
DEMONSTRATION OF THE FIRST INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Background and Summary of the Legislation
The House of Representatives, through H.Res. 1471,
recognizes and honors the research and development efforts of
Jack Kilby and his contemporaries, who by inventing and
perfecting the integrated circuit brought us modern electronics
and changed the world and recognizes the importance of
continued advancements in electronics to the well-being of
America.
In May 1958 Jack St. Clair Kilby joined Texas Instruments
because it was the only company that would permit him to work
full-time on miniaturization of electronics. Just four months
later on September 12, 1958, Jack Kilby demonstrated the first
integrated circuit by combining a transistor, several
resistors, and a capacitor on a half inch piece of germanium in
an attempt to reduce transistor costs. Jack Kilby spent his
career at Texas Instruments, a productive engineering career
that resulted in over 60 patents and seminal inventions,
including the electronic calculator. Jack Kilby received the
National Medal of Science in 1969 and the National Medal of
Technology in 1990, and shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in
2000, for his invention of and contributions to the development
of the integrated circuit. During Kilby's lifetime integrated
circuits provided a million fold decrease in the costs of
electronics. Kilby's achievement revolutionized electronics and
permitted it to grow to over $1,500,000,000,000 in annual sales
worldwide.
The integrated circuit revolutionized computing and made
possible getting a man to the Moon and modern space exploration
and led to a revolution in communications, transportation, and
medical industries. The future will inevitably bring equally
far-reaching integrated circuit-based advances in many fields.
Legislative History
Representative Ralph Hall introduced H.Res. 1312, which was
referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on
September 22, 2008. On that same day, the bill was discharged
from the House Committee on Science and the House of
Representatives agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent
under suspension of the rules.
CHAPTER IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science and Technology, Including Selected Subcommittee
Legislative Activities
4.1--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
4.1(a)_The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The Findings
of the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I Report
February 8, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-2
Background
On February 8, 2007, the Committee on Science and
Technology held a hearing entitled ``The State of Climate
Change Science 2007: the Findings of the Fourth Assessment
Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group I Report.'' The report presents a comprehensive
appraisal of the current state of scientific knowledge of
climate change.
The Committee received testimony from: (1) the Honorable
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House for the United States
House of Representatives; (2) Dr. Susan Solomon of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Co-Chair of
Working Group I of the IPCC; (3) Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
coordinating lead author for Chapter 3 of the Working Group I
Report of the 2007 IPCC assessment; (4) Dr. Richard Alley,
Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Pennsylvania
State University and the lead author for Chapter 4 of the
Working Group I Report of the 2007 IPCC assessment; and (5) Dr.
Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) and coordinating lead author for Chapter 10 of the
Working Group I Report of the 2007 IPCC assessment.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon (D-TN) began the hearing by emphasizing
that the IPCC report provides overwhelming evidence that global
warming is real and that human activity is driving this change.
Armed with this evidence, policy-makers need to reduce
emissions, adapt to coming changes, and mitigate the negative
effects of a changing climate. Gordon identified the need for
technologies to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.
He also stressed that the Nation needs continued scientific
research and better, more refined regional assessments to
understand the climatic vulnerabilities of communities,
ecosystems, and our economy.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) recognized that climate change
is an important issue, yet he is skeptical that the Nation
needs mandatory regulation of greenhouse gases. His skepticism
stems from the concern that a rise in natural gas prices will
result in the Nation's factories closing, layoffs, and an
unknown, but potentially significant, cost to the economy.
These concerns are augmented by whether other countries are
willing to reduce their own emissions.
Before the first panel, Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
raised a parliamentary inquiry asking whether or not the first
panel witness, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would be questioned
under the five-minute rule. Chairman Gordon sought to excuse
Speaker Pelosi after her opening remarks, and asked for
unanimous consent. Mr. Sensenbrenner objected.
Speaker Pelosi testified that successful mitigation of
global warming cannot occur without mandatory greenhouse gas
reduction. This action will drive both energy technology
development and job growth. In addition to restrictions on
greenhouse gas emissions, Pelosi also recognized the Nation
needs to address land use policies and collaborate with other
countries, like India and China, on these issues. Finally
Pelosi announced that Committee Chairs are developing
legislation for an energy independence and global warming
package and that the House has created a Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming.
During the Second panel, the Committee heard from four
witnesses who were involved in the preparation of the Working
Group I Report. The witnesses presented the findings of the
report and discussed the relationship between the current
findings and those of past IPCC reports on the state of climate
change science.
Dr. Solomon, Co-Chair of Working Group I, discussed the
history of greenhouse gas levels, which have increased
remarkably from 1750 causing an increase to global average
temperature. She explained that with continued emissions we can
expect more heavy rain, more droughts, more heat waves, and
more sea level rise. She noted the report's contents and
conclusions were reached by consensus with hundreds of
scientists including many of the next generation of climatic
researchers.
Dr. Trenberth testified on surface and atmospheric climate
change. He asserted that warming is unequivocal, evidenced, for
example, by a rise in global surface temperatures, subsurface
sea temperatures, extreme weather events and sea level, and a
decrease in glacial cover, arctic sea ice and northern
hemisphere snow extent.
Dr. Alley testified on changes in snow, ice, and frozen
ground in response to climate change. With widespread melting,
he explained that the dynamics of these ice masses is
uncertain. New factors are being explored, for example the
effect of liquid water underlying a glacier quickening its pace
outward.
Dr. Meehl testified on the models that were used to form
the report's predictions. These large, open access models
simulated different emission and stabilization scenarios.
The Members asked about the melting rate of the large ice
masses, including the polar ice sheets. The witnesses testified
that by the end of the century there will be an ice free
arctic, however the specifics of the melt are hard to model
given so much uncertainty with large ice flow dynamics. Members
also asked about changes in CO2 levels. The amount
of CO2 has increased from a recent historical
average of 270 parts per million to 380 parts per million. The
witnesses explained the isotopic composition of atmospheric
carbon is evidence for the anthropomorphic causes of this
change.
4.1(b)_National Imperatives for Earth and Climate Science
Research and Applications Investments Over the Next Decade
February 13, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-3
Background
On Tuesday, February 13, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the findings and recommendations of the
National Academies report, ``Earth Science and Applications
from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
Beyond,'' also known as the Decadal Survey.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Richard Anthes,
President, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR); (2) Dr. Berrien Moore, Professor and Director of the
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University
of New Hampshire; (3) the Honorable James Geringer, Director of
Policy, Environmental Systems Research Institute in Wyoming and
former Governor of Wyoming.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by referring to the
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He stressed the need for a robust system of environmental
satellites to ensure sufficient and correct climate change
data. Ranking Member Hall agreed with Mr. Gordon about the
importance of federal planning and funding to ensure the
success of future Earth-observing missions and stressed the
value in monitoring and measuring drought conditions. He
expressed his support for the Decadal Survey, though he was
concerned about implementing recommendations in light of budget
constraints.
Dr. Anthes argued that the capability of the Earth
observation program will dramatically diminish over the next
five to ten years. He explained that a lack of funding for the
program will result in a decline in the quality of Earth
Science research, which will in turn decrease the accuracy of
weather forecasts and warnings. He described the UCAR
recommended plan to undertake 17 new NASA and NOAA missions to
address climate change science.
Dr. Moore explained that the NASA Earth Science budget has
declined by a third since the year 2000. He suggested that NASA
invest $10 million per year per mission in order to begin to
implement the Decadal Survey. He also listed some of the
potential benefits from increasing funding, such as monitoring
faults and crustal movements, climate predictions, and urban
pollution management.
Mr. Geringer addressed the drought situation in the western
states, and pointed out that it is more economical to invest in
satellites and observation information to lessen the effects of
a drought than to spend even more federal dollars in drought
assistance after the fact. He predicted that the decline in our
Earth observation capability will lead to a decline in our
competitiveness and harm several aspects of the Nation's
agriculture.
During the discussion period, Chairman Gordon received
further explanation of the witnesses' endorsements of the
proposed 17 replacement missions. Mr. Geringer offered his
suggestions for funding priorities in addressing the Decadal
Survey. The witnesses elaborated on the importance of
comprehensive Earth observing data to assessing and treat both
regional and global climate challenges as well as ethanol and
agricultural production. They explained details of the Decadal
Survey recommendations and the use of NPOESS climate study
instruments. The rest of the discussion focused on recent
weather and natural disaster activity, gaps in data records,
remote sensing, and America's relationship to the international
observation technology community.
4.1(c)_The Administration's Fiscal Year 2008 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
February 14, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-5
Background
On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to consider the Administration's proposal for FY 2008
research and development (R&D) funding. The only witness was
Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy and Co-Chair of the President's Committee
of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon expressed disappointment at the proposed
decrease in funding for K-12 education programs at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and suggested that the
Administration's science and math education priorities were
misplaced. He also expressed concern about the proposed cuts to
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Advanced Technology
Program at NIST and to the Industrial Technologies Program at
DOE. He did praise the increase for DOE's Office of Science.
Ranking Member Hall praised the Administration's budget
proposal overall, but suggested that the proposed increase for
NASA may not be sufficient to achieve the goal of a 2014 launch
date for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Dr. Marburger presented highlights of the Administration's
FY 2008 R&D budget proposal, including the overall increases
provided for NSF, DOE's Office of Science and NIST under the
American Competitiveness Initiative. During the question and
answer portion of the hearing, Dr. Marburger answered Committee
questions about: K-12 science and math education priorities;
funding for Earth sciences and aeronautics research at NASA;
funding for NASA's exploration mission; status of fusion
research and facilities at DOE; health risks research under the
nanotechnology initiative; funding for renewable energy
research, in particular biofuels research at DOE; and a number
of other budget and policy issues across the R&D agencies.
4.1(d)_Science and Technology Leadership in a 21st Century
Global Economy
March 13, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-10
Background
On Tuesday, March 13, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to receive testimony on the critical importance of
science and technology to our nation's prosperity. The focus
was on the provisions of the National Academy of Sciences
report entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Witnesses
had been asked to address the reasoning behind the education
and research recommendations enunciated in that report.
Six witnesses testified: (1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine,
Retired Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation; (2) Mr.
Harold McGraw, III, Chairman, President and CEO, McGraw-Hill
Companies; (3) Dr. Robert Dynes, President, University of
California; (4) Dr. Craig Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel
Group; (5) Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gills University Professor,
Rice University, Senior Fellow, James Baker III Institute for
Public Policy; (6) Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President, Council
on Competitiveness.
Summary of Hearing
During his opening statement, Chairman Gordon emphasized
the importance of ensuring that our children are among the
highest achievers in the science and technology fields. He
plans to do this through legislation like the Science and Math
Scholarship Act and Sowing the Seeds through Science and
Engineering Research Act. Ranking Member Hall urged the
Congress not only to improve education but promote
competitiveness as well as increase federal R&D funding, while
simultaneously stimulating private sector R&D.
In his testimony, Mr. Augustine discussed the ``death of
distance'' principle, meaning that many transactions in the
past that required people to be in close proximity no longer
do. He suggested that in order to stay competitive we need to
continue to be the world's best innovators as well as the first
to market. Mr. McGraw mentioned the U.S.'s role as an economic
leader, but also mentioned that his lead could slip. Federal
funding for R&D would play a critical role in maintaining our
position in the world. Dr. Dynes cited the Science and Math
initiative as one of his highest priorities as the president of
the University of California. He plans to strengthen these
areas by recruiting potential math and science majors as
teachers, providing these students with innovative curricula
that rely on the expertise of faculty in science, math, and
education and offering incentives to attract and retain these
students as teachers. The UC Science and Math initiative has
attracted support from both the private and public sectors.
Dr. Barrett discussed the merits of Bob Noyce for whom the
Noyce Scholarship Program was named. He also discussed that
while there are wonderful research universities in the United
States, more needs to be done, citing H.R. 362 and H.R. 363 as
steps in the right direction. Dr. Lane urged that investments
need to be made in science and technology for the well-being of
future generations. He offered his opinion of current
legislation intended to improve science education, suggesting
increased funding for NOAA. Ms. Wince-Smith focused on the
importance of effective legislation to strengthen our
entrepreneurial economy.
During the discussion period, Mr. Augustine addressed the
importance of engaging children in the sciences at an early
age. He also endorsed the view of engaging girls in science
education at a young age. Mr. McGraw stressed the importance to
enhancing not only science and mathematics education, but
reading as well, suggesting it is the cornerstone of an
effective education. He also argued that the U.S. education
system was and continues to essentially be strong and
effective, but it needs to adapt the global economy. Mr.
Augustine commented on the lack of emphasis on the life
sciences at the National Academies, claiming that he felt they
had been addressed adequately by the government in recent
years, and the focus must shift to physical science. When
discussing competitiveness, Dr. Barrett urged that we need to
compete not merely on a quantitative level, but in terms of
quality as well.
4.1(e)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
March 15, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-12
Background
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to discuss the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and
NASA's proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan.
The Committee heard testimony from Dr. Michael D. Griffin,
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened by listing a number of problems with
the proposed 2008 NASA budget, suggesting the agency is headed
for a financial train wreck if necessary changes are not made.
He noted the White House's disengagement in promoting space
exploration as an additional budgetary concern. Ranking Member
Hall called for NASA to establish a clear mission and
encouraged Dr. Griffin to communicate with other agencies and
the Bush Administration to help develop an appropriate budget.
Rep. Udall called for an emphasis on science and engineering
education, R&D, and human space flight and exploration in the
2008 budget, but judged that existing funds are greatly
insufficient for accomplishing future recommended missions.
Rep. Calvert suggested that a bipartisan approach could best
educate peer agencies and encourage a sufficient NASA budget.
Dr. Griffin asserted that the two critical components to a
balanced and appropriate budget are a clear strategic vision
and generous allocation. During the discussion portion of the
hearing, the Members and Dr. Griffin addressed NASA budget and
management shortfalls. They discussed the Columbia accident and
its relationship to budget and schedule pressures, concluding
that crew safety should be the top priority for future
projects. In addition, the Members asked Dr. Griffin for
updates on the progress of several NASA projects, including the
SOFIA mission and the CEV program, and explored the present
allocations and future goals for workforce education and
international relations for American space ventures.
4.1(f)_The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The Findings
of the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group II: Climate Change
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
April 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-20
Background
On April 17, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology
held a hearing on the second section of the 2007 Fourth
Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, prepared by Working Group II of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
summary document highlights the key findings of the
comprehensive appraisal of the current state of scientific
knowledge on the impacts of climate change on natural and human
systems around the world.
The Committee heard from the following six witnesses: (1)
Dr. Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Society (USGS) Global
Change Science Coordinator and lead author for Chapter 6,
Coastal Systems and Low Lying Areas, of the Working Group II
Report; (2) Dr. William E. Easterling, Director, Pennsylvania
State University Institutes of the Environment and coordinating
lead author for Chapter 5, Food Fibre and Forest Products; (3)
Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Research Associate, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Diagnostics Center
and the lead author for Chapter 17, Assessment of Adaptation
Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity; (4) Dr. Cynthia
Rosenzweig, Senior Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies and the coordinating lead author for Chapter
1, Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and
Managed Systems; (5) Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Co-Director,
Center for Environmental Science and Policy (CESP) and the
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (IPER)
at Stanford University and the coordinating lead author for
Chapter 19, Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from
Climate Change; and (6) Dr. Shardul Agrawala is a Visiting
Research Scholar in the Program in Science, Technology and
Environmental Policy at Princeton University and coordinating
lead author for Chapter 17, Assessment of Adaptation Practices,
Options, Constraints, and Capacity.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon (D-TN) opened the hearing by describing the
near-term positive and negative impacts of global warming.
Global warming will put some areas at increased risk for
floods, drought, avalanches and fires. Other areas could
benefit from lower heating costs, a longer growing season and
fewer deaths due to cold exposure. This second report addressed
these impacts, but emphasized that the negatives will outweigh
the positives. Mr. Gordon explained that global warming will
have severe impacts on future generations, and therefore
adaptation is needed.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) recognized that climate change
is important, but not at the expense of energy independence and
affordability. He is skeptical of any legislation that mandates
a carbon regulatory scheme. He noted the government is adapting
to climate change by taking the lead in drought warning and
preparedness. According to Rep. Hall, what is not needed is a
``war'' on fossil fuels.
During her testimony, Dr. Rosenzweig explained that the
observational evidence from all continents and most oceans
shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional
climate change, particularly temperature increases. For
example, scientists have observed glacial lake expansion,
ground instability in permafrost regions, and changes in some
Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, including those in sea-ice
biomes, and also predators high in the food chain. She
explained that much more evidence has accumulated over the past
five years to indicate that changes in many physical and
biological systems are linked to anthropogenic warming.
Dr. Easterling discussed the impact of climate change on
food production. Regional trends point to major crop yield loss
in the low latitudes, where a majority of the poorest people in
the world live, and temporary crop yield gains in the mid- to
high latitudes. He explained that moderate warming could be
adaptively dealt with, but increased variability in weather
patterns could be very costly.
Dr. Burkett discussed the impact of climate change on
coastal systems. Burkett noted that while the nature of the
risk is different in different coastal areas, the mega deltas
of the world are at most risk, due to their low-lying nature
and development rate.
Dr. Agrawala explained that both adaptation and mitigation
are needed to address climate change. Mitigation--through the
reduction in sources or enhancement of sinks of greenhouse
gases--reduces all impacts of climate change. Adaptation--
through adjustments in human and natural systems to actual or
expected climatic changes--can be selective. It can reduce
negative impacts, and take advantage of the positive.
Dr. Pulwarty testified that the insurance industry is
already adapting to problems of climate change. He added that
adapting to tightening water availability and quality will be
important, especially in the West.
Dr. Schneider emphasized that climate has done what a lot
of long established theory has predicted. The IPCC is a
reflection of the scientific thinking on climate change, and
separates the speculative from the established points. However,
while the IPCC provides criteria, metrics, and magnitudes of
climate change effects, it cannot put a final value to them.
4.1(g)_The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The Findings
of the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group III: Mitigation of
Climate Change
May 16, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-30
Background
On Wednesday, May 16, 2007, the Committee on Science and
Technology held a hearing on the third section of the 2007
Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of
Climate Change, prepared by Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The summary
document highlighted the key findings of the comprehensive
appraisal of the current state of scientific knowledge on
strategies to mitigate climate change.
The Committee heard from the following four witnesses: (1)
Dr. Mark Levine, Division Director of the Environmental Energy
Technologies Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) and coordinating lead author for Chapter 6, Specific
Mitigation Options in the Short- and Medium-Term--Residential/
Commercial Sector (Including Services) of the Working Group III
Report; (2) Dr. William A. Pizer, Senior Economist at the
National Commission on Energy Policy and lead author for
Chapter 11, Mitigation from a Cross-Sectoral Perspective; (3)
Mr. Steven Plotkin, Transportation Energy and Environmental
Systems Analyst at the Center for Transportation Research at
the Argonne National Laboratory and lead author for Chapter 5,
Specific Mitigation Options in the Short- and Medium-Term--
Transport and Infrastructure; and (4) Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.,
Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy
Research and Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at
the University of Colorado.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon (D-TN) opened by noting that the IPCC
report tells us that avoiding more than a four degree increase
of global mean temperatures means having to mitigate our carbon
dioxide emissions. The IPCC Work Group III Report is a
consensus document, one that all nations and scientists have
agreed to. He noted the costs of both mitigation and that of a
warming Earth and stated that the U.S. must lead the world in
this effort. Ranking Member Hall emphasized that the most
sensible policy assures affordable, reliable, and clean energy
sources. He stated that the IPCC Report should have couched
their conclusions in more concrete advice.
Dr. Levine commended the IPCC process for its rigor and
lack of bias. The estimates for energy savings of these
technologies are better known and the projections in the study
are far better than previous reports. He testified that
building better buildings should have better net economic
benefits, but these technologies are harder for the developing
world to build with. Dr. Pizer provided estimates of how
mitigation costs would affect national GDP, adding that the
suggested figures have a wide margin of uncertainty. He noted
that technology is expensive; thus, the U.S. needs to create
broad flexible policies and make responsive choices within
those frameworks.
Mr. Plotkin testified on the mitigation efforts involving
the transport sector, as transportation creates a quarter of
green house gas-related energy. Although technology has
improved, it is often used to increase performance and not
energy efficiency. However, he explained, technological
improvements in design, such as increases in aerodynamics and
engine technology could reduce energy use significantly. He
testified that efficiency standards with fuel taxes
successfully decreased fuel consumption.
Dr. Pielke began with three points: (1) we have the
opportunity to talk and decide what kind of future we want; (2)
mitigation outweighs the costs of global warming; (3) Working
Group III realizes that global warming is one area of many of
the problems in the world. He emphasized that focusing on
carbon dioxide cannot substitute for a broader effort of
creating a better future and developing responsibly. In
addition, he argued that research on climate should be more
responsive to policy-makers.
Several Members worried about the effects of mitigation on
the American taxpayer and feared a lack of international
cooperation, i.e., with China. Dr. Levine emphasized that local
environmental effects in China have created a demand for
increased efficiency from their economy. Lately, Dr. Levine
stated, they have been successful in reducing their energy to
GDP ratio. Dr. Pizer stated that the U.S. must show it is
serious about mitigation in order to convince the international
community to participate. Members expressed concern about oil
taxes, and Dr. Pielke suggested that increasing the cost of
fossil fuels was an effective way to discourage their use.
Another large discussion point was how to increase the
energy efficiency of daily life technology. Dr. Levine stressed
the importance of efficient building in housing, noting that
designers are not paid to be efficient; highlighting the need
for standards. He also commended the Energy Star program but
explained that more readily available consumer information is
always needed.
4.1(h)_The Role of Technology in Reducing Illegal Filesharing:
A University Perspective
June 5, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-34
Background
On Tuesday, June 5, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to discuss the experiences of universities that use
technology to reduce copyright-infringing filesharing on their
campus networks. University representatives and a leading
technologist discussed the potential and limitations of these
technologies, techniques for realistically evaluating these
technologies, and the universities' experiences in using them.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Charles Wight, Associate Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Undergraduate Studies at the
University of Utah; (2) Dr. Adrian Sannier, Vice President and
University Technology Officer at Arizona State University, on
leave from Iowa State University; (3) Mr. Vance Ikoyze,
President and CEO of Audible Magic Corporation; (4) Ms. Cheryl
Asper Elzy, Dean of University Libraries at Illinois State
University (ISU) and a member of the management team of ISU's
Digital Citizen Project; and (5) Dr. Greg Jackson, Vice
President and Chief Information Officer at the University of
Chicago.
Summary of Hearing
Illegal filesharing activities on university campuses can
consume a significant amount of network resources and infringe
on copyrights. Many college and university campuses have
adopted technological measures to prevent or reduce illegal
filesharing on their networks. The hearing covered several
important issues, including: the successes and limitations of
technological measures in reducing illegal filesharing; the
effects of these technologies on network speed, reliability,
privacy and legitimate use; and the vulnerability of these
technologies to hackers and other means to circumvent the
respective filters. Chairman Bart Gordon opened the hearing by
noting that illegal filesharing interferes with the educational
mission of colleges and universities by clogging campus
networks and wasting resources. He pointed out that we rely on
technology to combat spam and hackers, though these solutions
are not perfect, and he stated that he believes technology will
be the first line of defense against illegal filesharing.
Ranking Member Ralph Hall noted that high-speed Internet access
has made illegal filesharing easier than ever, but no single
solution will stop the practice. He stated that technology will
be part of a larger anti-piracy solution that will include
legal alternatives and education.
Dr. Wight stated that protecting intellectual property is
important to universities. Intellectual property protects
faculty discoveries and materials, and fair-use policies enable
learning and research. He testified that while technology
cannot identify and eliminate all copyright-violating
transmissions, the University of Utah approach is largely
effective. He explained that the University of Utah monitors
its networks for excessive usage and runs the Audible Magic
network filter software in its residence halls. After
implementing these approaches, the university substantially
reduced the number of copyright violation notices it received,
and saved $1.2 million per year in Internet bandwidth charges
and $70,000 per year in personnel costs.
Dr. Sannier stated that Arizona State University adopted an
acceptable use policy prohibiting illegal filesharing, and was
an early adopter of the Recording Industry Association of
America's best practices to prevent student exposure to
lawsuits. Dr. Sannier recounted how Arizona State University
adopted packet-shaping technology in 2000, but that by 2006,
the amount of peer-to-peer illegal filesharing had outstripped
the utility of that technology. At that point the university
adopted the Audible Magic network filter, which Dr. Sannier
described as one of the easiest technical adoptions the campus
has ever undertaken. He concluded by noting that despite being
pleased with this technological solution, he remained concerned
that filesharing programs would evolve, sparking a
technological arms race.
Mr. Ikezoye testified that Audible Magic's network filter
system was introduced in 2003 and is currently used by over 70
colleges and universities. He explained that the network
filters those files transferred over known public peer-to-peer
filesharing applications that match copyrighted materials on a
registered database. The technology has contributed to
significant reductions in illegal filesharing, citing one
example where a campus saw an 80 percent decrease in total
network traffic within one month of adopting the system. Mr.
Ikezoye noted that the technology is not an in-line device and
therefore does not contribute to network slow-down, and that it
is possible to configure the privacy settings of the system to
keep violators anonymous. He concluded by noting that
technology will not be the entire solution to the problem of
illegal filesharing, but it is an essential tool.
Ms. Elzy described Illinois State University's Digital
Citizenship Project. Begun in 2005, the project has worked with
a variety of stakeholders to create a comprehensive solution to
counter illegal filesharing, including education, network
monitoring, and providing legal alternatives. She explained
that the long-term goal of the project was to provide a
comparative study of anti-illegal filesharing technologies and
the legal alternatives to allow colleges and universities to
make the best choices for their networks. Ms. Elzy noted that
the available technologies were not yet at the level of
effectiveness sought by the entertainment industry and
Congress, but that a comparative study would allow institutions
to make the best decisions possible.
Dr. Jackson also noted that intellectual property rights
were vital to the university mission, but that access to
materials was equally important. He stated that the University
of Chicago viewed copyright infringement seriously, educating
students and fining violators. He also noted that because files
are often transported over servers divided into smaller pieces
that do not contain identifiable content, many anti-
infringement technologies are not viable on high-performance
networks. He expressed his view that until legal alternatives
were available and unrestrictive, students and consumers would
continue to make illegal choices. Dr. Jackson also stated his
belief that education and behavioral change would be more
effective tools than technology to combat illegal filesharing.
4.1(i)_The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Part I
June 12, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-39
Background
On Tuesday, June 12, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to consider the implications of offshoring R&D for U.S.
workers and the economy. Technological innovation is the key to
maintaining and improving American's standard of living, but
science and engineering work--the fundamental building block of
innovation--has become increasingly vulnerable to the practice
of offshoring. This hearing explored the implications of this
trend on the U.S. workforce, the U.S. science and engineering
education pipeline, competitiveness, economic growth, and our
innovation system.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Alan S. Blinder, Professor of
economics at Princeton University and Director of Princeton's
Center for Economic Policy Studies; (2) Dr. Ralph E. Gomory,
President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; (3) Dr. Martin N.
Baily, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics and Senior Adviser to McKinsey Global
Institute; and (4) Dr. Thomas J. Duesterberg, President and CEO
of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on the following issues: the scale and
scope of the offshoring of science and engineering jobs, as
well as R&D investments; the effects, both positive and
negative, of this offshoring on the U.S. economy; and the
policies used by foreign countries to attract R&D and science
and engineering investment. Chairman Gordon stated that an
increasing number of reports indicate U.S. jobs are being moved
to foreign countries and cited a University of Texas study that
over the last year, 60 percent of new major R&D facilities were
located in Asia compared to nine percent in the United States.
He was worried that the offshoring of jobs could, for the first
time in America's history, lead to future generations of
Americans with a lower quality of life than their parents. He
stated that he recognized industry was responding to the
intense demands of the global marketplace but he emphasized
that the Committee's goal was to enact policies to make sure
that the best available engineers, scientists, and students are
found in the U.S. Ranking Member Ralph Hall thanked the
Chairman for having the hearing to analyze the threats that
globalization and offshoring place on the country and economy
and stated that he believed much of the testimony would agree
with the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. Mr. Hall
worried that if the U.S. is complacent and loses engineering
and technological jobs, the country will have an uphill fight
to maintain a prosperous economy.
Dr. Blinder emphasized that the basis for the high wages
U.S. workers enjoy--education and access to technology and
capital--are becoming more commonplace around the globe, and
investment is following cheap labor. He stated that rapidly
improving communications technology is a major force behind
U.S. workforce offshoring, particularly for high-skilled jobs.
Dr. Blinder noted that offshoring in the service-sector poses
unique challenges because there are now more service-sector
jobs than manufacturing, and service employees are not
accustomed to competing with workers in developing countries
for jobs. He stated that the policy agenda should focus on
three policy areas: training for workers who have lost jobs to
offshoring; increased educational focus in areas less
vulnerable to offshoring; and innovation and technology
development.
Dr. Baily stated that he had a more favorable view of
globalization than Dr. Blinder, and that he believed the trend
has made the U.S. more competitive and productive through
better use of technology and capital. He pointed out that 80
percent of available world-wide capital flows into the U.S. and
only 15 percent flows out. Dr. Baily stated his view that many
of the problems associated with globalization are the result of
the U.S.'s current exchange rate which places service
industries at a disadvantage. However, he called upon the U.S.
to better provide for and re-train workers displaced by
offshoring. He also noted that the U.S. has benefited
substantially from foreign-educated workers in science and
technology sectors coming to work in this country. Dr. Baily
advocated continued R&D investment in a broad range of areas
and scholarships for American students studying in the science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.
Dr. Gomory stated his view that the interests of companies
and countries have diverged and that this divergence had
enormous implications for national competitiveness. He
described the shift caused by globalization of scientific and
technical industries from a U.S. dominated enterprise to one
now shared by many other countries. Dr. Gomory drew a distinct
difference between free trade and globalization: in free trade
theory, the means of production are fixed, but since
globalization has led to the movement of productivity
capabilities, globalization is not free trade. He stated that
the only way the home country can recover is to increase
productivity. Thus, he testified that improving education and
R&D opportunities would not be sufficient. Rather, the U.S.
needs to undertake measures to make investments in production
capabilities in this country more profitable. He suggested a
revenue-neutral corporate tax that charges lower rates to
companies with high value added per U.S. employee could be used
to realign corporations' profit interests with those of their
home country.
Mr. Duesterberg emphasized that the manufacturing industry
has key insights into globalization since it has been competing
with foreign competition for more than thirty years. This
competition has led U.S. industry to make innovations in
efficiency. He testified that even though the manufacturing
industry is now relatively small in the U.S., it has increased
its global manufacturing output from 22.9 percent to 23.8
percent between 1980 and 2003, and its high-tech output has
increased from 25 percent in 1980 to 42.5 percent in 2005. Mr.
Duesterberg stated that there was a positive correlation
between employment increases at foreign affiliates and at their
domestic parent companies. He noted that offshoring jobs often
allows U.S. companies to better compete in foreign markets. He
informed the Committee that research and development is the
least globalized activity for U.S. multinational corporations,
representing 13.7 percent of foreign affiliate sales. He
cautioned that there is not enough information on innovation to
predict the effect of outsourcing on innovation. In studies
done by the Alliance capital investment, university-industry
linkages, and employment of scientists and engineers were
crucial factors for promoting innovation. Mr. Duesterberg
advocated for free trade agreements, the Federal Government's
current monetary policy, deficit reduction, low taxes, and ways
to address tort litigation. He also called for increased
spending in the scientific and engineering fields to encourage
students to obtain scientific or engineering degrees while
creating a better career path for these students.
4.1(j)_The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Part II: The
University Response
July 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-49
Background
On Thursday, July 26, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
second hearing to discuss the effects of globalization on the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields. The Members and witnesses focused on the globalization
of the American university system and STEM education.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. David J. Skorton, President of
Cornell University; (2) Dr. Gary Schuster, Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs of the Georgia Institute of
Technology; (3) Mr. Mark Wessel, Dean of the H. John Heinz III
School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon
University; and (4) Dr. Philip Altbach, the Director of the
Center for International Higher Education and the J. Donald
Monan SJ Professor of Higher Education at Boston College.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing covered several important areas including: the
motivations that drive universities to open branch campuses
overseas; the influence these programs have on the offshoring
of STEM jobs; how U.S. universities are preparing their
students for long-term competition in the global economy; how
these foreign campuses and programs affect the flow of
advantages in the global economy; and how overseas educational
programs affect the flow of foreign students to American
universities. Chairman Gordon noted that due to pressures from
globalization, a STEM education no longer guaranteed a lifetime
of good employment. However, he also noted that universities
play a vital role in helping the country remain economically
competitive, thus he was eager to learn about the potential
benefits and costs to U.S. competitiveness associated with the
offshoring of American university programs. Ranking Member
Ralph Hall pointed to the wide range of models for how U.S.
educational institutions were coping with globalization. He
also stated that he was curious about how international
experiences affected U.S. students, whether overseas campuses
stimulated the American economy, and what effect higher
education had on America's image abroad. Research and Science
Education Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird, later presiding,
stated that he was interested to know how globalization, having
already dramatically changed the corporate economy, would
affect the American higher education system.
Dr. Skorton argued that higher education played a crucial
role in American diplomacy and promoting American
competitiveness. He noted that American students studying in
foreign countries promote cross-cultural understanding and that
attracting international students to the U.S. can fill demand
for specialized talents. He also viewed attracting students to
branch campuses as part of the process of recruiting and
retaining the best minds in the STEM fields. He testified that
the decision to develop overseas programs was governed by
whether the arrangement would create tangible benefits with
manageable risks and explained that universities factor foreign
government attitudes and regulations regarding their presence
and the availability of talent and resources to perform high-
quality research into their decision. Dr. Skorton stated that
maintaining the affordability of higher education for both
international and domestic students would require a serious
public commitment.
Dr. Schuster emphasized that universities choose their
international programs and locations often to promote their own
strategic advantage. He also noted that alumni from his own
institution reported that international experience added value
to their diplomas. He explained that any university engaging in
international programs had faced visa challenges. In some cases
these hurdles impacted their ability to attract the best minds,
but dialogue between universities and immigration agencies were
addressing some of these issues. Dr. Schuster also argued that
American cultural values helped explain why domestic
universities continued to attract so many students and that
exporting these values through education was a net positive.
Mr. Wessel testified that American universities, facing
increased competition domestically and internationally, were
starting to consider globalization as a part of their overall
institutional strategy. He stated that expansion overseas
allowed universities to offer more services and provided an
overall benefit to the U.S. economy, even though some jobs
moved offshore as a result. He also argued that branch campuses
abroad resulted in more international students coming to the
U.S. and strengthened ties to academic communities overseas.
Noting that many international students studied in the U.S. in
order to get an American job, Mr. Wessel argued that it was in
the economic interest of the U.S. to attract these students.
Dr. Altbach noted that American universities are currently
the gold standard of higher education but that if they failed
to globalize, foreign schools would be quick to take their
place. He explained that branch campuses were the preferred
connection abroad, but that they did not always earn a profit.
Dr. Altbach recounted that several Mexican universities were
considering branch campuses in the U.S., but on the whole,
foreign universities had always failed in the U.S. because
American schools were considered the model by students.
4.1(k)_Bridge Safety: Next Steps to Protect the Nation's
Critical Infrastructure
September 19, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-53
Background
On Wednesday, September 19, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine research and development activities to
improve the safety of the Nation's bridges in the wake of the
August 2007 I-35 Minnesota bridge collapse. The hearing
explored the current state of bridge-related research,
including government and academic research into materials,
design elements, and testing and inspection technologies, and
also discussed future research priorities for bridge building
and maintenance to avoid catastrophic failure.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Dennis Judycki, Associate
Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology at the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT) and Director of U.S. DOT's Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC); (2) Mr. Benjamin
Tang, Principal Bridge Engineer for the Office of Bridge
Technology at FHWA; (3) Dr. Kevin Womack, Director of the Utah
Transportation Center and Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Utah State University; (4) Mr. Harry Lee James,
Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer for the
Mississippi Department of Transportation; and (5) Mr. Mark
Bernhardt, Director of Facility Inspection for Burgess & Niple,
an engineering firm.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing covered four main concerns: the effectiveness
of current bridge testing methods and technologies; future
research needs to improve bridge safety; the use of non-
destructive testing methodologies and lessons learned from the
Minnesota bridge collapse to evaluate which bridges are most
susceptible to failure; and the effectiveness of technology
transfer programs at FHWA and university Transportation
Research Centers (UTRC). Chairman Gordon stated that the August
2007 Minnesota bridge disaster was a wake-up call on the safety
of the Nation's infrastructure. He emphasized the need for the
development of new technologies that could lead to a safer
bridges and transportation infrastructure. Ranking Member Ralph
Hall stated that ensuring the safety of the Nation's
infrastructure is one of the basic responsibilities of
government at all levels and that he hoped the witnesses would
address how the challenge of improving the safety of
infrastructure can be balanced with the Nation's other
transportation needs.
Mr. Judycki discussed FHWA's research programs for bridge
building techniques and materials and emphasized the role of
inspections for maintaining bridges. He noted that some of this
R&D was devoted to creating non-destructive inspection
technologies to supplement current visual inspections. Mr.
Judycki also testified that FHWA collaborates with local
agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector to
develop better technologies and facilitate the transfer of
research into practice. Mr. Tang discussed testing and
technology development activities at FHWA.
Mr. James testified that bridge inspection is very
complicated as no single technology or method is suitable for
all bridges and some bridges have been in operation since the
1930's. He noted that bridge repair funds were prioritized for
those in the most imminent danger of collapse. He argued that
continuous inspection technology would require a large initial
source of funding but would be a more efficient use of
resources in the long-term.
Dr. Womack noted that traffic across bridges today carries
far heavier loads than the bridges were originally designed to
accommodate. He offered several areas of research that would
have beneficial returns for bridge safety including a better
understanding of how bridges age and deteriorate and the
development of better construction methods. However, Dr. Womack
testified that the lack of funding left federal highway
research facilities underutilized. He recommended that the
Federal Government assume some of the expense for states to
implement new technologies to encourage their adoption.
Mr. Bernhardt explained that the quality of the data
supplied to decision-makers determined whether inspection and
maintenance resources were wisely allocated and that visual
inspections are highly variable and subjective. Because newer
technologies can perform inspections more objectively, funding
for the development of these technologies should be a high
priority. Mr. Bernhardt also stressed the importance of
training for new inspection technologies, noting that State
transportation agencies will not employ them if the training is
unavailable.
4.1(l)_Meeting the Need for Inter-operability and Information
Security in Health IT
September 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-57
Background
On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine progress toward the broad use of information
technology in health care and the investments in technology and
standards development that are needed to create a national
system of secure, inter-operable health care information
technology. The witnesses also provided their comments and
views on H.R. 2406, a bill to support the development of
standards for health care information technology systems by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
their views on what the government can do to accelerate the
adoption and usage of electronic health care records and other
health care IT systems while protecting patient privacy.
The witnesses were: (1) Ms. Linda L. Kloss, Chief Executive
Officer of the American Health Information Management
Association (AHIMA); (2) Dr. David E. Silverstone, Clinical
Professor at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Chief of
Ophthalmology at Yale New Haven Hospital and Chairman of the
Health Information Technology Committee of the American Society
of Cataract and Refractive Surgery; (3) Mr. Michael Raymer,
Vice President and General Manager for Product Strategy and New
Business Initiatives at GE Healthcare Integrated IT Solutions;
(4) Ms. Noel Williams, President of the Hospital Corporation of
American (HCA) Information Technology & Services, Inc.; and (5)
Mr. Justin T. Barnes, Vice President of Marketing and
Government Affairs for Greenway Medical Technologies, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing examined several important issues, including:
what the Federal Government can do to accelerate the
development and promulgation of standards for inter-operability
of health care IT systems; how to make an inter-operable health
care IT system compatible with patient privacy and data
security; and R&D needs to adapt inter-operable health care IT
systems to new technologies in the medical field. Chairman
Gordon began by noting that the health care industry lags far
behind other sectors in adopting IT, and that he believes one
of the most significant reasons for this is the lack of
technical standards for inter-operability and patient privacy.
He further noted that NIST is uniquely positioned to address
this issue because of its expertise in working with the
financial industry and others in transitioning to an IT-based
business model. He concluded by stating that while H.R. 2406 is
not a complete solution to the problems facing health care IT,
it was his hope that it would serve as a starting point for
broader efforts needed to move towards a fully inter-operable
health care IT system. Ranking Member Ralph Hall noted that IT
could bring great potential savings and improvements in care.
He agreed that NIST has a role to play in health care IT, but
was interested to learn how H.R. 2406 would affect health care
efforts underway at the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Dr. Silverstone testified that H.R. 2406 would help promote
the widespread adoption of effective health care IT. He noted
that health care IT has the potential to improve the quality of
care and reduce costs, but those improvements will not be
achieved without effective standards for communication and
interaction among systems. He reported that adoption of IT
systems has been slow by health care professionals and that
most physicians do not feel confident making large investments
in health care IT systems because of the costs and uncertainty
about future compatibility with other systems. Finally, he
noted that NIST is well equipped to address the technical
challenges of health care IT enterprise integration.
Ms. Williams testified that IT in health care can improve
care and lower costs. She reported that an American Hospital
Association (AHA) survey found moderate increases in the use of
IT by hospitals from 2005 to 2006, but hospitals continue to
cite cost and a lack of inter-operability as barriers to
adoption of IT systems. She noted that NIST has established
itself as a valuable resource to the public and private sectors
in standards development, but AHA is concerned H.R. 2406 could
give NIST overlapping responsibilities with other agencies. She
observed that national leadership is needed to create an
environment that will give hospitals confidence to make
significant investments in IT.
Ms. Kloss testified that data content standards,
particularly a standardized method of medical terminology, are
an important issue which should be addressed by a public/
private authority. She also stated that there is an important
role for NIST in bringing standards development and resources
to health care IT standards harmonization efforts, which are
currently largely voluntary. She noted that NIST could supply
this effort with standards expertise and a test laboratory.
Mr. Raymer testified that current health care IT standards
efforts by existing public/private collaborations such as the
Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) are
effective in establishing standards. He stated that G.E.
supports the expansion of NIST's efforts as envisioned in H.R.
2406, as long as it would not interfere with the existing
process. He cited four specific areas in which NIST could
contribute: coordinating federal health care IT efforts;
enforcing federal compliance with health care IT standards;
coordinating standards conformance testing of inter-operability
standards; and conducting needed research in health care IT.
Mr. Barnes testified that his company's customers have
realized annual savings of between $21,000 and $81,000 per
physician by installing health care IT systems. He noted that
NIST already plays an important role in supporting standards
development efforts in the public and private sectors, and that
Greenway supports efforts to have NIST expand its work in
health care IT enterprise integration, and that NIST should
work collaboratively to enhance the existing HITSP process.
4.1(m)_Aviation Safety: Can NASA Do More to Protect the Public?
October 31, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-70
Background
On Wednesday, October 31, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing on NASA policy regarding the agency's management of the
National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS). NAOMS
has been in the press due to NASA's refusal to release the data
to an Associated Press (AP) reporter, offering the rationale
that release of the information might undermine the flying
public's confidence in the aviation system because it relates
to safety. NASA's refusal to release this data has been widely
condemned in the Nation's press. NASA's Administrator Michael
Griffin has formally distanced himself from that rationale, but
he has not yet made it clear when or even whether NASA will
publicly release this data. The hearing sought to further
illuminate the details of this issue.
The first panel had two witnesses: (1) Dr. Michael Griffin,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(2) Mr. Jim Hall, Managing Partner, Hall and Associates LLC,
and Former Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB).
The second panel three witnesses: (1) Mr. Robert S. Dodd,
Safety Consultant and President, Dodd & Associates LLC; (2) Dr.
Jon A. Krosnick, Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and
Social Sciences, Stanford University; (3) Captain Terry
McVenes, Executive Air Safety Chairman, Air Line Pilots
Association.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon noted that air
traffic is expected to double by 2025, and the importance of
maintaining air safety. He was troubled that NASA failed to
release the NAOMS results and that it had cited protection of
private companies as a reason for withholding information. He
expressed hopes that the hearing would result in a
reconstruction of the report and project by NASA and FAA.
Ranking Member Hall emphasized that, though the data from the
survey must be released in order to inform the public, it
should be edited to protect specific individuals and
businesses.
Dr. Griffin said he was displeased with the wording of
NASA's public statement addressing the NAOMS issue, claiming it
indicated NASA was protecting private interest over public
safety and was unrepresentative of NASA's intentions. NASA is
required to protect the anonymity of those who reported data
for the survey, not the results themselves. He stated NASA will
release all the data that it legally can, and he denied reports
that NAOMS funding was prematurely cut. NASA's goal, Dr.
Griffin explained, was to create algorithms that could be
implemented for use by the FAA to analyze data and that the
NAOMS results were much more extreme than those extrapolated
from other aviation and aeronautics research methods. In
response to some suspicion that data had been destroyed, he
noted that Battelle, the prime contractor, has all of the
original information on hand at their location, apart from
NASA, and will be releasing a public report shortly.
Mr. Hall expressed the importance of open and transparent
exchange of information to aviation safety. He stated that the
intent of the 1996 White House Commission on Aviation Safety
and Security was to improve safety through open safety research
and communication and that NASA's refusal to release results
unacceptable. When Chairman Gordon asked Dr. Griffin why he
could not release the results that day, he responded that the
report still included identifiable individuals and that it was
not certified. Chairman Gordon was frustrated that the
Committee had not received evidence of these assertions. Dr.
Griffin said that the data could potentially be released by the
end of the year and assured the Chairman he would submit
examples for the record.
Ranking Member Hall asked Dr. Griffin whether he believed
the release of confidential data would discourage pilots and
aviation specialists from reporting to NASA and FAA in the
future. Dr. Griffin said the present data would have that
effect. Ranking Member Hall then asked Mr. Hall what other
systems evaluate aviation safety and whether or not these
systems are reliable. Mr. Hall responded that NASA has the ASRS
system, which is confidential. He said this fact made it
questionable that NAOMS could not achieve similar
confidentiality.
Rep. Costello made it clear that it is a priority of the
Congress to encourage the release of these reports. He asked
whether Dr. Griffin had requested that Battelle work on
scrubbing the information around-the-clock in order to release
the report as soon as possible. Dr. Griffin said he had not,
but that he had encouraged them to make it a priority.
Rep. Sensenbrenner asked which center was responsible for
delay in releasing the survey, and Rep. Mitchell asked why NASA
would invest in a survey that did not meet their standards. Dr.
Griffin said the survey was supervised by the Ames Research
Center, and that NASA had not managed the project well due to
other priorities. Rep. Udall noted that Dr. Griffin had said
funding was not cut short, yet the data was not peer reviewed
and in a form that could be used. He said if the project was
properly completed, the data should be available. Rep. Miller
asked the Administrator if he disagreed with Mr. Dodd, who in
his testimony said the data was valid. Dr. Griffin did
disagree.
During the second panel, Mr. Dodd suggested that Congress
fund a NAOMS-like program, separate from NASA, so that the
program would be unbiased. Mr. Krosnick stated that NAOMS was,
in fact, peer reviewed, is a very accurate and commendable
program, was cut short, and that airlines and pilots would
definitely not be identifiable, were the data released. Capt.
McVenes, on the other hand, testified the data did not
correlate well with other data, and that NAOMS was only a test
of the methodology. He suggested NASA complete its peer-review
of the data. Both Dr. Krosnick and Mr. Dodd indicated that the
project was cut short due to funding.
4.1(n)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
February 13, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-75
Background
On Wednesday, February 13, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and NASA's proposed
Fiscal Year 2008 Operating Plan.
The witness was Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon began the hearing by noting that the
hearing's purpose is to examine where NASA is headed and
whether that is an appropriate path for the next
Administration. He criticized the current Administration for
failing to provide adequate resources for NASA to execute its
responsibilities outlined in the Authorization Act. He also
pointed out that the increased funding going into Earth Science
missions is actually just being taken from other programs, as
the budget request provides no additional funds for these
missions. His greatest chief concern was leaving an under-
funded NASA for the next Administration.
Ranking Member Hall noted that, despite a national budget
that he sees as favoring NASA, the agency is under enormous
financial strain with the retirement of the Shuttle, the
development of a replacement vehicle, and continued research
investments. Ranking Member Hall realized that overall budget
constraints make funding increases a weighty proposal, and he
expressed approval of Dr. Griffin's budget priority choices in
light of such constraints.
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Udall echoed
Chairman Gordon's concerns that the demands placed upon NASA
far exceed the corresponding funding to make those demands a
reality. He also leveled criticism at the White House for
refusing to pass the bipartisan bill for greater funding for
the Constellation Program, which will develop new vehicle
technology to replace the Shuttle upon its retirement. Space
Subcommittee Ranking Member Feeney echoed these sentiments.
In his testimony, Dr. Griffin responded that efforts are
underway to make NASA more open for private investment and the
commercial sector, so as to not depend entirely on public
funding. Regarding the gap between the Shuttle's retirement and
the launch of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, he firmly
emphasized the unpleasantness of what now seems to be a
necessity: relying on Russian transportation services to the
ISS. With some frustration he noted that there currently is no
other viable option. He claimed that the Orion could be ready
as early as 2013 and urged Congress to fully fund NASA's space
exploration initiative.
During the lengthy discussion session, the main concern was
the gap between the retirement of the Shuttle and the
development of a replacement manned system. Dr. Griffin
responded to these concerns that the replacement system had to
be based on an entirely new system, because no current system
could be upgraded to meet the new Constellation vehicle
requirements. He also emphasized the need to consolidate gains
on the Moon before rushing to Mars, as some space policy
experts have suggested. Dr. Griffin also denied reports that
the launch date for a Shuttle replacement system was being
delayed and that funds are currently being invested in Mars-
mission technology. He emphasized that, even with increased
funding, the Constellation program's earliest launch date would
be 2013.
4.1(o)_Funding for the America COMPETES Act in the Fiscal Year
2009 Administration Budget Request
February 14, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-76
Background
On Thursday, February 14, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to consider how the Administration's FY 2009 budget
proposal addresses programs authorized in the America COMPETES
Act (P.L. 110-69) within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
Subcommittees held additional hearings regarding specific
agency budgets, including for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
and Department of Energy (DOE).
The only witness was Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Co-
Chair of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST).
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by expressing the
importance of the America COMPETES Act to the Nation's
competitiveness in a changing global marketplace. He pointed
out that while the Administration's budget is supportive on
basic research, it is weak on several other critical
components, particularly K-12 education programs at NSF. He
expressed concerns about the lack of sufficient funding for the
Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) at NIST, and the Robert
Noyce Scholarship Program at NSF.
Ranking Member Hall praised some aspects of the
Administration's budget proposal, such as the increased funding
for the Advanced Energy Initiative at DOE, but shared Chairman
Gordon's concern regarding the lack of funding for the MEP and
the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program. Rep. Hall also suggested
that the proposed increase for NASA may not be sufficient to
achieve the goals laid out in the President's Vision for Space
Exploration announced at the beginning of 2004.
Dr. Marburger presented highlights of the Administration's
FY 2009 R&D budget proposal, including the overall increases
provided for NSF, DOE's Office of Science and NIST. During the
question and answer portion of the hearing, Dr. Marburger
answered Committee questions about: K-12 science and math
education priorities; how the Administration's budget addresses
the recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Initiative;
funding for the social sciences at the NSF; science diplomacy;
funding or lack thereof for the DOE International Fusion
Initiative called ITER, and the Advanced Research Projects
Agency for energy called ARPA-E; and a number of other budget
and policy issues across the R&D agencies.
4.1(p)_Competitiveness and Innovation on the Committee's 50th
Anniversary With Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft
March 12, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-84
Background
This year, the Committee on Science and Technology
celebrated its 50th Anniversary. On Wednesday, March 12, 2008,
the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the Committee on Science
and Technology held a hearing to highlight the occasion and to
receive testimony from Bill Gates, the Chairman of the
Microsoft Corporation, to discuss our country's technological
advances over the past 50 years, the current state of our
country's competitiveness, and a look ahead to the challenges
we face.
The only witness was Mr. William H. Gates, Chairman of the
Microsoft Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing with a statement
focusing on the great technological advancements the United
States made in the fifty years since Sputnik. He went on to
stress that, with rapid economic and technological advances in
other countries, we are likely on the cusp of another Sputnik
moment. He explained that he believes the Science and
Technology Committee has an important role to play in bringing
our country back as a leader in innovation and technological
development. Ranking Member Hall echoed Chairman Gordon's
sentiment, while further highlighting the Committee's
accomplishments over the past fifty years. Rep. Baird and Rep.
Reichert, both from Washington State, offered introductory
remarks as well and welcomed Mr. Gates.
Mr. Gates testified about the importance of information
technology, and how it will help us address a variety of
important global challenges. He offered reasons for why he
believes our country's leadership in innovation is at risk, and
suggested ways in which the government, private, and non-profit
sectors can work together to address the challenges ahead. He
focused much of his testimony on the urgent need to improve
education in our country, in order to produce the top
scientists and engineers. He recommended that Congress fully
fund the America COMPETES Act, and stressed how the Act would
significantly increase funding for many teacher training and
scholarship programs as well as crucial basic research at the
NSF. He also recommended that our immigration polices be
reformed in order to ensure that foreign-born scientists can
work and contribute in the U.S.
Members asked about aspects of visa policy and processing,
including general work permission, appeals, ``bars'' in the
exchange visitor program and timing of eligibility for H1-B
visas. All of the witnesses agreed that visa policies and
practices could still be strengthened from a security
perspective while easing the flow of students and scholars that
are indispensable to the U.S. science and engineering
enterprise.
4.1(q)_The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of
2008
April 16, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-93
Background
On Wednesday, April 16, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to review legislation that proposes changes to various
aspects of the planning and implementation mechanisms for and
to the content of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Mr. Floyd E.
Kvamme, Co-Chair, President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology; (2) Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director,
NanoBusiness Alliance; (3) Dr. Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean
for Research and Professor of Education, University of
Michigan; (4) Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor,
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center;
(5) Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology, BASF Corporation
on behalf of the American Chemistry Council; and (6) Dr. Robert
R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager, Texas
Instruments and on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry
Association.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon began by noting that the draft NNI
Amendments Act reauthorization bill makes two improvements to
the existing framework: reduce the risks of bringing nanoscale
materials into the commercial sector and capture the economic
benefits of specific nanotechnology. Rep. Ehlers reiterated the
need to prioritize EH&S research to encourage industry and
public success of nanotechnology and observed that education
was a third improvement in the new bill.
Mr. Kvamme cited the successes of the NNI to date, but
called the bill's mandated 10 percent allocation towards EHS
research unjustifiable. However, he lauded its flexibility to
meet the needs of the next presidential administration. Mr.
Murdock emphasized the changes that have occurred in nano-
research in the five years since NNI was created. He praised
the draft bill for accommodating these changes, particularly as
American companies shift from prototype development to large-
scale manufacturing, and supported funding for EHS, including
the 10 percent allocation.
Dr. Krajcik spoke on the bill's educational components,
noting that advances in nanoscience require a commensurate
response from the educational community. He argued that both
the Federal Government and the private sector have
responsibilities to improve education in this regard. Dr.
Maynard proposed five areas were essential to developing safe
and successful nanotechnology: a top-level research strategy to
identify goals across federal agencies, the 10 percent
allocation towards EHS, a high-level coordinator charged with
oversight of all nanotechnology EHS research, partnerships with
the private sector, and government transparency.
Dr. David praised the bill for improving the U.S.'s
capabilities to implement research programs, particularly EHS
research, arguing that it would consolidate the strengths of
federal organizations and make information more available to
researchers. He also recommended how to successfully implement
the provisions contained in the bill. Dr. Doering discussed
four research and development areas of national importance that
benefit from nano-research.
During the discussion period, the witnesses offered
Chairman Gordon further input on EHS funds allocation,
including the proposed 10 percent reserve mandate.
Representative Hooley inquired about public education on
nanotechnology and its applications, and the witnesses offered
their suggestions and support for greater education efforts.
Panelists commended the bill for its provisions to address
commercializing nanotechnology applications. They also argued
for an emphasis on interagency cooperation and comprehensive
oversight.
The conversation then turned to the potential for industry
participation in EHS research and education. Mr. Murdock and
Dr. Doering, representing the private sector, agreed that
companies already carry out extensive safety tests on new
material and products and sponsor limited EHS research. Rep.
Rohrabacher noted difficulty in prioritizing money for
scientific research, and asked witnesses to provide
justification for the programs they advocate; the panel gave
little response. Mr. Rohrabacher then asked whether math and
science teachers in secondary education should be paid more
than those in other subjects. Witnesses agreed that the best
quality scientific education should be attained through
whatever means possible.
Former Committee Member Honda made a statement in support
of nano-research, and Rep. Gordon cited the America COMPETES
Act's successful passage. Rep. Lipinski inquired about the
state of general nanotechnology research and development in
regard to energy sources, and Mr. Murdock described progress in
solar and battery technologies. Lastly, Rep. Richardson asked
what can be learned from the European Union's approach to
nanotechnology risk research, which led to a discussion on the
distinctions between EU and American programs.
4.1(r)_Opportunities and Challenges for Nuclear Power
April 23, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-94
Background
On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 the House Committee on Science
& Technology held a hearing entitled ``Opportunities and
Challenges for Nuclear Power.'' The hearing explored the
potential for nuclear power to provide an increased proportion
of electric generating capacity in the U.S. Nuclear power
generation offers the opportunity for increasing electricity
generation without associated increases in greenhouse gas
emissions, however, challenges to this expansion remain
including high costs, waste disposal, and concerns about
nuclear proliferation issues. The hearing also examined the
Department of Energy's programs to support and advance nuclear
technologies and their potential to address the challenges
associated with expansion of nuclear power generation.
The Committee heard from the following witnesses: (1) Mr.
Robert Fri, Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future, and the
Chair of a recent study conducted by the National Academies on
the Department of Energy's nuclear research and development
program; (2) Mr. Jim Asselstine, Managing Director (retired),
Lehman Brothers, and former Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; (3) Dr. Thomas Cochran, Senior Scientist, Nuclear
Program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); (4) Mr.
Robert Van Namen, Senior Vice President, Uranium Enrichment,
USEC; (5) Ms. Marilyn Kray, President, NuStart Energy, and Vice
President, Project Development, Exelon Nuclear; and (6) Vice
Admiral John Grossenbacher, Director, Idaho National
Laboratory.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) opened the hearing by
discussing the importance of having a technology plan moving
forward with regards to nuclear power.
Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) indicated that nuclear
power could be an important and safe source of power.
Ms. Kray testified on challenges presented by nuclear power
including licensing, cost, and workforce development.
Dr. Van Namen testified on nuclear fuel supplies including
mining and milling natural uranium, conversion of natural
uranium to uranium hexafluoride, and fuel fabrication. Van
Namen also discussed nuclear power development and noted that
the current credit market crisis could hinder the chances of
receiving loans for nuclear energy projects from the Department
of Energy. He closed by saying the Congress needs to implement
legislative directives at the agency level according to market
needs.
Mr. Asseltine's testimony focused primarily on the
financial aspects of investing in nuclear energy. He explained
that it is necessary that nuclear companies and investors are
confident in the necessity of new nuclear plants as well as the
companies' ability to recover its capital investments before
making any decisions about building more plants. He believed
that the financial support provisions in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 could provide sufficient support for the development of
nuclear power plants in the United States.
Dr. Cochran offered several suggestions for Congress to
strengthen the nuclear industry--that Congress pass a climate
bill, stop subsidizing construction of new nuclear power
plants, terminate DOE's effort to close the nuclear fuel cycle,
and instruct DOE to initiate a search for second geologic
depository for the disposal of spent fuel.
In his testimony Dr. Fri summarized a submitted report
reviewing the DOE's nuclear energy R&D budget. The Committee
recommended that the Department give highest priority to the
NP2010. NP 2010 is a program to assist in the licensing of the
first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years. If
nuclear power is to play a major role in the Nation's energy
picture, it's essential to license, build, and operate the
first of the new generation of reactors. And given the long
lead times and construction periods involved, it's important to
do so now. The committee also noted that the human and
intellectual infrastructure needed to support this effort is
aging, and recommended continued funding for university
programs and research for the industry.
Vice Admiral Grossenbacher discussed the elements of DOE's
Nuclear Energy Program, which include: Nuclear Power 2010,
Light Water Reactor R&D, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
Generation IV nuclear energy systems development, and
investments in human capital.
Chairman Gordon began the first round of questions by
asking Mr. Fri and Admiral Grossenbacher about cost estimates
for the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
program. Both witnesses agreed that, although there was not a
``definitive process'' for determining cost, it would be a
significant investment involving tens of billions of dollars.
They explained GNEP is a long-term program and suggested an
outside advisory committee to oversee the project. Dr. Cochran,
on the other hand, was less optimistic. He said that GNEP
program was doomed to failure because similar programs to
develop ``fast breeder reactors'' around the world had all
failed and would increase proliferation risks.
Rep. Gingrey (R-GA) asked Dr. Cochran to clarify his
position on Yucca Mountain and waste storage. Dr. Cochran said
that there was not any EPA criteria to work with but did
explain the process of site selection for nuclear depositories.
Rep. Matheson (D-UT) asked the witnesses to comment on his
legislation for on-site storage for nuclear waste. Ms. Kray
said that such storage did not pose additional risk and Mr. Van
Namen expressed his support as well.
Rep. Baird (D-WA) asked for the total net federal subsidies
going into nuclear energy. Acknowledging that it was difficult
to quantify, Dr. Cochran said that subsidies were in the area
of $150 billion over the lifespan of the industry. Mr.
Asselstine said that about $26 billion over the next 20 years
would be needed to support 25 to 30 new plants.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked the panel about High
Temperature Gas-Cooled (HGTC), or Generation IV, reactors and
expressed his concern that a promising technology was being
ignored. Ms. Kray said that it had not been certified by the
NRC, it had licensing issues and that there were substantial
bureaucratic costs involved. Both Ms. Kray and Admiral
Grossenbacher acknowledged the potential of the newer reactors
but indicated that they believed the technology had yet to
mature.
4.1(s)_Electronic Waste: Can the Nation Manage Modern Refuse in
the Digital Age?
April 30, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-98
Background
On Wednesday, April 30, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to consider electronic waste, which includes obsolete
and broken televisions, computers, laptops, cell phones, and
other electronic equipment. The hearing looked at this growing
problem and the potential for R&D to increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of recycling and re-use.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Eric Williams, Assistant
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State
University; (2) Mr. Gerardo Castro, Director of Contracts and
Environmental Services, Goodwill Industries of Southern
California; (3) Ms. Renee St. Denis, Director of America's
Product Take-Back and Recycling, Hewlett Packard Co. (HP); (4)
Mr. Eric Harris, Associate Counsel and Director of Government
and International Affairs, Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries (ISRI); (5) Mr. Ted Smith, Chair, Electronics Take-
Back Coalition; and (6) Mr. Michael Williams, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Sony Electronics Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by stating that
Americans have generated a staggering volume of e-waste that is
now headed to landfills, stored, or exported for disassembly
overseas under unsafe conditions. He pointed out that while
electronics contain valuable materials, they also can contain
lead, mercury, and other hazardous materials that must be dealt
with safely. Ranking Member Ralph Hall echoed the Chairman's
concern about the immense volume of e-waste, and said that he
hoped to hear ways in which designs for these products could
improve to stem the generation of this class of waste in the
future.
Dr. Williams explained that because technology improves
rapidly, products designed to last many years are often
discarded when a new model reaches the market. He noted that
there exists no conclusive evidence that landfill disposal of
these products is necessarily dangerous to the environment or
human health, but that electronics production is
environmentally intensive. Thus, more effective re-use markets
could be a valuable tool. Dr. Williams also expressed concern
about conditions created in foreign countries by exporting e-
waste. Mr. Castro discussed Goodwill's achievements in
recycling and re-selling computers and other electronics,
citing a helpful fee system in California that helps pay for
recycling televisions and computer monitors. He urged the
Federal Government to encourage the not-for-profit sector in e-
waste recycling though special tax-incentives.
Ms. St. Denis discussed HP's efforts to use and recycle
materials responsibly, noting that HP changes the design of
their products to make them more easily recycled, exports no
waste overseas, sends no electronic materials to landfills, and
practices environmentally sound recycling. Mr. Harris detailed
the scope of ISRI members' operations, stressing the need for
manufacturers to start designing products with recycling in
mind and for improved markets for scrap plastics and glasses.
He also suggested enacting a reward system for companies who
recycle responsibly.
Mr. Smith provided details on harmful informal recycling
operations. He stressed the importance of producer
responsibility over the entire life of the product, not just
until it reaches the consumer, and argued that the Federal
Government must both prevent the export of hazardous waste and
encourage green design and green engineering. Mr. Williams
discussed Sony's environmental stewardship program, which
accepts and recycles all Sony products free of charge. He
stated Sony's goal is to reach 150 collection points and one
recycling center in each state by September 2008. Sony recycles
the products locally and responsibly, seeking a 95 percent
recycling rate. Mr. Williams also highlighted two Sony products
that are environmentally friendly and completely recyclable.
The discussion period focused on the need for R&D efforts
to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of environmentally
sound e-waste recycling, products that can be more easily
recycled, and increased product re-use.
4.1(t)_STEM Education Before High School: Shaping Our Future
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Leaders of Tomorrow
by Inspiring Our Children Today
May 12, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-101
Background
On Monday, May 12, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to receive testimony on efforts to engage students in
math and science at an early age, to keep them interested
throughout middle school and high school, and to translate that
interest into rewarding careers that will be of benefit to the
entire Nation from a federal, school district, university,
industry and teacher perspective. The hearing was held at the
Martha and Josh Morris Mathematics and Engineering Elementary
School in Texarkana, Texas, and thus examined the efforts
behind and reasons for the establishment of a STEM-based public
elementary school and the progress that it is making with its
students, which could serve as a model for the Nation.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Cora Marrett, Assistant
Director for the Education and Human Resources Directorate,
NSF; (2) Mr. James Henry Russell, Superintendent, Texarkana
Independent School District; (3) Dr. Roseanna Stripling,
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Texas A&M
University-Texarkana; (4) Mr. Michael Leherr, Plant Manager,
Alcoa-Texarkana; and (5) Dr. David Smedley, Science Teacher,
North Heights Junior High School.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing with a brief statement
then passed the gavel to Ranking Member Hall to preside over
the hearing. Ranking Member Hall asked for unanimous consent
that Mr. Tom Pickens, CEO of SpaceHab, take a seat at the
witness table and take part in the question and answer period
along with the witnesses. Mr. Hall went on to praise the Martha
and Josh Morris Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School
and the Texarkana Independent School District for their
``visionary ideas'' in establishing their STEM education
collaborative program.
Chairman Gordon echoed Mr. Hall's sentiments and went on to
stress the importance of improving STEM education in the United
States in terms of international competition.
In her testimony, Dr. Marrett stressed effective STEM
education programs rely on ``student interest, professional
development, and tools for learning.'' She stated that recent
studies show that there is significant student interest in STEM
areas, that professional development programs for teachers
directly improve the education of those teachers' students, and
that NSF-supported educational materials and resources can
accelerate student learning. Lastly, Dr. Marrett mentioned
``the nations whose students excel'' in math and science begin
to introduce ``the fundamental concepts early in their
careers.'' Mr. Leherr testified that each time his company,
Alcoa Texarkana, seeks a new professional recruit, the
applications are increasingly from candidates educated outside
of the United States, and decreasingly from local candidates.
``It is evident that the local and national availability of
highly skilled people is getting smaller.'' Mr. Smedley
expressed his opinion that ``the single most important'' thing
that the Federal Government can do to improve K-12 science
education is ``to nationally align the teaching of science
content.''
4.1(u)_Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century
May 14, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-102
Background
On Wednesday, May 14, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the challenges of managing water supplies to
meet social, economic and environmental needs in the United
States, given population growth, climatic variation, and other
factors.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Stephen Parker, Director, Water
Science and Technology Board, National Research Council; (2)
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth, and Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Arizona; (3) Dr. Robert Wilkinson,
Director, Water Policy Program, Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management, University of California-Santa Barbara;
(4) Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research,
JPMorgan Chase; (5) Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Program Director,
National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) NOAA
Climate Program Office.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon began the hearing by highlighting the
importance of evaluating the Nation's water resources given
upcoming challenges, including increased population and
competition for water supplies, recent droughts, degraded water
quality and climate change. With investment in research and
development, public education, and more available information,
such challenges can be met. Ranking Member Hall emphasized the
importance that water resources have in every sector of the
Nation's economy, recalling the National Integrated Drought
Information System Act of 2006, which created a centralized
location for national drought information, and stated his hope
that the panel would produce suggestions for similar tools and
resources to be used by decision-makers.
Dr. Parker testified that while water supply remains fixed,
demand continues to grow in every region of the country. He
maintained that solutions to this problem will require science-
based strategies and innovative water technologies. Dr.
Overpeck discussed the specific threat of climate change,
noting that rising temperatures have already led to changes in
the Nation's water cycle. Potential solutions to this challenge
include an accelerated effort to understand climate-related
water supply variability, incorporation of climate change
factors into water supply models, research into groundwater
supply replenishment, and modeling water supply allocation
during droughts. Dr. Wilkinson emphasized the over-allocation
of national water supplies and frequency of regional droughts.
He then called for a re-evaluation of legal, technical, and
economic procedures for managing water resources that
incorporates the climate change risk. Mr. Levinson discussed
the lack of awareness among investors and corporations
concerning water scarcity, and suggested two approaches to
improving responsible corporate resource use: to press states
to apply methods of pricing groundwater withdrawals and to
encourage research on decentralized water treatment methods.
Dr. Pulwarty described the progress made by NIDIS, a program
designed to assess drought-related risks and to provide support
tools to decision-makers.
Both Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall asked the
witnesses for specific contributions that the Committee could
make toward research and development. Witnesses'
recommendations ranged from funding towards research on the
effects of climate change on groundwater to improving efficient
water use in energy systems, to public education programs.
Ranking Member Hall then asked about information and
technology available to water managers in the United States in
comparison to that available in other countries. Dr. Parker
replied that the U.S. lies ahead of the rest of the world in
terms of data collection and information available. Rep. Hall
followed with a question on the relationship between biofuel
crop production and the NIDIS drought database, and Dr.
Pulwarty responded that he believed farmers generally do not
base planting decisions on the NIDIS drought information.
Rep. Johnson asked what can be done to remedy the shortage
of qualified people working on water problems. In response, Dr.
Overpeck reiterated the need for public education campaigns
that encourage cooperation between all citizens, not only water
managers. When asked how such campaigns could be funded, Mr.
Levinson advocated relying on private investment to support
research and development.
Rep. Rohrabacher expressed concern over the assumption that
water shortages are caused by human activity. The witnesses
stated that while the origins of the current droughts are not
yet known, droughts are exacerbated by higher temperatures,
thereby implying a link between human activity and water. In
response, Congressman Rohrabacher stated his disapproval toward
the witnesses' testimonies for reasserting the man-made global
warming theory. Moving on to another issue, he then suggested
the Committee consider the high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear
reactor, which requires no water intake, as an alternative to
the traditional nuclear reactor.
Rep. Baird asked the witnesses whether the national
scientific community has a sense of the country's water
carrying capacity, especially as population continues to grow.
They noted that water capacity has grown because efficiency
programs and infrastructure improvements have led to lower
water use per capita (though overall demand continues to rise).
The questions then turned to the state of water quality,
purification, and desalinization efforts. Members were
concerned that little information exists nationally on the
frequency of water contamination and water-borne disease. The
witnesses acknowledged that more research is needed in these
areas.
Rep. Smith inquired about the application of surface
storage to mitigate the threat of climate change. Witnesses
answered that such an idea may be problematic because storage
infrastructure is already employed in flood control and because
of evaporation. Below-ground storage is a potential
alternative, though it requires much additional research.
As a final question, the witnesses were asked to discuss
the role of the EPA in long-term water efficiency and
conservation effort policies. The witnesses viewed EPA
primarily as an advocating entity and less as one producing
research, given its tight budget. They commended the bills
reported by the Committee authorizing additional research funds
for the EPA and DOE.
4.1(v)_NASA at 50: Past Accomplishments and Future
Opportunities and Challenges
July 30, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-118
Background
On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
review the accomplishments achieved since its creation, and
examine its future challenges and opportunities.
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Honorable John H.
Glenn, Jr., Retired U.S. Senator; (2) Mr. Norman R. Augustine,
Chairman and CEO (retired), Lockheed Martin Corporation; (3)
Dr. Maria T. Zuber, Dept. Head and E.A. Griswold Professor of
Geophysics, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A special audio message from Professor Stephen Hawking,
Lucian Professor of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, was
played at the hearing.
Summary of Hearing
Both Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall applauded NASA
for their accomplishments over the last 50 years in their
opening statements. Mr. Glenn attested to the importance of
both micro and macro exploration, and urged that in order for
NASA to accomplish in the future what it has in the past, the
program much be properly funded. Mr. Augustine noted the
decreasing number of students graduating with engineering
degrees as there were after NASA was established. Dr. Zuber
applauded NASA's ability to carry out even the most challenging
of tasks in the past, but also urged the Congress that NASA
must continue exploration projects in order to stay competitive
on a global scale.
The primary focus of the question and answer portion was
how to adequately fund NASA in the coming years, and how to get
young people interested in America's space program. All of the
witnesses agreed that it is necessary to do more to get future
generations interested in space. Dr. Zuber emphasized the
importance of incorporating creativity into NASA's education
programs. Mr. Augustine argued that the science budget must be
increased, and teachers down to the first grade level must
understand science and math so they can provide above adequate
teaching in these areas, in hopes of inspiring future
generations to pursue a career in the sciences. He also added
that corporations, universities, and national labs need to do
more to work with young people and get them involved in the
space program. Mr. Glenn also noted that technological
innovation and efficient equipment are necessary to assure that
U.S. astronauts can get into space with out foreign assistance.
With regard to the budgetary issues, Dr. Zuber was unable to
provide Rep. Baird with a dollar amount as to how much money
the space program would need in the future. She compared it to
the cost of curing cancer; while the exact cost is unknown, it
is worth doing. Dr. Zuber explained that the issue of planetary
defense is one that concerns not only the Department of
Defense, but NASA as well, especially regarding potential
threats such as asteroids and comets. The witnesses all
believed that it is misleading by some to say that NASA's
resources could be better spent on other domestic programs,
arguing that investment in NASA helps provide larger benefits
to society that aren't seen at the immediate time of
investment. They added that maintaining that long-term
investment approach will be a challenge. All of the witnesses
agreed that while NASA has accomplished a great deal in the
last 50 years, better funding for the space program as well as
other scientific areas is necessary to secure a prosperous
future for NASA.
4.1(w)_Oversight of the Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD) Program
July 31, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-119
Background
On Thursday, July 31, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held an
oversight hearing to review the multi-agency, coordinated
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) program. The hearing examined the current program in
light of the recent assessment of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and explored whether
additional legislative adjustments to the program are needed.
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Dr. Chris L. Greer,
Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NCO/NITRD);
(2) Dr. Daniel A. Reed, Director of Scalable and Multicore
Computing, Microsoft; (3) Dr. Craig Stewart, Associate Dean,
Research Technologies, Indiana University, and representing the
Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation (CASC); and (4)
Mr. Don C. Winter, Vice President--Engineering and Information
Technology, Phantom Works, the Boeing Company.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened by stating that networking and
information technology is a crucial component of our U.S.
competitiveness, and federally sponsored research, in
partnership with industry and universities, is essential to
ensure further advances in the area. He and Ranking Member Hall
expressed confidence in the NITRD program, and eagerness to
better the program through recommendations by the PCAST and
others.
In his testimony, Dr. Greer discussed the NCO/NITRD
strategic plan and the implementation of the PCAST
recommendations. Mr. Reed offered many recommendations, among
those the need to fully fund the America COMPETES Act, to
rebalance the participation in the NITRD program so the
responsibility for fundamental research is not carried by a
single agency, and the need to regularly review the research
investment against the strategic plan. Dr. Stewart stated that
the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computing fully supports
the PCAST report recommendations, and he went on to provide
additional recommendations. Mr. Winter expressed support of the
proposed expansion of the NITRD program's research objectives
to address cyber-physical systems. The discussion period
included questions regarding software research resources,
investments in high risk but high payoff research,
international collaborations, and cyber security issues.
4.1(x)_The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status
and Issues
September 11, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-122
Background
On Thursday, September 11, 2008, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the status of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System initiative known as NextGen and explore
key issues related to the initiative and the interagency Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO), the organization
entrusted with NextGen planning and research coordination.
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Ms. Victoria Cox,
Senior Vice President for NextGen & Operations Planning, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, (2) Dr.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office, (3) Mr. Calvin L. Scovel III,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, (4) Dr.
Paul G. Kaminski, Chairman and CEO, Technovation Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by expressing the
importance of the NextGen initiative to the Nation's economic
vitality and addressed the engineering, management and
regulatory challenges that the program faces. Ranking Member
Hall reiterated these concerns and discussed the role of the
JPDO in planning for and coordinating the research and
development of NextGen.
Ms. Cox discussed the progress being made in the NextGen
initiative, citing successes in fuel savings for trans-Atlantic
flights and improved service operations at JFK airport as a
result of the implementation of NextGen technology. Mr.
Dillingham addressed the results of a study conducted by the
GAO to answer questions regarding NextGen planning, research
and development activities. Mr. Dillingham identified the key
challenges for NextGen implementation: (1) a new configuration
of ATC infrastructure, (2) increased airport capacity, (3)
strong Congressional support. Mr. Scovel discussed the status
of FAA's efforts to develop NextGen and made several
recommendations which addressed the transition from existing
systems to NextGen, how FAA is organized to manage and execute
NextGen, and the actions needed from FAA to help NextGen
efforts from research to implementation. Mr. Scovel identified
five actions necessary for the success of NextGen: (1)
Establish priorities and reflect them in budgets, (2) develop a
strategy for technology transfer, (3) focus attention on
airport issues, (4) develop a realistic plan for ADSB, (5)
assess implementation band width and develop transition
benchmarks. Dr. Kaminski emphasized the importance of the
NextGen initiative and discussed his proposal to accelerate the
development and integration of the NextGen System. Mr. Waitz
dealt with the issues of energy, aviation and the environment,
citing the challenges of noise, air quality and climate change
as key aspects of the NextGen initiative. Mr. Waitz claimed
that the two most critical issues are to accelerate the FAA/
NASA Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative and second, to
significantly increase the focus, technology, operation, and
alternative fuels programs in NASA and FAA.
During the discussion period, the witnesses offered
Chairman Gordon recommendations to the next President
concerning NextGen. These recommendations included improved
leadership for NextGen and investments in environmental and
aeronautical research. Chairman Gordon followed up on this
topic by discussing the effects of FAA's reorganization on the
NextGen initiative with Mr. Dillingham who stated that while it
is still unknown how the reorganization will affect NextGen,
the GAO still believes that a direct report of the JPDO
Director to the FAA Administrator is the best arrangement.
Ranking Member Hall asked Ms. Cox about the impact of
continuous funding on NextGen. Ms. Cox emphasized the
importance of maintaining a continuous funding stream for
NextGen in order to carry out the plans already in place. He
further questioned Mr. Dillingham and Mr. Scovel on OMB's
ability to coordinate and align research budgets among
participating federal agencies. Both witnesses noted a
disconnect between the agencies that might be remedied by
greater OMB management of the NextGen effort.
Mr. Waitz evaluated the development of alternative jet
fuels to alleviate aviation's impact on the climate, stating
that bio sources were especially promising and pointing out the
problems with coal to liquid technology. Congressman Costello
was skeptical of the FAA's capability and capacity to manage a
project of this size and asserted that FAA's restructuring of
the JPDO was a mistake. Congressman Gingrey continued the
discussion of alternative fuels with Ms. Cox who cited FAA's
increased R&D budget in the environment between 2008 and 2009.
Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Ehlers asked the
witnesses about budget allocations for the NextGen initiative
and inquired as to how the FAA would acquire the personnel
necessary to complete the project. Ms. Cox emphasized the
importance of hiring specialists in systems engineering and
information technology, stating that the NextGen program will
require an additional 300 in-house professionals in order to
support the level of work necessary for the success of the
program.
4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
4.2(a)_H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act
January 30, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-1
Background
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels
Infrastructure Research and Development Act introduced by
Chairman Bart Gordon.
H.R. 547 directs the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
initiate a research, development, and demonstration program to
make alternative bio-based fuels more compatible with present-
day infrastructure. H.R. 547 also directs these agencies to
develop technologies and methods to provide low-cost, portable,
and accurate measurements of sulfur in fuels, and to develop a
physical properties database and Standards Reference Materials
for alternative fuels.
The hearing examined the infrastructure related challenges
of adopting biofuels in the Nation's fuel marketplace and of
transitioning to clean diesel fuels. The Committee received
testimony from: (1) Mr. John Eichberger, Vice President of the
National Association of Convenience Stores; (2) Mr. Bob
Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association;
and (3) Mr. Richard Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director of the
Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project at the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Eichberger described the substantial technical and cost
barriers fuel retailers encounter in making the decision to
sell biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. He also described
retailers' concern that the lack of a sulfur testing methods
hinders the market's ability to ensure ULSD quality controls
and regulatory compliance and endorsed H.R. 547.
Mr. Dinneen described the current and future role of
ethanol in fuel markets, the state of development of ethanol
refineries, and the ``Virtual Pipeline'' of trucks, rail and
barges the ethanol manufacturers must use to transport product
from biorefineries to the marketplace. On behalf of the
Renewable Fuels Association, Mr. Dinneen endorsed H.R. 547.
Mr. Kassel described the successful implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Highway Diesel Rule which
mandates the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. NRDC supports H.R.
547 with modifications suggested in Mr. Kassel's testimony.
The Subcommittee also received written testimony and
endorsements from the National Association of Truck Stop
Owners, The Society of Independent Gas Marketers of America,
the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National
Association of Shell Marketers, The Coalition of E85 Retailers,
X-Ray Optical Systems, and the Underwriters Laboratory which
were inserted in the hearing record.
4.2(b)_The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2008 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
March 7, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-7
Background
On Wednesday, March 7, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE)
fiscal year 2008 Budget Request for research and development
programs.
The Administration's FY08 budget request for DOE contains
$7.2 billion for civilian energy R&D, divided among five
offices: the Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and Fossil Energy
R&D. The Office of Science funds basic research at universities
and 10 national laboratories and is the single largest federal
supporter of physical sciences research. The FY08 budget
request for the Office of Science is $4.4 billion--an increase
of approximately $600 million or 16 percent over the FY07
enacted level. However, this falls $189 million short of the
funding levels authorized in Title IX of Energy Policy Act of
2005. Appearing for the first time in the President's budget is
the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program which would
provide loan guarantees for advanced technology projects that
avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and have a reasonable prospect
of repaying the principal and interest on their debt
obligations.
The Subcommittee heard testimonies from heads of five
federal offices that oversee civilian energy research and
development programs within DOE: (1) Dr. Ray Orbach, Under
Secretary for Science and Director, Office of Science; (2) Mr.
Dennis Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy and
Acting Undersecretary for Energy; (3) Mr. Alexander Karsner,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE); (4) Mr. Kevin Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability; and (5) Mr. Thomas D. Shope,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened the hearing by noting gaps
in R&D, energy efficiency and state-of-the-art facilities
funding, calling for more attention to the EPAct of 2005 and
appropriate carbon-free nuclear energy policies. Rep. Inglis
(R-SC) pointed out the crucial distinction between simple
spending and thoughtful investment and expressed interest in
promoting energy independence, cleaner air, and job creation.
Dr. Orbach explained the DOE Office of Science's role as a
basic research agency and offered the examples of cellulosic
ethanol and intermittent energy sources (i.e., wind, solar and
tidal) as Office of Science projects. He stressed the need to
sustain a world-class scientific workforce and to remain
internationally competitive.
Mr. Spurgeon discussed nuclear power as a carbon-free and
dependable energy source. He also praised efforts like the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), but stressed that the
United States needs infrastructure upgrades if we are going to
be an industry forerunner.
Mr. Karsner analyzed the budget proposal in comparison to
the 2007 request, detailing the monetary allotments for
specific EERE energy projects, and called for accelerated R&D
and the adoption of new technologies into commercial products.
Mr. Kolevar explained that the $86 million request for the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability would be
allotted to four main activities: High Temperature
Superconductivity; Visualization and Controls; Energy Storage
and Power Electronics; and Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration.
Mr. Shope testified on the proposed 2008 budget for the
Office of Fossil Energy. He claimed that their proposed budget
of $863 million would allow the Office to support the
President's initiatives on clean air, coal research, energy
security and climate change.
During the discussion, Full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon
(D-TN) asked Mr. Spurgeon about the quality of the GNEP
program. Mr. Spurgeon explained that while they have more
research to do, GNEP has been reprocessing fuel throughout the
world for 40 years. He later explained to Rep. Biggert (R-IL)
that they are conducting a comprehensive systems analysis of
GNEP. Regarding the repeal of funding for the Ultra-Deepwater
and Unconventional Onshore Research and Development Program,
Mr. Shope explained that while the President's budget requests
its repeal, they intend to comply with the law as it exists,
which at the time of the hearing included the operation of the
program.
4.2(c)_The Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2008
Research and Development Budget Proposal
March 14, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-11
Background
On Wednesday, March 14, 2007 the House Committee on Science
and Technology's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
hearing to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
fiscal year 2008 (FY08) budget request for Science and
Technology (S&T).
EPA's overall FY08 budget request is $7.2 billion, a
reduction of 5.5 percent compared to the FY06 enacted level of
funding for the Agency. The request makes several changes to
EPA's science research programs, and some have argued that
these changes will erode EPA's core research programs in ways
that will limit understanding of the environment and hamper the
Agency's ability to formulate sound policies. For example, the
request eliminates the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program and the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program. Both programs support developing
and testing innovative technologies to cleanup hazardous
substances. The budget also contains 31 percent reduction to
the human health research programs that would reduce human risk
associated with exposure to environmental hazards. Finally, the
budget cuts $10 million from the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) grant program, which provides research grants and
graduate student fellowships.
Members heard from the following witnesses during the
hearing: (1) Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator, Office
of Research and Development (ORD) and Science Advisor for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (2) Dr. M. Granger
Morgan, Chair, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB),and Lord
Chair Professor in Engineering and Professor and Department
Head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at
Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Jennifer Sass, Senior
Scientist, Health and Environment, Natural Resources Defense
Council; and (4) Dr. Bruce Coull, Dean Emeritus, School of the
Environment, the University of South Carolina, and President of
the U.S. Council of Environmental Deans and Directors, National
Council for Science and the Environment.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. George Gray argued that the EPA Science & Technology
(S&T) funds will focus on emerging priorities, while programs
that are not as pressing or effective will be scaled back. He
highlighted several ORD programs that continue to inform
environmental decision-making, including: plans to integrate
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Research Program
with the Air Toxics Program, nanotechnology risk assessment,
ecosystem and river restoration, homeland security research,
and climate change assessment with the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program.
Dr. M. Granger Morgan, on the other hand, expressed concern
over reduced funding and noted that between 2004 and the
proposed 2008 budget, the overall support for Research and
Development at EPA has declined by 25 percent. He explained
that monetary limitations have caused, and continue to cause,
EPA to perform more reactive than proactive research.
Dr. Sass testified that the budget cuts funding to core
priorities such as susceptible populations, ecological research
and human health research. Especially troubling are the
elimination or diminished support for EPA's environmental
libraries and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
both of which provide publicly available information on toxics.
Sass also expressed concern that EPA may be unable to carry out
its own research, thus becoming increasingly reliant on data
supplied by the very industries that it regulates and by paid
contractors who often have clients or members from the
regulated industries. Oftentimes industry data is suspect, but
due to staff and resource shortages and Confidential Business
Information (CBI) protections that prevent public scrutiny to
the data, EPA is unable to provide adequate oversight.
Finally, Dr. Coull testified that without investment in
science and scientists, EPA cannot make science-based
decisions. He agreed with Dr. Sass that the EPA libraries were
extremely important to environmental study. He gave several
examples where EPA research was indispensable, including
assessing the risks of endocrine disrupters and mercury, but
noted that these studies would no longer be adequately funded
with the President's proposed budget.
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) questioned Dr. Gray about EPA's
announcement that they would clean only 24 of the 40 Superfund
sites that the agency initially indicated they would clean. He
was especially troubled that the budget no longer supports the
SITE program. Mr. Gray asserted that, since the SITE program
has effectively created the technology to deal with the
hazardous material, it is no longer a necessary program. He
considers it now more appropriate for the private sector to
handle these clean ups.
Chairman Lampson also asked if EPA is planning to reduce
staff and close several laboratories. Dr. Gray denied these
allegations, stating that EPA only has plans to analyze the
efficiency of the laboratories in order to gain insight into
how to make each lab run more effectively. Lampson requested
that Mr. Gray provide Congress with information regarding these
plans to consolidate, or to streamline, EPA's laboratories.
Representative Diaz-Balart (R-FL) asked Dr. Sass whether,
because of the suspect nature of the data, Congress should wait
to implement the Clean Air and Mercury rule. Dr. Sass responded
that she believed it should be implemented, as a preventative
measure, but that EPA should do further research on the
subject. She also discussed that EPA will use a ``Cap and
Trade'' plan, a plan based on the assumption that pollutants
are distributed evenly. She stated that ignoring ``hotspots''
of hazardous materials hinder the efficacy of the program.
Rep. Diaz-Balart also questioned Dr. Sass on her opinion of
the frequent delays and reviews during the IRIS process by OMB,
the public, and interagency reviews. She said that though she
thinks review is important, she believes EPA allows too much
intervening throughout the process, causing more interference
than positive input.
Representative Lipinski (D-IL) asked Dr. Gray whether
studying and handling the pollution of the Great Lakes is a
priority for EPA. Mr. Gray said that, despite budget cuts, EPA
will continue to fund this research.
All of the witnesses voiced their support for the 91
percent budget increase for the nanotechnology program. Dr.
Morgan did mention, however, that he hopes the agency is
putting equal amounts of funding in studying the potential
toxicological properties of nanomaterials. Dr. Coull noted
that, though nanotechnology is an important new technology, he
believes ORD at EPA has not focused on further exploratory
programs as much as they did in the past, and hopes they resume
this kind of research.
4.2(d)_Perspectives on Climate Change
March 21, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-14
Background
On Wednesday, March 21, 2007, the Honorable John Dingell
(D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TX), Chairman of the Committee on
Science and Technology met to discuss the state of climate
change and how policy-makers should respond to the issue.
The Committees heard from the following witnesses: (1)
Former Vice President Albert Gore. Mr. Gore was awarded an
Oscar by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for
his 2006 documentary film ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' He has
been very involved in the issue of global warming since the
1970s and 1980s when he served as a Member of the House of
Representatives (1977-1985) in the Committee on Science and
Technology and then as U.S. Senator (1985-1993) for the State
of Tennessee. He participated in the first Congressional
hearings on the issue of global warming while he served on the
Committee on Science and Technology. He also authored the Earth
in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit in 1992; and (2)
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Director for the Copenhagen Consensus Center
and an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. Dr.
Lomborg is the author of the book The Skeptical
Environmentalist published in 2001.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Dingell opened the hearing by welcoming the
witnesses and addressing several parliamentary inquiries from
Mr. Barton. Science Committee Ranking Member Hall emphasized
the connection between energy production and the fight against
climate change, calling for a pro-growth, job creating move to
independence from OPEC while ensuring America's global economic
competitiveness. Chairman Gordon welcomed Mr. Gore and thanked
him for his foresight on the climate change issue.
Mr. Gore presented a picture of hope that the U.S. could
respond appropriately to the climate crisis. He explained that
population increases and new technologies have accelerated our
environmental damage. In response, he called for 90 percent
CO2 reductions in the U.S. by the year 2050, a tax
change that transfers the tax burden on businesses from
employment and production to pollution taxes, and U.S.
participation in a strong global treaty.
During his discussion period, Mr. Gore explained that is
possible to improve our economic productivity by addressing
environmental issues. Representative Barton (R-TX) was
skeptical of a number of points in Mr. Gore's argument, and Mr.
Gore defended himself with evidence of scientific consensus on
global warming projections. Recognizing the scale and
complexity of the issue, Mr. Gore provided evidence of other
nations' specific climate change mitigation efforts and offered
additional suggestions for our own mitigation efforts.
Dr. Lomborg argued that our climate situation is often
exaggerated, though he agreed that the U.S. needs smart
solutions and a public recognition that warming is manmade. He
addressed four climate change related issues, heat deaths, sea
level rise, hurricanes and malaria, and emphasized the need for
an understanding of proportion and appropriate resource
allocation in addressing the total problem.
During the discussion period, Dr. Lomborg addressed Rep.
Barton's inquiries into the Copenhagen Consensus, an
environmental summit, and specific scientific graph
interpretations that color the climate change debate.
Representative Inslee (D-WA) brought up the idea of moral
obligation to the planet and future generations, and Dr.
Lomborg agreed that we have such responsibilities, but noted
that the U.S. could have done more in this respect. Dr. Lomborg
also explained to Representative Hall (R-TX) the economic
aspects of climate change, arguing for further R&D investment,
and emphasized that the U.S. has the resources to produce
meaningful change in disease mitigation, cleaner, and
independent energy technologies. Many of the Members
congratulated Dr. Lomborg on his courage to oppose much of the
science community on many climate change issues.
4.2(e)_The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal
March 22, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-16
Background
On Tuesday, March 22, 2007 the House Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a hearing entitled ``The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Proposal.''
The President's FY 2008 budget request for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is $3.96 billion,
2.7 percent below the FY 2006 appropriated funding. The budget
includes a 6.5 percent increase for the National Weather
Service, a three percent funding cut for the office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research, the primary research arm of NOAA, and
a 48 percent reduction for education programs and scholarships.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses: (1)
Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and (2) Dr. Len
Pietrafesa, Associate Dean, Office of External Affairs,
Professor of Ocean & Atmospheric Sciences, college of Physical
& Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Nick Lampson (D-TX) noted that the
Administration's proposal again requests less funding for NOAA
in 2008 than Congress appropriated in past years. The
Administration's request for NOAA is $3.96 billion, a 2.7
percent decrease from the enacted funding level.
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) was concerned that the
request falls $96 million short of the FY06 appropriated
funding level, but still recognized accomplishments at NOAA,
even in a very tight budget environment.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher supported the President's budget
request. The current budget is lower than the FY 2006 budget,
yet is an increase over FY 2007 and adequately provides for the
missions that NOAA undertakes, such as the Tsunami Warning
System, climate monitoring, and atmospheric and oceanic
research. Lautenbacher also noted that NOAA is putting cost
controls in place for its satellite programs and the
Administration is in the final process of its communication
policy to ensure the academic freedom of its employees.
Dr. Len Pietrafesa was not as optimistic about the budget
request, saying that it is insufficient to fund all of the
missions of the agency. He called for an increased budget for
NOAA by noting the benefits of better weather forecasting and
information. The impact of weather and the oceans on the
economy is large, especially given the economic activity of our
costal regions. The insurance costs alone are enormous for the
climatic disasters, and increased understanding of our
environment helps mitigate those costs in the future. An
integrated ocean monitoring system should be put into place to
increase our scientific understanding and ability to predict
the weather. Dr. Pietrafesa also suggested that NOAA be
established as its own agency separate from the Department of
Commerce.
4.2(f)_Establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy (ARPA-E)_H.R. 364
April 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-22
Background
On Thursday, April 26, 2007, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to receive testimony on H.R. 364, Establishing
an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). H.R.
364 follows on the recommendations of the National Academies
2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which called on
the Federal Government to create a new energy research agency
within the Department of energy patterned after the successful
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the
Department of Defense.
The Subcommittee heard from four witnesses: (1) Mr. William
Bonvillian, Director, Washington Office, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; (2) Mr. John Denniston, Partner,
Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers; (3) Dr. Stephen R. Forrest,
Vice President for Research, University of Michigan; and (4)
Dr. Richard Van Atta, Research Staff Member, Science &
Technology Policy Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Acting Subcommittee Chair Giffords opened the hearing by
emphasizing the need for diverse technologies to reduce
dependence on foreign sources of energy and reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions.
Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) added that the House
recently passed the math and science recommendations from
Rising Above the Gathering Storm and that the suggested NSF and
NIST funding increases were coming to the floor in the
following week. He stated that he hopes to be equally
successful with the ARPA-E legislation, and invited the panel
of witnesses to discuss the bill, especially its controversial
recoupment plan.
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) expressed concern that
ARPA-E might divert funds from existing DOE energy projects,
and that unlike DARPA, DOE does not have the contracting power
to compel private groups to use the new technologies ARPA-E may
develop.
In his testimony, Mr. John Denniston reiterated the three
difficulties fossil fuels create: climate change, foreign oil
dependency, and the risk that America may not be at the
forefront of clean energy technology. He stated that he was
optimistic about the public/private partnership that ARPA-E
would provide. He sees the mission of ARPA-E as to fund
results-oriented translational research for renewable energies,
energy efficiency, and carbon capture and sequestration
technologies. He emphasized that the agency should not research
fossil fuels or nuclear power, which are older technologies and
do not allow for a regulatory push or breakthrough technology.
He urged the Committee to increase the proposed funding,
stating that the amount outlined in H.R. 364 ``dangerously
deficient.''
Mr. William Bonvillian testified that there is no short-
term energy solution, and that ARPA-E must develop a range of
new technologies which can compete with one another. He sees
ARPA-E, similar to DARPA, as an opportunity to bridge the
``valley of death'' between research and innovation. DARPA did
this by connecting collaborative teams of university
researchers with private firms. Though the development of ARPA-
E, he said, would not force technologies on the private sector,
it would expand the options available to it. He suggested that
ARPA-E have several characteristics; it should be
nonhierarchical, autonomous, free of ``bureaucratic
impediment,'' emphasize the acceptance of failure, and,
finally, be tolerant of risk-taking. He compared his model to
an independent ``island'' with a ``bridge'' to leaders who
would protect and encourage it.
Dr. Forrest argued that the focus of the agency should be
to move innovations from university to industry to the market
place. He said that ARPA-E should be separate from DOE, as the
National Labs are not organized for translational, un-
bureaucratic research. Because of this, he would have ARPA-E
report directly to the Secretary of Energy, as opposed to any
lesser advisors. The National Labs' role in ARPA-E would, in
his opinion, be to provide the agency with ideas on the
challenges the agency should address. He also suggested that
the employees have short-terms of service, and that the
government provide the agency with a large budget to afford it
with fresh talent and ideas.
Dr. Richard Van Atta explained that energy and environment
are a huge national security issue. He also felt it was
important to outline what the DARPA model is, exactly, as ARPA-
E would be based on its success. He stated that DARPA is
flexible, innovative, open to failure and extremely focused on
one mission. He sees the Program Manager as similar to an
independent entrepreneur and the programs and projects as not
well-proven, but high risk and high reward. He said that though
demonstrations are necessary, they must be small scaled,
``proof of concepts'' demonstrations so that they do not become
funding traps.
During the discussion period, Mr. Inglis asked the panel
why ARPA-E should not consider nuclear energy and suggested the
government should focus on market place deals, rather than
innovation. Mr. Denniston explained that though he is not
opposed to nuclear energy government funding, ARPA-E's mission
should be solely in translational research. Mr. Forrest argued
for funding research to make new technologies attractive in the
market place. Mr. Bonvillian added that ARPA-E must determine
how to build components to work with existing sectors, and Mr.
Dennison stated that though research at ARPA-E is crucial, the
government should also put a price on carbon. Mr. Van Atta
pointed out that ARPA-E could open the energy for competition
and innovation.
Chair Giffords mentioned that although HS-ARPA (Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency) was based on the
DARPA model, it was unsuccessful. She asked how this happened,
and how ARPA-E can avoid a similar fate. Mr. Bonvillian
responded that five factors contributed to the problems with
HS-ARPA: 1) an initial leadership gap, 2) a lack of support
from Homeland Security, 3) a lack of autonomous control over
the budget, 4) a lack of employees with federal R&D experience,
and 5) no clear, fundamental mission. By avoiding these
problems, he said, ARPA-E would likely be successful.
Chair Giffords asked about ensuring the U.S.'s position at
the forefront of energy technologies and plans for ARPA-E
workforce development. Mr. Denniston noted that ARPA-E does not
guarantee a U.S. ``win'' in the energy race, the country will
undoubtedly be unsuccessful without it; in addition, a large
energy, strong workforce is already developing. All the
panelists were wary of including a ``Buy American'' clause. Mr.
Bonvillian provided examples of the large university interest
in energy development.
Chair Giffords asked the witnesses whether they supported a
clause to bring profits from ARPA-E produced technologies back
to the government. All of the witnesses opposed this idea,
saying that the taxes on corporations that employ these
technologies will far exceed any funds from recoupment.
Chair Giffords then asked the panel how to keep ARPA-E
independent. Mr. Van Atta suggested that ARPA-E must
demonstrate its impact and stay within budget; the Committee
must create a well laid out mission. Mr. Bonvillion suggested a
wholly owned government corporation model, with autonomy of
staffing and budgeting.
In addition, all of the witnesses argued that the proposed
budget was too small for ARPA-E's weighty mission, but Mr. Van
Atta was optimistic that as the agency proved itself, the
government would increase the operating budget.
4.2(g)_Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research Program
Toward a User-driven Research Endeavor: H.R. 906
May 3, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-26
Background
On Thursday, May 3, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing
on H.R. 906, the Global Climate Change Research and Data and
Management Act of 2007. Subcommittee Member Mark Udall (D-CO)
and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) introduced
the bill to revise the current U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP). The legislation would update the current
Program to help the Nation better prepare for and cope with
various climate-related impacts by producing information that
can be used by State and local governments and by businesses to
develop and implement strategies for adapting to climate change
and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Philip Mote, Office of
Washington State Climatologist and Affiliate Professor,
University of Washington; (2) Dr. Michael MacCracken,
President, International Association of Meteorology and
Atmospheric Sciences of the International Union of Geodesy and
Geophysics; (3) Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President, University
Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR); (4) Mr. Franklin
Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America, and
Member, UCAR's Board of Trustees; (5) Ms. Sarah Bittleman,
Office of the Governor of Oregon, Theodore R. Kulongoski, on
behalf of the Western Governors Association; and (6) Dr. James
Mahoney, Environmental Consultant, and former Director, U.S.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Summary of Hearing
Subcommittee Vice Chair Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) opened
the hearing by applauding her colleagues for introducing
legislation that addresses climate change. Giffords highlighted
the challenges to achieving meaningful climate change
solutions, and commended Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis for working
quickly and across party lines.
Mr. Udall briefly described the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, noting that since the 1970s it has greatly contributed
to our knowledge of the Earth's land, water, and atmospheric
systems. The Program, however, needs to be updated. More global
change information is needed as the Nation's population,
economy, and infrastructure continue to put pressure on natural
resources. He pointed out that fires, droughts, hurricanes and
climate change are forceful reminders of our vulnerability to
natural events. To reduce these events' high human and economic
costs, decision-makers and resource managers in the government
and in the private sector need better information to develop
response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies. Udall explains
the USGCRP is the vehicle to provide this information and needs
to be expanded and translated into more user-friendly
information.
Mr. Inglis also expressed the need for relevant global
change information for State and local governments and
businesses. He explained while the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have deepened our
understanding of global climate change, a data management
system is needed to coordinate and communicate information.
Dr. MacCracken spoke to the Program's assessments from his
experience as the former Executive Director for the USGCRP. He
explained the Program's novelty and success depends upon its
ability to not only coordinate the activities of 10 agencies,
but also several regions. MacCracken noted that while providing
information to Congress to support policy development is
certainly important, preparing for and adapting and responding
to the impacts of climate change must start locally and
regionally.
Dr. Fellows addressed the strengths and weaknesses of the
Program. He explained the Program specializes in producing the
sound scientific basics for policy-making, acting as a unique
interagency mechanism for coordination and planning, and tying
research and observational strategies to user needs. The
Program has, however, been weakened by political influences and
climate politics, and has been overshadowed by other
priorities. According to Fellows the legislation is timely and
necessary, but could be strengthened by highlighting the
program's priorities and identifying a Program Director and
Office.
Dr. Mahoney's testimony focused on Program management.
While management is the responsibility of the executive branch,
Mahoney explains Congress needs to guide the establishment and
fund a management and coordination office. There needs to be a
central location, most likely in OMB, to solidify the separate
parts of the 13 collaborating agencies. He also noted that in
developing better user-friendly resources, the Program requires
better communication and education strategies, not a de-
emphasis on scientific assessments. Finally Mahoney suggests
avoiding duplication by coordinating reports and output with
the international community.
Mr. Nutter discussed the role of global change for
reinsurance, or the insurance of insurance, companies. In 2005,
the total global insured catastrophe losses were $83 billion
and experts expect these loses to double every ten years.
Nutter believes H.R. 906 will provide the necessary information
to enhance risk assessment and lead to improved insurance
markets.
Dr. Mote began his remarks by highlighting the societal
demands for information about climate and what such demands
mean locally. The regional and State level focus on climate
change described in the legislation is valuable in connecting
stakeholder needs. He recommends establishing a national
program that translates high quality, modeling information into
local stakeholder needs.
Ms. Bittleman testified on behalf of the Western Governor's
Association and expressed the need for comprehensive user-
driven information. The legislation would involve the National
Governor's Association in evaluating the Program's research
plan from a user perspective. Bittleman explained that
decision-makers in government and the private sector need
reliable information so they can plan and respond accordingly.
Members' questions focused on the structure and timeline of
the Program. Witnesses explained the Director for the USGCRP
needs to have sufficient authority to make decisions about and
make budget decisions over the program. Witnesses also
suggested sequencing the various reports throughout a four or
five year period rather than requesting a ten year research
plan, an annual plan, a vulnerability plan and a policy plan
within the first year.
4.2(h)_Prospects for Advanced Coal Technologies: Efficient
Energy Production, Carbon Capture and Sequestration
May 15, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-29
Background
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to receive testimony on the advancement of coal
technologies and carbon capture and sequestration strategies
which will help to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Department of Energy has a number of ongoing research
and development programs designed to demonstrate advanced
technologies that reduce coal power's carbon emissions. In
addition, some industry leaders also have begun to invest in
advanced coal technologies. The Committee heard testimony from
five witnesses who discussed current research, development,
demonstration and commercial application of technologies that
enable our power plants to operate more efficiently, reduce
emissions, and capture carbon for long-term storage. They
discussed the technological and economic challenges in limiting
carbon emissions and safely managing the captured carbon on a
large scale.
Witnesses included: (1) Mr. Carl O. Bauer, Director of the
Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL); (2) Dr. Robert L. Finley, Director Energy and Earth
Resources Center for Illinois State Geological Survey; (3) Mr.
Michael Rencheck, Senior Vice President for Engineering
Projects and Field Services at American Electric Power; (4) Mr.
Stuart Dalton, Director of Generation, Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI); and (5) Mr. Gardiner Hill, Director of
Technology in Alternative Energy Technology, BP.
Summary of Hearing
Recognizing that coal is a critical resource for meeting
our nation's energy demand, witnesses at the hearing discussed
strategies for managing carbon dioxide emissions. The
challenges include advancing technologies that help gain
combustion efficiencies from electric generating coal plants
and demonstrating both carbon dioxide capture and sequestration
technologies. Specifically, witnesses emphasized the need to
demonstrate large-scale injection and storage of CO2
in underground geologic formations in order to monitor and
verify the fate of the CO2. Such large scale storage
demonstrations would provide an understanding of the risks
associated with sequestering large volumes of CO2
and offer solutions to mitigate those risks.
Available carbon capture and sequestration technologies are
currently too expensive for commercial use. Mr. Stu Dalton,
Director of Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), testified that using today's capture, compression,
transportation, and storage technologies would increase
pulverized coal plant costs by 40-60 percent and Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant costs would increase
by 40-50 percent. Mr. Carl Bauer explained the Department of
Energy is working to address these added operational costs by
developing CCS technology that can capture and store at least
90 percent of the potential CO2 emissions from coal-
fired power plants with less than a 10 percent increase in the
cost of electricity. Accomplishing this goal requires the
Department to develop cost-effective technology options by
leveraging basic and applied research with field verification.
According to the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United
States and Canada, Dr. Finley explained there is roughly 3,500
billion tons of storage capacity. Moreover, industry already
has gained experience injecting carbon dioxide underground
through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). While the geologic
capacity and injection techniques exist, the Nation has not
assessed short-term and long-term risks of CO2
storage in geologic reservoirs, such as leakage. According to
the witnesses, the main challenges to CCS--showing CO2
can be captured and stored in underground geologic formations
with long-term stability, developing CO2 monitoring
capabilities, and gaining public and regulatory acceptance--can
be addressed through large-scale demonstration projects.
Demonstration is the best method for successfully
commercializing capture technology as well. Capturing carbon
dioxide for sequestration is currently a very energy intensive
and costly process. Witnesses explained CO2 capture
and compression could require 20-30 percent of the overall
energy of the plant. They also noted that for oxyfuel
combustion and IGCC plants, making the oxygen or separating the
nitrogen and the oxygen from air for partial combustion is one
of the biggest cost drivers or inefficiencies.
Witnesses also urged the Committee to integrate carbon
capture with storage. They suggested operating and studying
large-scale capture, transport and storage together will
increase efficiency and operability.
Just as integrated carbon capture and sequestration systems
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, employing cost-effective
efficient technologies and practices can dramatically reduce
energy use and consequent CO2 emissions. Mr. Stu
Dalton estimates that over the next 20 years, improvements in
power plant efficiency can achieve CO2 reductions of
up to 20 percent per megawatt-hour without additional CO2
capture.
Finally, during the hearing, witnesses emphasized that for
the foreseeable future, coal will continue to be used to meet
our energy needs. Therefore, if the Nation is going to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, it is essential that we develop
techniques to safely capture and sequester carbon as a
byproduct of coal combustion. H.R. 1933, the Department of
Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 2007 introduced by Mark Udall (D-CO), is
based on the recommendations in the MIT report ``The Future of
Coal'' and authorizes research and development and
demonstration programs to set a path that mitigates carbon
dioxide emissions with continued use of coal as an energy
resource.
4.2(i)_Developing Untapped Potential: Geothermal and Ocean
Power Technologies
May 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-32
Background
On Thursday, May 17, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a legislative hearing on two bills designed to
boost research and development into geothermal and ocean energy
technologies.
Representative Jerry McNerney (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2304,
the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of
2007. The bill would authorize $90 million a year for fiscal
years 2008-2012 for research and development (R&D) of
technologies to locate and develop geothermal resources.
Geothermal energy is generated by heat stored in the Earth and
the hearing examined two types of geothermal sources:
hydrothermal systems and Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).
Hydrothermal systems use steam or hot water from naturally-
occurring, underground, heated, fluid-filled reservoirs to
generate electricity or for direct use (e.g., heating
buildings, greenhouses, or aquaculture operations). Enhanced
Geothermal Systems (EGS) is not as location specific, and an
injection well is drilled to a depth where temperatures are
sufficiently high and a fluid is introduced to absorb the heat.
The fluid is extracted through a production well, the heat is
extracted to run a geothermal power plant or for some direct
use application.
The hearing also examined H.R. 2313, the Marine Renewable
Energy Research and Development Act of 2007. The legislation,
introduced by Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR) and co-sponsored by
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), authorizes $50 million a year
from fiscal years 2008-2012 to support R&D to produce electric
power from renewable marine resources, such as ocean waves,
tidal flows, ocean currents, or ocean thermal gradients.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses: (1)
Dr. Jefferson Tester, H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (2) Mr.
Paul A. Thomsen, Public Policy Manager, ORMAT Technologies
Inc.; (3) Dr. Annette von Jouanne, Professor of Power
Electronics and Energy Systems, Oregon State University; (4)
Mr. Sean O'Neill, President, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition;
and (5) Mr. Nathanael Green, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Tester discussed the potential for geothermal to
provide emission-free, dispatchable, baseload power in the
United States. The U.S. currently has 3,000 MWe of capacity and
the potential, with RD&D, to reach 100,000 MWe in 50 years. To
achieve this capacity, the U.S. needs research that enhances
the quantitative assessment of geothermal resources on a site-
specific basis and demonstrates reservoir stimulation and
drilling technologies.
Mr. Thomsen supported the geothermal legislation, stating
that it would give the Administration the necessary push to
develop a domestic geothermal energy supply.
Dr. Von Jouanne discussed the potential of wave energy
through the use of commercial wave parks. For example, during
the winter months, the Oregon coast has wave energy potentials
in the range of 50-60 kilowatt per meter of crest length. She
also highlighted wave research activities at Oregon State
University.
Mr. O'Neill also discussed ocean energy and touched on
several projects already underway in the United States. He
emphasized the need for greater American competitiveness in
developing renewable energy technologies.
Mr. Greene discussed the importance of incorporating
environmental impacts into energy research and development. He
recommended adding language to H.R. 2304 to study geothermal
energy's environmental impacts, which is already included in
H.R. 2313.
Much of the discussion focused on geothermal energy. Dr.
Tester explained that the western United States would be the
best region for geothermal energy production. He also explained
that launching geothermal energy is more than a matter of
economics, but also requires improving the technology at hand.
Both Mr. Greene and Mr. Thomsen stressed the need for
technology that improves the efficiency of renewable energy
production, especially for geothermal energy. Mr. Thomsen added
that technology development would have a positive impact on the
economy, noting that because it is a domestic resource, jobs
would stay in the United States.
4.2(j)_The Status Report on the NPOESS Weather Satellite
Program
June 7, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-36
Background
On Thursday, June 7, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to continue oversight on the unsettled National
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS). The NPOESS program was initiated as a tri-agency
effort (NOAA-DOD-NASA) during the Clinton Administration in
1994. This new polar satellite series was designed to replace
two separate satellite series--POES and DMSP--in an effort to
obtain key weather data used in forecasting models.
Although no satellites have been acquired, it has already
run into significant budget and schedule problems. The
projected budget expanded beyond 25 percent of the original
plan ($6.5 billion), and began a Nunn-McCurdy re-certification.
This lead to a restructuring of the program where many of the
instruments were removed from the baseline manifest, and the
total number of satellites was reduced from six to four. The
current projections have the program costing $12.5 billion over
its lifetime, with the first satellite launch in 2013 and the
final one in 2016. Despite these efforts there is still doubt
that the abbreviated program will be delivered on the revised
budget and schedule.
During the hearing the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) released the latest report on this critical weather
monitoring platform requested by the Subcommittee. They
conclude that restructuring is well under way, and the program
has made progress in establishing an effective management
structure. There has not been enough progress to show that the
key technical risks which have bedeviled the program are being
reduced, however. VIIRS flight hardware has yet to be built,
and CMIS flight hardware suffered an unexpected failure in
early testing.
The witnesses for the hearing were: (1) Dr. John Marburger
III, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP); (2) Mr. David Powner, Director of Information
Technology Management Issues at the Government Accountability
Office (GAO); and (3) Brigadier General Susan Mashiko, United
States Air Force (USAF), Program Executive Officer for
Environmental Monitoring.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened by noting the history of the
NPOESS project. He worried that under the current schedule,
discontinuity in environmental data between the previous series
of satellites and NPOESS may occur. Fortunately, the ground
component of the program is under budget and the most pressing
issues are the technical problems with the sensors. Rep.
Lampson was concerned that because Brigadier General Mashiko is
leaving, the program will face additional difficulties.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) commended the oversight of the
program, and said efforts to improve the program have paid off.
He noted the technical challenges of creating one of the most
complex environmental satellites ever made.
Dr. Marburger testified that the number one priority for
NASA and NOAA is the continuity of terrestrial weather
forecasting. Through negotiations, one of the removed sensors,
OMBS-Limb, will be on the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP)
satellite launching in 2009.
Mr. Powner discussed four risks that could undermine the
project: management of a tri-agency project, a key executive
leaving the project, wider staff shortages, and doubt that the
cost estimate is accurate. He warned that many of the
assurances and projections will be better founded once the
acquisition contracts are signed and the sensors are delivered.
Brigadier General Mashiko reported that the new program
baseline is finalized and a contract should be ready in July
2007. She also assured the Subcommittee that the Visible Imager
Infrared Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) is close to being delivered,
and the Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS) has failed a
vibration test but will not pose a large risk to on time
delivery. She expressed her confidence that the NPOESS is
progressing on budget and schedule.
4.2(k)_A Path Toward the Broader Use of Biofuels: Enhancing the
Federal Commitment to Research and Development to Meet the
Growing Need
June 14, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-40
Background
On June 14, 2007, the Honorable Nick Lampson presiding, the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to
examine the federal efforts on research, development and
demonstration of technologies related to the production of
biofuels, the development of biorefineries and demonstrations
of those technologies and to identify gaps in current federal
research and development programs. The hearing focused on
legislative proposals to restructure and enhance the biofuels
research and development programs of the Department of Energy
and the Department of Agriculture under consideration in the
House and Senate, including an evaluation of a ``Discussion
Draft'' version of H.R. 2773.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Thomas Foust, Biofuels
Research Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; (2)
Mr. John Berger, Chairman and CEO, Standard Renewable Energy
and CEO, BioSelect; (3) Mr. Robert Dinneen, President,
Renewable Fuels Association; (4) Mr. Michael J. McAdams,
Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Coalition; and (5) Mr.
David Waskow, Policy Analyst, Friends of the Earth, U.S.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened the hearing by emphasizing
the need for alternatives to both fossil fuels and ethanol
produced from corn.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) noted the benefits of
biofuels' regional diversity of feedstocks, but also that the
versatility of production would make biofuel infrastructure
development more difficult. He called for the aggressive
development of next-generation biofuel systems.
Dr. Foust testified that the U.S. has the potential produce
enough biomass to supply over 50 percent of our national fuel
needs without impacting food production. While ethanol from
plant biomass and hydrogenation are straightforward alternative
fuel approaches, they have a limited production volume. Thus,
the U.S. should work toward infrastructure and commercial
viability for biomass gasification and fuels from algae.
Mr. Berger emphasized biofuels' capacity to increase
national security and create American jobs, and called for a
focus on specific fuel standard goals, R&D, commercialization,
and productive partnerships.
Mr. Dinneen lauded the Committee's efforts in promoting R&D
and targeted resource allocation, but foresaw some
difficulties, such as how the Discussion Draft addressed the
application of biofuels in the transportation network, funding
deficiencies, and a need to track the higher ethanol blend
testing process.
Mr. McAdams applauded Committee efforts, but noted that the
future of energy policy will require contributions from many
sources. He narrated a series of slides to illustrate the state
and future of biofuels, calling for sufficient flexibility for
setting and reaching project goals.
Mr. Waskow stressed the importance of monitoring biofuels'
environmental impacts, best accomplished though a lifecycle
research and analysis approach.
During the discussion period, Chairman Lampson asked about
the need for and specifics of biofuel transportation and
storage infrastructure. Mr. Dinneen explained that railways
would be a viable means of transportation. Mr. McAdams
explained that blending biofuels with gasoline could provide
cost competitive option in the near future, in part because the
decentralized nature of production necessitates shorter
shipping distances.
Full Committee Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) asked whether
land use changes were necessary with increased biofuel
production. Dr. Foust explained biofuel-related forestry
replacement would need to be carbon neutral.
Ranking Member Inglis raised concerns about the
coordination of multiple facilities, and Dr. Foust suggested
that while national laboratories should focus on basic
research, regional centers can study market factors and
specific logistical issues.
Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) and Rep. Woolsey (D-CA) raised
environmental concerns, citing problems with U.S. efforts in
corn ethanol. Mr. Waskow agreed that setting environmental
safeguards is currently a crucial and delicate task, and that a
strong pace for these efforts is crucial. Furthermore, as Mr.
Berger explained, the need for alternative fuels is such that
imperfect solutions are still beneficial and important.
Chairman Lampson closed with inquiry about the future of
pure ethanol use, and Mr. Dinnen and Mr. McAdams explained that
while price and current vehicle technologies mean ethanol-
fossil fuel blending will continue for the near future, fuels
with 100 percent renewable content are the ultimate goal.
4.2(l)_Research, Education and Training Programs to Facilitate
Adoption of Solar Energy Technologies
June 19, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-41
Background
On Tuesday, June 19, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony on the
Discussion Draft of H.R. 2774, sponsored by Representative
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), which establishes several important
research, education, and training programs to facilitate the
adoption of solar energy technologies.
This bill addresses issues in solar research, education,
and training not covered by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
These include a research and development program on thermal
energy storage technologies for concentrating solar power, a
study to determine the necessary steps to integrate
concentrating solar power (CSP) plants with the regional and
national electric grid, a program to ensure that a sufficient
number of people are properly trained to install and maintain
solar energy equipment, and the establishment of a solar energy
research and information program, modeled on similar such
programs for the beef and dairy industries. The program is
supported by pooling funds from the private sector for the
research and promotion of the solar power industry as a whole.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses: (1)
Mr. Herbert Hayden, Solar Technology Coordinator, Arizona
Public Service (APS); (2) Mr. Rhone Resch, President, Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA); (3) Ms. Jane Weissman,
Executive Director, Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC),
and Vice Chair of the North American Board of Certified Energy
Practitioners (NABCEP); (4) Professor Joseph Sarubbi, Chair,
Building Systems Technology Department at Hudson Valley
Community College; and (5) Dr. David Arvizu, Director, the
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL).
Summary of Hearing
Witnesses at this hearing agreed that thermal storage
technology is critical to the viability of CSP as a significant
energy option. Dr. Arvizu noted that the ability of CSP
technologies to store energy presents an opportunity to produce
baseload power at about five cents per kilowatt-hour. Such
systems would include 13-17 hrs. of thermal storage and would
compete with the cost of power from coal plants using carbon
sequestration technology. It is expected that an aggressive R&D
program could achieve the cost goal by 2020.
Along with Dr. Arvizu, Mr. Hayden lent his support to the
CSP grid integration study as well. Intermittent renewable
resources such as wind and solar present special economic
challenges for transmission investment because they do not
efficiently utilize the transmission investment at all times.
Mr. Hayden and Dr. Arvizu also agreed that minimizing water
usage is an important factor in reducing cost.
Testimony supporting a workforce training component was
given by Ms. Weissman and Professor Sarubbi. Ms. Weissman said
that if market past performance continues and current
projections are realized, then current training opportunities
fall far short of expected demand for qualified workers. She
noted that DOE estimates that 5,000 trained installers could be
needed by 2015 to meet the goals of its Solar America
Initiative, and to date, we have only 365 certified solar
electric installers and 40 certified solar thermal installers.
She also noted that training needs to be based on industry
standards so that students are taught the right skills with the
right equipment.
Mr. Resch provided testimony on the growth opportunities
for the solar industry as a whole in the United States, as well
as on the need for a solar research and information program,
also known as a check-off program, modeled after several
similar product promotion programs for agricultural products
that are funded by industry and managed in conjunction with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. He explained that such a
program would pool industry resources to increase awareness of
solar energy as an option across the Nation, and ensure that
consumers know what quality control standards to look for in
the purchase and installation of solar energy equipment.
4.2(m)_The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah
River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part I
July 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-45
Background
On July 17, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a joint hearing entitled ``The Department of
Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), Part I.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
past and current work of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), its relationship to the Savannah River Site and the
Communities bordering the Site, and the events leading to the
Department of Energy's (DOE) decision to withdraw funding for
the laboratory in fiscal year 2007.
SREL is a research laboratory owned by the University of
Georgia that studies and monitors the radiological waste held
at the Savannah River Site (SRS), a National Environmental
Research Park (NERP). The laboratory maintains long-term
records of environmental indicators and engages in other
research pertaining to the effect of the pollutants held there
on natural and artificial environments, including agricultural
systems. This first part of a two part hearing looked into the
scientific validity of the work at SREL.
The hearing heard testimony from two panels. The first
panel included: (1) the Honorable John Barrow (D-GA),
Representative of Georgia's 12th congressional district. The
second panel included: (2) Dr. Jerry Schnoor, professor of
civil and environmental engineering, University of Iowa; and
(3) Dr. Ward Whicker, professor of radio-biology, Colorado
State University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by decrying
the actions and the threatened closure of SREL. He stressed the
quality and independence of SREL's work, which was useful not
only in maintaining the safety of the Savannah River Site, but
has helped others understand other polluted areas. Chairman
Miller accused DOE of creating a unique process to review
SREL's funding, a process designed to shut it down. Chairman
Lampson (D-TX) added that the lab has saved the public millions
of dollars through a better understanding of the environmental
challenges of this pollution.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) expressed that the
hearing began by accusing DOE of impropriety without anybody
from DOE present to defend itself. Chairman Miller stated that
extraneous events and the second hearing provides ample
opportunity for fairness in this process. Rep. Sensenbrenner
agreed that SREL has done good science but thought the issue
was what went wrong with the DOE in making their decisions.
Rep. Barrow testified that SREL and the surrounding NERP
are crucial tools to understand out pollutants interact in the
environment. The fact that the government has created these
areas means that the kind of monitoring and science SREL does
should be done. He further stated that a private contractor
cannot provide the quality of monitoring that SREL has done.
Dr. Schnoor is independent of SREL but knowledgeable of its
work. He testified that the ecological risks of pollution are
better understood at SREL than anywhere else in the United
States. SREL provides independent and verifiable information on
the remediation of the pollutants found on the site.
Dr. Whicker testified to the importance of SREL's work,
especially in clean-up risk analysis. He explained that there
are thresholds in clean-up as contamination increases.
Understanding the conditions where it is useful to commit to a
more drastic technique requires good science, and SREL has been
instrumental in this research. Furthermore, the basic research
of pollutant movement and natural sequestration clarifies
existing risks and characterizes new ones in environmental
clean-up.
During questions, Dr. Whicker testified that a private
contractor could not have done the SRS risk assessment that
SREL does. Dr. Schnoor emphasized that the method for
remediation at SRS, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA), cannot
be done without long-term monitoring. Rep. Sensenbrenner asked
why SREL doesn't support itself through normal peer-review
grants. Dr. Schnoor responded that SREL does compete for
research grants, and its specially appropriated funds are for
operating and infrastructure costs, like other national
laboratories.
4.2(n)_Tracking the Storm at the National Hurricane Center
July 19, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-47
Background
On Thursday, July 19, 2007 the Subcommittees on Energy and
Environment and Investigations and Oversight met to evaluate
recent events at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Tropical Prediction Center (TPC/NHC).
Upon the orders of NOAA's Administrator, Conrad Lautenbacher,
an assessment team was formed to review the operations of the
tropical prediction center. In response to the Assessment
Team's preliminary reports, the Vice Admiral placed Center
Director X. William (Bill) Proenza on administrative leave. The
hearing explored the process that culminated in Mr. Proenza's
removal.
The Subcommittees heard from three witness panels. The
first panel included: (1) Mr. X. William Proenza, Director,
Tropical Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, National
Centers for Environmental Prediction, NOAA. The second panel
included: (2) Dr. Robert Atlas, Director, Atlantic
Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA; and (3) Mr.
Don McKinnon, Director, Jones County (MS) Emergency Management
Agency; and (4) Mr. Robie Robinson, Director, Dallas County
Office of Security and Emergency Management. The third panel
included: (5) Hon. Conrad Lautenbacher, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
(Ret.), Under Secretary of Commerce, Oceans and Atmosphere and
Administrator, NOAA; and (6) Dr. James Turner, Deputy Director,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Summary of Hearing
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Lampson (D-TX)
opened the hearing by saying that he did not understand why
Admiral Lautenbacher believed that dispatching an assessment
team with little experience or knowledge of NWS or forecasting
to the Center was the appropriate way to deal with staff
complaints about Mr. Proenza. It seemed that the arrival of the
assessment team exacerbated problems with the staff, and has
left the NHC without a Director. He stressed that the situation
needs to be resolved so the NHC can continue forcasting
hurricanes and issuing warnings to the emergency management
community and the public.
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Miller
(D-NC) warned against the hazards of office politics. He asked
whether Mr. Proenza was removed as a result of leadership
difficulties or because he was a whistleblower, particularly
regarding the QuikSCAT program.
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Inglis
(R-SC) countered that the matter at hand may be just a
personnel matter and expressed approval at the hearing's
mission to decipher the conflict.
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) echoed Rep. Inglis' doubts but argued that
Mr. Proenza should be excused from the panel for not having
provided written testimony, while Admiral Lautenbacher should
be allowed to testify before the other witnesses.
Mr. Proenza defended his actions as NHC Director,
expressing his desire to return to his position.
During the first panel discussion, the Members asked
Proenza about the details of the Assessment Team's
investigation, the presence of public media at NHC, his
recommendations for the QuikSCAT program, and the details of
Mr. Proenza's employment and leadership reputation at NHC. They
also discussed his opinions of past and current NHC agendas,
operations, and staff.
During the second panel, Dr. Atlas detailed and emphasized
the value of the QuikSCAT satellite. Mr. McKinnon provided a
favorable picture of Mr. Proenza's former employment at the
National Weather Service's Southern Region and expressed regret
that Mr. Proenza's defense of public interests may have invited
retribution. Mr. Robinson lauded Mr. Proenza's interactions
with local emergency managers, his talent in leadership, and
his honesty in addressing problematic issues.
During their discussion period, the witnesses all testified
to both the professional skill and personal integrity of Mr.
Proenza and to what the personnel problems at NHC might have
been. Dr. Atlas provided Chairman Lampson and Rep. Diaz-Balart
(R-FL) with his recommendations for advancement in hurricane
forecasting and Mr. Klein with an explanation of QuikSCAT
alternatives.
During the third panel, Admiral Lautenbacher assured the
Committee that NOAA, the National Weather Service, and the TPC
were prepared for the coming hurricane season. He cited
employee complaints about Mr. Proenza's leadership and
relationship with the Assessment Team and defended the decision
to remove him from his position as TPC Director. Dr. Turner
cited low staff morale and organizational difficulties as
support for Mr. Proenza's removal.
During the discussion, Admiral Lautenbacher detailed the
process for assessing and removing Mr. Proenza from the NHC. He
confirmed with Chairman Miller that all relevant NOAA documents
had been or would soon be provided. Rep. Diaz-Balart asked Dr.
Turner if, in his experience, the incidence of a staff turning
against a supervisor en masse is a common occurrence, and Dr.
Turner asserted that it was not.
4.2(o)_The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah
River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part II
August 1, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-50
Background
On August 1, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a joint hearing entitled ``The Department of
Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), Part II.''
The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory was founded by
University of Georgia in 1951 to monitor the environmental
effects of the Savannah River Site (SRS) which is home to the
much larger Savannah River National Laboratories (SRNL). It is
run by the University of Georgia (UGA) and operates under
agreements made with the Department of Energy (DOE).
It has regularly obtained individual and specific funding
within the DOE. SREL lost this funding in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006. The Georgia and South Carolina congressional delegations
met with DOE, UGA, and SREL to reverse this decision. An
agreement was made in May 2005 to ease the transition by
allocating $4 million in FY06 and $1 million FY07 and with an
invitation to seek funding elsewhere. The Director of SREL then
set to establish a new cooperative agreement with the SRS
through its Director, Mr. Jeff Allison. This agreement funded
SREL $20 million over four years. Mr. Allison then was made
aware of the previous agreement in May 2005, and was told to
make his offer commensurate with this. As a result SREL lost
this funding, and instead any additional funding would come
pending a technical-peer review of its proposed tasks based on
a mission critical need. The proposal from SREL of 27 tasks
totaling about $3 million was reduced to six tasks for $800,000
by the judgment of DOE Project Directors. Given this and a lack
of outside funds, SREL is threatened with closure.
The witnesses were convened into four panels. The first
panel held: (1) Hon. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy. The second panel held: (2) Dr. Paul
Bertsch, former Director, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,
and (3) Ms. Karen Patterson, Chair of the Citizens Advisory
Board (CAB), Savannah River Site. The third panel held: (4) Mr.
Jeffrey M. Allison, Manager, Savannah River Operations Office;
(5) Mr. Charlie Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Environmental Management, (6) Mr. Mark Gilbertson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Technology, Office
of Environmental Management; and (7) Ms. Yvette T. Collazo,
Assistant Manager, Closure Projects, Savannah River Operations
Office. The fourth panel held (8) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, the
Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by stating that
SREL's work has lead to better understanding of the SRS site
and to pollution in general. It was, by any financial measure,
a very inexpensive lab to operate and it would be difficult to
find a better return on investment anywhere in the federal
science complex.
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) questioned why Mr. Allison would
negotiate a new agreement if SREL was supposed to become
independent. He doubts that DOE negotiated in good faith with
SREL given the documented record. Chairman Lampson said that
whatever plans DOE has for SREL, they should be firm and
transparent. He expressed his hope that, given SREL's exemplary
track record, it would continue to be independent and
adequately funded.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) criticized the
Chairman's bad faith in the operation of the hearing, and
accused the Democrats of trying to paint the DOE in a bad
light. He defended the DOE and said that they acted in good
faith by fulfilling established agreements.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) defended the nature of
independent financing for SREL through a project by project
basis. He condemned the public sector's resistance to change
compared to the private sector's flexibility. Rep. Inglis
suggested that DOE might be getting better research for the
cost through these different methods.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) also recognized the good work
that SREL has done. He thought that in May of 2005 it was well
known that SREL would have to operate independently and with
less money. He commended the efforts of Mr. Anderson and Ms.
Sigal in obtaining two more years of funding. He concluded that
it was Dr. Bertsch's responsibility to find suitable funding
options.
Mr. Sell defended DOE by reiterating that they did not act
in bad faith. DOE wanted to end special support for SREL and
make it an independent UGA run lab. Mr. Sell stated that it was
implicit in the 2005 agreement that non-competitive funding
would end after FY07. He cited the example of SRNL which became
an independently funded laboratory that has expanded and
increased its budget while thriving through such funding means.
He stated that SREL and UGA are responsible for the
unsuccessful transition.
During the discussion, Mr. Sell emphasized that the
agreement between UGA and DOE implied that SREL would become
independent, and that SREL knew this by quoting a statement
from Dr. Bertsch in July 2005. Dr. Bertsch said that if federal
funding ends, he would look for other funding sources.
Questions also emphasized that the requirement for independence
was not delineated within any of the agreements. Mr. Sell could
not specify any studies assessing a closure of SREL. He could
not say if the jobs terminated at SREL are now contracted out.
Dr. Bertsch, the former Director of SREL, discussed SREL's
importance, such as its role for monitoring SRS's long-term
waste. Dr. Bertsch explained that until May 7, 2007, he was
consistently told by SRS management and program staff that
SREL's work was important, that there was a need for the work,
and that there was sufficient funding for the work. He also
noted that in his 23 years at SREL, all contracts were
developed with the SRS Site Manager and program staff and,
until now, there had never been involvement from DOE-HQ of this
magnitude.
Ms. Patterson testified that the Citizens Advisory Board
supports SREL because it provided independent analysis of
actions by the DOE at SRS. She lamented the loss of expertise,
data sets, and scientific legitimacy.
During the discussion, Dr. Bertsch said that DOE had never
previously asked SREL to compete for grants. He thought that
with the Allison agreement, SREL would be under the
Environmental Management portfolio at DOE and not Office of
Science. Furthermore he wondered what exactly independence was,
since he worked in DOE owned labs and buildings and studied the
Savannah River Site; without DOE there is no SREL. Ms.
Patterson argued that a private contractor would not carry the
same legitimacy as SREL environmental analysis.
Mr. Anderson testified that DOE wanted UGA to take a lead
in SREL funding, since it was going to be cut. He noted that
SREL was not abruptly cut, but had two years to transition to
UGA. Additionally, he claimed that competitive funding was
successful since SREL won $800,000 in DOE funding. Any blame
for SREL's financial troubles should be placed on UGA.
Mr. Allison testified that despite the 2006 agreement, the
previous May 2005 agreement had to be honored, leading to
SREL's reduced funding. He remains hopeful about future work
with SREL.
Mr. Gilbertson discussed his role in DOE to ensure that all
research is done efficiently. He led the review of SREL's
proposal and helped UGA guide SREL's new direction.
Ms. Collazo's did program oversight for SREL. This
oversight lead to $1.8 million total from DOE with operational
costs included. She believes that DOE has met its commitments
in good faith.
Questions began with Allison responding that he received no
direction on what terms the cooperative agreement would be
made. Mr. Allison did say that now SREL is needed for sewer and
groundwater research. The ``mission critical'' standard to Mr.
Allison meant those actions required for clean-up; Mr.
Gilbertson said it is the broad discretion of the project
directors. Mr. Allison responded that there was no place to
submit the projects that were rejected.
Mr. Orbach affirmed DOE's Environmental Remediation
Sciences Division policy that all research funds are peer-
reviewed and merit based. As this was being carried out, FY06
represented a budget crunch for Office of Science, and the
specific funding for SREL was cut.
Mr. Orbach, during questions, established that SREL did not
lose confidence of the Office of Science during the FY06
budget; however, given the needs of the Office of Science there
was no analysis of activities done by SREL outside the Office's
interests. The loss of funding was precipitated by a shift of
focus away from surface ecology and to subsurface ecology. Mr.
Orbach testified that this change reflects the current
knowledge of subsurface transport of pollutants is lacking and
could pose significant problems.
4.2(p)_The Benefits and Challenges of Producing Liquid Fuel
From Coal: The Role for Federal Research
September 5, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-51
Background
On Wednesday, September 5, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment met to discuss the use of coal to produce
liquid fuel, the status of coal-to-liquid (CTL) technologies
and what additional research, development and demonstration
programs should be undertaken at the Department of Energy or
other agencies to better understand the benefits and barriers
to converting coal into transportation fuels.
There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert L. Freerks,
Director of Product Development, Rentech Corporation; (2) Mr.
John Ward, VP, Marketing and Governmental Affairs, Headwaters,
Inc.; (3) Dr. James Bartis, Sr. Policy Researcher, RAND
Corporation; (4) Mr. David G. Hawkins, Director, Climate Center
at the Natural Resources Defense Council; (5) Dr. Richard D.
Boardman, The Secure Energy Initiative Head, Idaho National
Laboratory; and (6) Dr. Joseph Romm, Center for Energy &
Climate Solutions, Center for American Progress, and former
Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Among its benefits, the use of CTL in the transportation
sector could help secure energy supplies by displacing imports
of foreign sources of diesel or jet fuel. Reports also show
that CTL produces tailpipe emissions that are almost completely
free of sulfur, unlike conventional transportation fuels.
Another benefit would be the ability to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by as much as 20 percent over the fuel cycle through
the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage;
that would be made easier because the CTL process can employ
technologies which concentrate the CO2 stream for
removal.
Dr. Freerks testified on the technologies involved in coal
liquefaction. He specifically discussed the Fischer-Trophsch
process for producing synthetic jet and diesel fuels. With
widespread implementation, CTL could displace imports of
foreign fuel sources and help secure energy supplies.
Mr. Ward identified several common misconceptions about
coal-to-liquids and identified opportunities for areas calling
for the Federal Government's attention and increased R&D
support.
Dr. Bartis noted that unconventional fuel production would
provide less costly fuel to the American public. Producing
large amounts of unconventional fuels, including coal derived
liquid fuels, and moving towards greater energy efficiency will
cause world oil prices to decrease. Their research shows that
under reasonable assumptions this price reduction effort could
be very large and would likely result in large benefits to U.S.
consumers and large decreases in OPEC's revenues. Emissions
reductions, on the other hand, may be difficult to achieve with
coal-derived liquid fuels.
Dr. Hawkins argued against the claims that coal-to-liquids
technology can easily reduce oil dependence and greenhouse gas
emissions. Rather than mandate a fuel-specific approach or
adopt incentives for a fuel-specific approach, Hawkins
advocated for a fuel-neutral approach. He noted that we should
have incentives and performance standards that reward
entrepreneurs who deliver alternatives to oil that do the best
job at backing out oil and do the best job at cutting
greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Romm urged Congress not to promote coal as a
transportation fuel, arguing that an emissions cap on carbon
dioxide is a more effective approach to mitigating climate
change. He agreed with Dr. Hawkins that the future of coal as a
transportation fuel is with plug-in hybrids running on zero
carbon, coal generated electricity.
Dr. Boardman presented a series of tables and diagrams to
explain the benefits and challenges of converting coal into
liquid transportation fuels. He explained that, under certain
conditions, it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by up to 46 percent below comparable crude emissions.
4.2(q)_Revisiting the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP):
Achieving Industrial Efficiency
September 25, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-56
Background
On Tuesday, September 25, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment met to discuss the Department of Energy (DOE)
Industrial Technologies Programs (ITP), and prospects for
improving the energy efficiency and environmental performance
of the country's most energy-sensitive manufacturing processes
through technological advancement and industrial process
assessments. The hearing examined the successes and limitations
of the Industrial Technologies Program and how the program can
be improved to increase industrial energy efficiency and
environmental performance in the U.S. industrial sector. It
also examined areas of research that should be enhanced and
explored by the ITP and the Industrial Assessment Centers, and
what cost-effective opportunities would result from
strengthened industrial efficiency programs.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Fred Moore, Global
Director, Manufacturing and Technology, Dow Chemical Company;
(2) Mr. Paul Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Consumers of
America; (3) Mr. Lawrence Kavanagh, Vice President,
Manufacturing and Technology, American Iron and Steel
Institute; and (4) Mr. Malcolm E. Verdict, Associate Director,
Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas Engineering Experiment
Station, Texas A&M University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened the hearing by noting the
significant decrease in the ITP's budget since 2001, pointing
to their important and challenging role in increasing energy
efficiency, reducing emissions and keeping costs low
simultaneously.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) added that industry consumes
one-third of all energy used in the U.S., more than vehicles;
thus, the ITP can play a major part in making industry more
efficient and more cost effective.
Mr. Moore offered testimony on how to achieve greater
industrial energy efficiency, citing problems of job loss and
manufacturing as a shock absorber due to high and volatile fuel
prices. By increasing production efficiency in various ways,
Dow Chemical was able to save millions of dollars; the ITP
program could help other businesses achieve the same success
with a focus on energy co-generation, combined heat and power,
waste heat recovery, increased funding, government-business
coordination, and the EPA's Energy Star program.
Mr. Cicio explained that industry is highly supportive of
increasing energy efficiency, as it helps U.S. businesses
compete globally, reduce greenhouse emissions, and prevent
further offshoring. He called for higher funding levels and R&D
into long-term, cost effective solutions, and expressed
appreciation for the Save Energy Now program.
Mr. Kavanagh argued that for the necessary reductions in
greenhouse gases to occur, new processes for promoting short-
and long-term energy efficiency are needed.
Mr. Verdict provided commentary on the valuable
contributions of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station
(TEES), some of its current limitations, and recommendations
for the future.
During the discussion period, Chairman Lampson inquired
about ITP efficacy in light of funding decreases, and the
witnesses all suggested a return to a much higher budget. Mr.
Kavanagh suggested that program management could be improved to
increase the efficacy of R&D. The Members and witnesses also
discussed the Dow and ITP energy efficiency savings, how to
fund efficiency assessment costs, and the future of the U.S.
chemical industry in light of international R&D competition and
global investment. To close the hearing, Chairman Lampson
agreed with Mr. Verdict that the education of engineers and
innovators is a powerful and wise investment.
4.2(r)_Energy Storage Technologies: State of Development for
Stationary and Vehicular Applications
October 3, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-61
Background
On Wednesday, October 3, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a hearing to receive testimony on the
state of developing competitive energy storage systems for both
stationary and vehicular applications and the role for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) research and development programs
in supporting the development of these systems. The
Subcommittee also heard testimony on the discussion draft of
H.R. 3776, the Energy Storage Technology Advancement Act of
2007.
The Subcommittee heard from two panels. The first panel
focused on stationary energy storage systems and witnesses
included: (1) Ms. Patricia Hoffman, Deputy Director, Research
and Development, U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; (2) Mr. Brad
Roberts, Chairman, Electricity Storage Association (ESA); (3)
Mr. Larry Dickerman, Director, Distribution Engineering
Services for American Electric Power (AEP); and (4) Mr. Tom
Key, Technical Leader, Renewable and Distributed Generations,
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Witnesses on the
second panel discussed vehicular storage systems and included:
(5) Ms. Lynda Ziegler, Sr. Vice President for Customer
Services, Southern California Edison; (6) Ms. Denise Gray,
Director, Hybrid Energy Storage Systems, General Motors; and
(7) Ms. Mary Ann Wright, Vice President and General Manager,
Hybrid Systems for Johnson Controls, Director of Advanced Power
Solutions, a Johnson Controls and Saft joint venture.
Summary of Hearing
Witnesses at the hearing testified that the United States
presently is not a leader in the development of energy storage
technologies, and industry must look to overseas companies for
component parts that were oftentimes invented in the United
States. It was pointed out that the success of these overseas
companies is due in large part to intensive R&D and
commercialization support from their respective governments,
and that a similar effort is required in the U.S. The public-
private partnerships stemming from the Federal Government's
investment in research, development and demonstration programs
will help to propel the United States into a globally
competitive position. A robust domestic manufacturing base and
supply chain for this advanced technology sector will also have
the positive effect of creating high-wage manufacturing jobs in
the U.S. By increasing the domestic capacity of this advanced
technology sector, manufacturers will have greater access to
necessary components for accelerating advanced storage
technologies into the marketplace.
The first panel focused on stationary energy storage
systems and how these technologies can be successfully
integrated into the electric grid or installed alone at a
residential or commercial or industrial site to function as a
separate power supply. The witnesses underscored the ability of
storage systems to provide public benefits such as greater
power reliability and security and better integration of
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar into the
electric grid, since energy from these sources is otherwise
available only intermittently.
Ms. Hoffman, Deputy Director of Research and Development
and Acting Chief Operating Officer for the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) testified that energy storage
technologies paired with an advanced electric grid would
accelerate the integration of renewable sources of energy into
the grid as well as foster demand response practices where
customers' appliances respond to price signals provided by
electric utilities. She further discussed the benefits of
energy storage for improving power quality and reliability by
reducing transmission congestion and providing ancillary
services such as spinning reserve services needed to meet peak
electric demand.
However, Ms. Hoffman pointed out that a mere 2.5 percent of
the total electric power currently delivered in the United
States passes through energy storage systems and to date is
largely limited to pumped hydroelectric storage. She also
stated that the Department recognizes the need to continue
basic research into energy storage materials and systems and
during questions remarked that the demonstration programs in
the bill complement the Department's activities in this area
and do not duplicate its efforts.
Ms. Hoffman offered that DOE acknowledges that energy
storage technologies hold much promise for the transportation
sector as well. She testified that plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles will help to transition the Nation away from exclusive
dependence on oil for transportation fuel, and it is important
to understand how such vehicles could impact the electric
system.
Mr. Roberts, Chairman of the Electricity Storage
Association, underscored the benefits of energy storage
technology by describing the usefulness of storage systems
during power outages caused by natural and manmade disasters.
He recommended expanding the scope of government funding for
storage programs that interact with the grid and providing
adequate resources for conducing demonstrations of energy
storage technologies which enhance the electric grid.
Mr. Dickerman, Director of Distribution Engineering
Services at American Electric Power, agreed and emphasized the
need for federal investment incentives to accelerate the
widespread deployment of energy storage technologies. Mr.
Dickerman also discussed his company's ongoing investment in
deploying energy storage on its system using an advanced
battery technology. He explained energy storage could be used
to reduce peak load on equipment, provide backup energy to
improve security and reliability, and enhance the use of wind
generation at times of high demand.
Mr. Key, Technical Leader for Renewables and Distributed
Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute,
underscored the ability of energy storage technologies to
support renewable energy sources that avoid emissions of
harmful pollutants and to involve customers in the management
of their electricity use. He also acknowledged that these
technologies are expensive and siting and permitting can be
difficult. He closed by recognizing that energy storage
technologies will be essential in meeting the growing demand
for electricity from sources that address our environmental
challenges.
The second panel focused on energy storage technologies for
vehicles. Ms. Zeigler, Senior Vice President for Customer
Services, Southern California Edison testified that a study
conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute and the
Natural Resources Defense Council found that widespread
adoption of plug-in hybrids could reduce annual emissions of
greenhouse gases by more than 450 million metric tons by 2050,
or the equivalent of removing 82 million passenger cars from
the road. Advances in electric car batteries would also help to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies and improve
vehicle efficiencies. Electricity is the only alternative
transportation fuel with a national infrastructure in place
today. Consequently, plug-in hybrids could also serve as a
temporary energy power supply for homes and businesses, helping
customers avoid high electricity costs during times of peak
demand.
Ms. Gray, Director of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems at
General Motors Corporation, described the different types of
battery technologies, additional research needed to develop
vehicles that meet a range of consumer demands, and the
difficulties of allocating limited company resources across a
range of alternative technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells,
advanced diesel, and flexible fuel vehicles. She traces much of
the current success introducing hybrids in the U.S. auto market
to public-private partnership between industry and the
Department of Energy.
Mrs. Wright, Vice President and General Manger for Hybrid
Systems Power Solutions, Johnson Controls spoke to the
environmental benefits of plug-in electric vehicles, but
cautioned that continued federal investment in technology
research and demonstrations is needed to overcome significant
economic barriers. In addition, investment in a national
manufacturing base and infrastructure would facilitate
collaboration among the stakeholders to achieve widespread
deployment of these technologies in the marketplace at a price
consumers can afford. Ms. Wright's written testimony includes a
list of commercialization barriers and key enabling
countermeasures. Among those, direct federal collaborations
between battery manufacturers and other lower tier suppliers is
cited as key to overcoming a range of technical challenges.
4.2(s)_GAO's Report on the Status of NOAA's Geostationary
Weather Satellite Program
October 23, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-66
Background
On Tuesday, October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a hearing titled ``The Government's
Accountability Office's (GAO) Report on the Status of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Geostationary Weather Satellite Program.'' The Subcommittee met
to continue oversight on the next-generation Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program. The
Government Accountability Office has been continuing its
evaluation of progress made by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration at the request of the Subcommittee,
and will release their new report.
The witnesses testifying were: (1) Mr. David Powner,
Information Technology Management Issues, Government
Accountability Office; and (2) Ms. Mary Ellen Kicza, Assistant
Administrator for Satellite and Information Services, NOAA.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Powner discussed the findings of the GAO report. The
findings revealed that NOAA has made progress in planning its
GOES-R procurement--which is estimated to cost $7 billion and
scheduled to have the first satellite ready for launch in
2014--but cost and schedules are likely to grow. Specifically,
the agency completed preliminary design studies of GOES-R and
recently decided to separate the space and ground elements of
the program into two separate development contracts. However,
this change in the GOES-R acquisition strategy has delayed a
decision to proceed with the acquisition. GAO informed
Committee Members that it is recommending that the Secretary of
Commerce take steps to ensure that the GOES-R program
effectively manages and mitigates risks.
Ms. Kicza maintained that the two satellites remain on
schedule and on budget. She addressed the problems that Mr.
Powner brought up, including filling one of the administrative
positions, as well as assuring that NOAA has the knowledge and
access to NASA it needs to oversee the program. To address
cost, schedule, and technical risks, the GOES-R program has
established a risk management program and has taken steps to
mitigate selected risks.
During the discussion, Members explored the discrepancy
between the GAO and NOAA estimates. Mr. Powner argued that the
GAO's estimates draw upon the history of satellite acquisitions
which have a tendency to exceed estimates. NOAA has not
demonstrated that it has validated NASA's contractor
performance and GAO remains concerned that NOAA lacks the
capability to oversee this key aspect of the program. Rep.
Giffords (D-AZ) questioned whether building older models would
be an efficient alternative. Ms. Kicza denied that this would
be cost effective and was confident that NOAA will be able to
deliver the current two satellite system on current schedule
and on budget.
4.2(t)_Research to Improve Water-Use Efficiency and
Conservation: Technologies and Practices
October 30, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-68
Background
On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 3957, the Water-Use
Efficiency and Conservation Research Act of 2007.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses present
at the hearing: (1) Dr. Glen Daigger Senior Vice President,
CH2M HILL World Headquarters; (2) Mr. Ron Thompson, District
Manager, Washington County Water Conservancy District; (3) Mr.
Ed Clerico, President for Alliance Environmental; (4) Ms. Val
Little, Director, the Water Conservation Alliance of Southern
Arizona (Water CASA) and Principal Research Specialist, the
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, the
University of Arizona; and (5) Mr. John A. Veil, Manager, Water
Policy Program, Argonne National Laboratory.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Nick Lampson (D-TX) opened the hearing by
discussing the need for water conservation and efficiency,
particularly in drought ridden areas.
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) agreed and also called on
the Environmental Protection Agency to comment on H.R. 3957.
Mr. Daigger warned that with increased population growth
and urbanization, transporting clean, safe water is no longer
effective or necessary. Instead, municipalities can treat
reclaimed water at site with membranes, advanced oxidation and
ultra-violet light. While these technologies are available now,
Daigger urged Congress to support efforts to deliver these
technologies more quickly and authorize demonstration programs.
Mr. Thompson discussed the importance of water conservation
in the desert in Utah, which is accomplished through
technology, like low-flow appliances and fixtures, and
education.
Mr. Clerico testified on the importance of innovative
technology for water conservation. He cited several large scale
facilities where innovation and research is the key.
Ms. Little felt that the Committee should use the over 200
members of the Water-Sense Program to assist the EPA on
prioritizing the area of applied research in this area. She
Indicated support for the Water Sense Program and Grey Water,
which would increase water supplies.
Mr. Veil described ways in which produced water is
currently being beneficially reused. Three main uses that he
sited for produced water were increasing oil recovery,
agricultural, and drinking water. He noted that produced water
was not mentioned in H.R. 3957, which the Committee should
consider as a possibility.
Chairman Lampson opened questioning by asking the witnesses
what needs to be done to ensure U.S. leadership in water
management research and development. Mr. Daigger indicated that
the private sector will not receive return on this type of
research investment and the government is the most likely
source of funding.
Ranking Member Inglis asked whether we needed more R&D or
just better implementation of current technologies. Mr. Clerico
indicated that he felt there was a confidence issue with the
technologies and that these technologies are employed on a
widespread basis. Mr. Daigger noted the bill would influence
and change water management through the bill's technology
demonstration provision.
Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) asked the panel to talk about
creative avenues that they had taken in the past with regard to
water conservation. The panel cited the re-use of graywater as
one example. Mr. Thompson indicated that public acceptance of
reusing graywater wasn't positive, but that education was
important to change public views.
Full Committee Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) asked
whether produced or non-potable reused water could be used for
hydraulic fracturing and enhanced oil recovery. In response Mr.
Veil explained that large volumes of water are pumped
underground for this type of energy production and produced
water could be used as a water source.
Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-CA) asked about customer
satisfaction with graywater systems. Ms. Little indicated that
households were very satisfied with the systems, with the
exception of the lack of qualified installers and analysts.
McNerney then asked what the incremental cost is for installing
a graywater system in a new house. Mr. Clerico indicated that
there was a one percent incremental cost on capital for
residential buildings. Mr. Veil noted that it was very
difficult to clean produced water. Mr. Daigger discussed other
forms of water treatment, particle-separation membranes and
reverse osmosis, mentioning that costs for those materials were
decreasing with advances in technology.
Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) expressed that it is
important that water conservation and efficiency are national
issues. He then asked why per capita water use has dropped in
the last eleven years. Mr. Thompson cited listed tiered
pricing, restricted landscape watering, and general public
education. Mr. Thompson also indicated that he saw benefits in
setting up the database from the EPA to help with technology
transfer.
4.2(u)_The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal and GAO's Report on the
Aviation Weather Service
February 26, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-78
Background
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Honorable Nick Lampson
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
hearing to examine the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) budget proposal
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the
Aviation Weather Service.
The first panel had one witness: Vice Admiral Conrad
Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and Administrator at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
The second panel had three witnesses: (1) Mr. John L.
(Jack) Hayes, Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Mr.
Eugene D. Juba, Senior Vice President for Finance for the Air
Traffic Organization with the Federal Aviation Administration;
(3) Mr. David Powner, Director of Information Technology
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Nick Lampson opened the hearing by expressing his
support for the increase in NOAA's budget. He also expressed
his concern over the recent GAO report on Aviation Weather
Services.
Ranking Member Inglis expressed his support for ensuring
that NOAA has any resources that it requires and concerns over
issues between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
National Weather Service (NWS).
On the first panel, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher provided
testimony on NOAA's accomplishments including recognition by
the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for work on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, geographically
specific weather warnings, and the expansion of tsunami warning
capabilities. He also gave testimony on where the fiscal year
2009 budget would be allocated and reasons for budget increases
from fiscal year 2008.
During the first discussion period, Chairman Lampson
focused on the GOES-R budget and satellites needed for the
program. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher's opinion was that the
projected budget was accurate, including estimates for the cost
of adding two additional satellites to the program. The
Chairman also asked why the NPOESS Preparatory Project was
still being delayed by the VIIRS instrument. Vice Admiral
Lautenbacher focused on the technical challenges and problems
that have been presented by this particular project and the
changes made to their timeline to allow for future problems.
Ranking Member Inglis and Vice Admiral Lautenbacher
discussed the buoy systems for both the hurricane and tsunami
warning systems. Lautenbacher indicated that they need
supplemental buoys, better cost allocations, and maintenance
and repairs for the buoys.
Rep. Wu (D-OR) and Rep. Hooley (D-OR) focused on funding
promised towards tsunami education and mitigation, specifically
why less than 27 percent of funding had been allocated towards
it. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher said that this was the first he
had heard about NOAA's failure and he would work to meet this
requirement in the future. Rep. Hooley asked if NOAA would
continue to help with disaster relief for the salmon runs this
year and if it would be faster than in the past. Vice Admiral
Lautenbacher was aware of this issue and said that he would
work to help in any way possible.
In his second round of questions Chairman Lampson asked
about the increase in ocean vector wind studies and contingency
plans, should QuikSCAT fail. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher stressed
the importance of all of these systems, mentioning negotiations
with China and India and the importance of sharing information
internationally. Chairman Lampson also asked about red snapper
fisheries and how information from fishermen was being
incorporated into their decisions. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher
discussed surveys that were released in cooperation with the
Gulf Fishery Management Counsel.
On the second panel, Mr. Powner testified on findings and
recommendations of the GAO's report on aviation and weather
services that was completed at the Subcommittee's request.
Dr. Hayes testified on the National Weather Service
provision of aviation weather information to the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Mr. Juba discussed the findings and the recommendations of
the GAO and the value of the information provided by the NWS to
the FAA.
Chairman Lampson began by questioning the relationship
between the FAA and NWS, which Mr. Powner said was improving.
He also asked Mr. Hayes what the FAA is doing to meet their new
requirements and how they will ensure consistency of their
product and services. Mr. Hayes has formed a team to address
each of the requirements set before them and there is ongoing
dialogue to ensure that they are met.
Ranking Member Inglis focused his questions on
communication between the NWS and the FAA and on outside
weather contracting done by the FAA. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Juba
both acknowledged that the FAA was a major customer of the NWS,
that there were other contractors that the FAA used, but none
on the same scale as the NWS.
Chairman Lampson's last questions focused on supporting the
Center Weather Service Units, evaluating NWS proposals, and NWS
and FAA cooperation. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Juba both indicated that
they were strongly committed to working together in the future.
4.2(v)_Energizing Houston: Sustainability, Technological
Innovation, and Growth in the Energy Capital of the World
February 29, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-79
Background
On Friday, February 29, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a field hearing at Rice University in
Houston, TX. The Members and witnesses met to examine the new
range of environmental, economic, and energy-related challenges
face the United States and the rest of the world, within the
context of sustainability and Houston's regional
competitiveness.
Witnesses were grouped into two panels. Panel I included:
(1) Mr. Bill White, Mayor of the City of Houston; (2) Mr. John
Hofmeister, President of the Shell Oil Company; and (3) Mr.
Thomas Standish, President of Regulated Operations, CenterPoint
Energy. Panel II included (4) Dr. Walter Chapman, Director of
the Energy and Environment Systems Institute, Rice University;
(5) Dr. Robert Harriss, President & CEO, Houston Advanced
Research Center; (6) Dr. Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Advisor;
and (7) Mr. Michael Ming, President, Research Partnership to
Secure Energy for America (RPSEA).
Summary of Hearing
Both Chairman Lampson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Hall (R-TX)
opened the hearing by warning that global energy supplies are
increasingly unable to meet our growing demand for energy, and
stressed the need for alternative energy resources and cutting-
edge technologies as the United States works towards a
sustainable energy future. Ranking Member Hall also expressed
his concerns over Chinese oil surveying off the coast of
Florida, and stressed the importance of drilling in ANWR.
Congressman Bartlett (R-MD) expressed his concern that oil
supplies will peak and that he would prefer to postpone
drilling in ANWR. Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), Member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, discussed the importance of
the energy industry to the local economy in Houston and
reiterated calls for alternative energy resources and
sustainability.
Mr. Hofmeister outlined the short-term, medium-term, and
long-term energy needs in the United States and how Shell is
adapting to meet those changing needs. He estimated that the
U.S. would remain a petroleum based economy for the foreseeable
future while making a transition towards alternative fuels.
Mayor White testified on the demand side issues of energy
policy to follow Mr. Hofmeister's focus on the supply side.
Mr. Standish testified on the electric grid and its
developing convergence with the internet to form a ``Smart
Grid.''
In the discussion period, Chairman Lampson asked Mayor
White how the Federal Government could better serve local and
State governments to address new energy challenges. Mr. White
suggested retention of programs such as the weatherization
program as well as increasing flexibility on the State and
local application of federal standards. The Chairman then asked
Mr. Hofmeister what steps Shell was taking to make oil
production cleaner and more efficient. Mr. Hofmeister replied
that his company is able to show a net reduction in per-barrel
emissions, primarily through more efficient energy consumption.
Mr. Standish further noted that customers in Houston would see
lower prices and have remote control of their energy use via
Internet by January 2009.
Ranking Member Hall then asked Mr. Hofmeister about his
concerns that the ultra-deep drilling provisions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 would be removed. Mr. Hofmeister replied
that ultra-deep projects are long-term projects that take years
to design, and that inconsistent support of federal policies
and laws made such large projects difficult. However,
Congressman Hall reassured Mr. Hofmeister that there would be
no ``zigzagging'' in the ``actual thrust'' of the legislation.
Congressmen Bartlett then asked Mr. Hofmeister to elaborate
on his earlier comment that the country is ``balanced on the
razor's edge of growing demand and tightening supply.'' Mr.
Hofmeister answered by citing the aftermath of hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, during which the Nation's oil production
capacity decreased by nearly 25 percent. Congressman Green
concluded the first panel by highlighting problems with the Low
Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) legislation,
changes in the transmission grid and the need for technical
standards in that respect. Finally, he asked Mr. Hofmeister to
clarify his earlier statement that, although Shell would be
producing fewer emissions per barrel, there would nonetheless
be a net increase in emissions because they would be producing
twice as many barrels than before.
The second panel focused on academic and research sectors.
Mr. Ming and Dr. Chapman spoke about the current state of oil
and gas production and the transition to alternative energy
sources. Dr. Hirsch spoke chiefly about peak oil, and Dr.
Harriss discussed urban sustainability and his concerns over
the lack of institutional capacity to make affordable,
renewable energy available to Americans.
Chairman Lampson began the second question-and-answer
period by asking Dr. Chapman how Rice University was connecting
innovative technologies with entrepreneurs. Dr. Chapman said
that the university had a program called the ``Rice Alliance''
to facilitate the commercialization of such technologies.
Chairman Lampson asked Dr. Harriss how he saw the role of
government research changing and what could be done to enhance
that role despite increasingly limited funds. Dr. Harriss
explained that creating opportunities to stimulate more radical
innovation and forming partnerships would be essential, and
encouraged members to pursue ARPA-E as a path to such a goal.
Rep. Bartlett explained the problems he sees in current
energy policies, particularly biofuels, and asked Dr. Hirsch if
he thought an aggressive conservation program would be an
effective means to buy time to invest in energy alternatives.
Dr. Hirsch said that there was no single answer, but that it
would require a multifaceted approach, combining conservation
with other approaches to securing America's energy future.
4.2(w)_The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2009 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
March 5, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-80
Background
On Wednesday, March 5, 2008, the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee held a hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE)
fiscal year 2009 (FY 2009) budget request for research and
development programs.
The Subcommittee heard from three witnesses: (1) Mr. Steve
Isakowitz, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy; (2)
Mr. Mark Gaffigan, Acting Director, Government Accountability
Office, Natural Resources and Environment Team; and (3) Dr.
Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society;
Professor of Physics and Special Assistant to the President for
Federal Research Policy at Stanford University. Instead of Mr.
Isakowitz, the Subcommittee originally planned to hear from Mr.
C. H. ``Bud'' Albright, Under Secretary of Energy, Department
of Energy, and Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for
Science, Department of Energy. Mr. Albright and Dr. Orbach,
however, did not appear for testimony.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened by noting the energy and
sustainability obstacles facing the United States today, and
asserted that the Administration's budget request for DOE was
reasonable. He was, however, disappointed in how few resources
were committed to diversifying energy sources, increasing
energy efficiency and promoting renewables, as well as in the
basic research budget cuts. He was pleased with funding
increases for the Geothermal Technology program, but firmly
admonished the Bush Administration's repeated efforts to repeal
and withhold funds allocated by Congress, including those for
ARPA-E and the Industrial Technologies Program.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) then moved that witnesses Mr.
C.H. ``Bud'' Albright and Mr. Raymond L. Orbach, both
Undersecretaries for the DOE, would have written testimonies
included in the record. Mr. Costello objected to this
inclusion, but ultimately withdrew his objection.
Mr. Isakowitz testified on behalf of the Department
regarding the 2009 budget request.
In his testimony Mr. Gaffigan discussed long-term trends in
DOE's energy R&D funding and key barriers to the development
and deployment of advanced energy technologies.
Mr. Bienenstock addressed both the extraordinary damage
done by the 2008 Omnibus bill to DOE science and the balance
between DOE's basic research and technology programs in his
testimony.
During the discussion, Chairman Lampson asked Mr. Isakowitz
about OMB impeding the implementation of Section 999, the
ultra-deep program, of the Energy Policy Act. Mr. Isakowitz
assured him that the plans were to move forward with the
program, but they did not have any timeline available. Further
discussions surrounding the issue ensued, largely focusing on
which aspects of the program were not being followed.
Ranking Member Inglis inquired about plans to break our
dependence on oil through the use of alternative energy
technologies in light of budget cuts for such technologies. Mr.
Isakowitz's answer focused on the efforts in hydrogen power and
the budget being allocated for them. Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) then
asked why the President is not committed to spending more on
solar energy. Mr. Isakowitz discussed the large industry
involvement in solar technology and the various solar
initiatives being put forth by DOE.
Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) asked Mr. Gaffigan about long-term
energy security, seeing as our fossil fuels have a finite
lifetime. Mr. Gaffigan responded by acknowledging this fact,
but added that it is very difficult to switch away from them
when they are the cheapest short-term option relative to
alternatives and change will come slowly. Mr. Isakowitz went on
to discuss how hydrogen can be important in reducing the
Nation's dependency on fossil fuels.
Congressman Daniel Lipinski asked about DOE's plans to
submit a reprogramming request to address the lack of funding
in high energy physics to which Mr. Isakowitz said there was no
plan. Dr. Bienenstock felt that this would result in a great
deal of loss of capability within the United States in this
field. Congressman Lipinski also asked about the DOE's
direction with regards to FutureGen. Mr. Isakowitz indicated
that the reasons for FutureGen's change in direction were cost
growth in the program and a change in the overall marketplace.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert raised concerns over the ability
of the United States to stay competitive with the rest of the
world if the DOE budget was dropping. Mr. Isakowitz
acknowledged the importance of these points and that the DOE
had a variety of ways that it was working to stay competitive.
Rep. Biggert closed the hearing by thanking the witnesses and
commending the DOE for its pursuit of a facility for rare
isotope beams.
4.2(x)_Utility-Scale Solar Power: Opportunities and Obstacles
March 17, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-87
Background
On Monday, March 17, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Utility-Scale Solar
Power: Opportunities and Obstacles,'' at the Pima County
Administration Building Hearing Room, Tucson, Arizona.
There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. Mark Mehos, Program
Manager, Concentrating Solar Power Program at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; (2) Mr. Tom Hansen, Vice President
of Environmental Services, Conservation and Renewable Energy,
Tucson Electric Power; (3) Ms. Kate Maracas, Vice President of
Arizona operations, Abengoa Solar; (4) Ms. Valerie Rauluk,
Founder and CEO, Venture Catalyst, Inc.; (5) Ms. Barbara
Lockwood, Manager of Renewable Energy, Arizona Public Service;
and (6) Mr. Joe Kastner, Vice President of Implementation and
Operations, MMA Renewable Ventures LLC.
Summary of Hearing
Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) opened by discussing the
importance of solar power and the reasons why the southwestern
United States is an ideal location for solar power. Ranking
Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), Full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon
(D-TN), Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), Congressman Jim
Matheson (D-UT), and Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) all
offered opening statements highlighting the importance of
energy both in the United States and around the world, the
great opportunities provided by solar technology, the
challenges preventing use on a large scale, solar tax credits,
and the solar energy projects underway in Arizona.
Mr. Mehos provided an overall assessment of the available
resource size for solar energy in the U.S. and an introduction
to the known technologies that may take advantage of solar
power on a large scale.
Mr. Hansen described a ``Solar Grand Plan'' to provide more
than half of the U.S.'s electricity from solar power by 2050.
Ms. Maracas testified on the current state of solar thermal
technology and the near- and long-term economic costs and
benefits of large-scale solar power in general. Ms. Rauluk's
testimony focused on the current state of distributed and
concentrating photovoltaics and provided an assessment of how
the marketplace for solar energy will change over the next 10
years.
Ms. Lockwood provided the perspective of utilities on the
ability for large-scale solar power to be a significant
competitor in the U.S. energy sector over the next 50 years.
Finally, Mr. Kastner testified on his company's experience
with installing and managing the Nellis Air Force Base solar
array and ways to enable productive partnerships between
government and renewable energy industries in general.
Congresswoman Giffords opened the discussion period by
focusing on the Grand Solar Plan. Mr. Hansen indicated that
there may be as many as 150,000 new jobs created by the plan.
Mr. Kastner went on to discuss the importance of the Nevado
Power energy credit contract in the Nellis Air Force Base
partnership. At Congresswoman Giffords' request, Ms. Maracas
and Ms. Rauluk explained some specifics on international
competition in solar energy, specifically the tax credits
proposed in Europe.
Ranking Member Hall followed up with a question to Ms.
Rauluk on why solar energy needs assistance to be a viable
source of energy, which Ms. Rauluk explained was due to the up
front costs of solar energy. Mr. Mehos also added that with the
tax credit, up to a gigawatt of solar power could be produced
each year, but it would be too expensive to do so without the
credit. Ms. Lockwood noted that Arizona is an ideal place for
solar power, since it has largely unused land where
environmental impacts would be minimal.
Rep. Lipinski asked about the improvements being made in
photovoltaic efficiency, which Mr. Hansen and Ms. Rauluk
explained in great detail how efficiencies were improving from
new materials, but that cost will be the driving force in most
decisions. He also asked the panel if there was any conflict or
tension between distributed generation and utility scale solar
power. Mr. Hansen and Ms. Lockwood felt that there weren't
really any conflicts and that they could compliment each other,
while Ms. Rauluk was concerned about preserving utility
revenues.
Rep. Matheson asked about what innovations are necessary
for solar power. Mr. Mehos described several issues, including
higher temperatures on the lines, higher temperature materials,
higher reflectivity materials, and better absorbing materials.
Mr. Mehos also touched on areas where Congress can supplement
research as well. Mr. Matheson also asked about the effect of
using compressed air for storage on greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Hansen assured him that there were other options beyond
natural gas that would be greener than current systems.
Rep. Mitchell asked about land use for solar power. Mr.
Hansen indicated that with higher efficiency solar panels, less
land would be needed and in many cases roof space is available
instead of land. Ms. Rauluk followed up by showcasing the value
of distributed generation from this aspect--where you don't
need large pieces of land. Ms. Lockwood also indicated to
Congressman Mitchell that customers may pay a premium for
``green'' power.
4.2(y)_The Department of Energy's FutureGen Program
April 15, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-92
Background
On Tuesday, April 15, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled ``The Department of
Energy's FutureGen Program.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
gain a better understanding of the Department of Energy's
decision to restructure its FutureGen program, the process
through which the decisions to restructure were made, and to
obtain information about the impacts this revised approach to
the FutureGen initiative may have on carbon capture and
sequestration technology development. The hearing provided an
opportunity to assess the potential of this programmatic shift
to provide a cost-effective and timely path for development and
demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
In early 2003, the Department of Energy announced plans for
the Federal Government to build a $1 billion pollution-free
power plant known as the FutureGen Initiative. The venture was
promoted as a near-zero emissions power plant intended to
combine electricity and hydrogen production. On January 30,
2008 the Department of Energy announced a major restructuring
of the FutureGen program. Under the new program, DOE will no
longer build a small-scale clean coal power plant that can test
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies and provide
for the demonstration of an integrated carbon capture and
sequestration system. On January 30, 2008 DOE issued a Request
for Information (RFI) on its new path forward to demonstrate
advanced technology for electricity production from coal with a
March 3, 2008 deadline for public comments.
The Subcommittee heard from four witnesses: (1) Mr. Bud
Albright, Under Secretary at the Department of Energy; (2) Mr.
Paul Thompson, Senior Vice President, Energy Services, at E.On,
LLC and Chairman of the FutureGen Alliance Board; (3) Mr. Ben
Yamagata, Executive Director, Coal Utilization Research Council
(CURC); and (4) Mr. Jeffrey N. Phillips, Program Manager,
Advanced Coal Generation Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI).
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) made an opening statement on the
importance of the development of new energy technologies in the
mitigation of climate change, expressing interest in the
restructuring of the FutureGen program.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) expressed his support for
clean coal and CCS technologies, and his curiosity in the
sudden DOE decision to change the FutureGen program.
Full Committee Chairman Gordon (D-TN) expressed his support
of the development of new energy technologies and interest in
the rationale for changing the program.
Mr. Bud Albright was the only witness on the first panel
and he testified that the decision to restructure was made
after cost estimates for the program rose while the market for
clean coal declined.
Chairman Lampson then entered materials into the record,
including a letter from the Department counsel stating that
they were withholding materials on the grounds of executive
prerogative.
Chairman Lampson then began the discussion by asking about
the use of constant dollars to compare future costs. Mr.
Albright agreed with the Chairman that much of the appearance
of increased costs was attributable to inflation. Chairman
Lampson suggested that the Department was falsely representing
the costs by switching between real and deflated dollars, to
which Mr. Albright responded that no misrepresentation had
occurred, but that there had been some change in the costs
beyond mere inflation.
Ranking Member Inglis then asked about the effect of the
restructuring on research. Mr. Albright answered that there
would be some scaling back of research, but that the future
research would be more focused on carbon sequestration.
Chairman Gordon then reiterated Chairman Lampson's request
to receive the withheld documents as quickly as possible. He
then asked about the process of evaluating projects. Mr.
Albright explained that there was a timeline for the process in
which they receive public comments about these decisions. He
did not want to promise to share the plans for other
evaluations, but agreed to plan to share the plan at some point
in the future with cost estimates.
Rep. Lipinski (D-IL) asked about international funding for
the project, to which Mr. Albright answered that there were
many international agreements, including funds received from
India and Japan, but that there were problems with intellectual
property rights that prevented further international
cooperation. Chairman Lampson asked when the staff was told to
stop seeking international partners, to which Mr. Albright
answered that he was not sure exactly how this was handled, but
knew that they stopped soliciting around the end of December
2007. He later stated that the decision to cut the program was
made by the Secretary sometime between December and January of
the next year, when it was clear that there would not be a
financial agreement.
Rep. Costello (D-IL) continued questioning on the basis of
the decision, asking about the debt financing concerns. Mr.
Albright answered that the Alliance agreed to share project
costs at 74/26, using debt against the taxpayers to finance
their portion, which was an unacceptable solution to the
Department.
The second panel began with Mr. Thompson who expressed his
disappointment in the collapse of this project. Mr. Yamagata
then stated that the program was very important but extremely
expensive, and that both long- and short-term projects needed
to be considered. Mr. Phillips testified that FutureGen was an
important project, but only one piece of what was needed to
solve the problem.
Chairman Lampson began the question period by focusing on
the 90 percent reduction requirement, and the panel's
conflicting views on the matter. Mr. Yamagata responded that
FutureGen will achieve this reduction; it will simply be very
expensive to do. Instead, a slower progression of carbon
capture was needed in the short-run. Mr. Thompson agreed that
90 percent was an appropriate and achievable long-term goal,
but not optimal yet.
Rep. Costello asked about the 26/74 cost share, presenting
a letter than stated the Alliance would be willing to increase
its investment to 50 percent. Mr. Thompson responded that they
would be willing to renegotiate.
4.2(z)_The National Sea Grant College Program Act: H.R. 5618
May 21, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-103
Background
On Wednesday, May 21, 2008 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 5618,
the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008.
H.R. 5618, introduced by Representative Bordallo (D-GU), Chair
of the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, reauthorizes and amends the
National Sea Grant College Program Act.
The National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) was
established in 1966 by the National Sea Grant College Program
Act (33 U.S.C. 1121-1131) and was last reauthorized in 2002.
The Sea Grant Program is intended to be the marine, coastal,
and Great Lakes counterpart to the Land Grant College system,
which serves the agricultural research and extension needs of
each state. Each of the 32 Sea Grant programs works with the
National Sea Grant office in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the coastal community in
their state or territory to develop research priorities to
promote sustainable use and management of coastal or Great
Lakes resources. The Sea Grant program is supported through a
combination of federal appropriations, State appropriations and
in-kind contributions.
The Subcommittee heard from the following four witnesses:
1) Mr. Paul Anderson, President, Sea Grant Association and
Director, Maine Sea Grant College Program; 2) Mr. Patrick
Riley, General Manager of Western Seafood, Freeport, TX; 3) Mr.
Craig McLean, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Programs &
Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);
and 4) Mr. M. Richard DeVoe, Executive Director, South Carolina
Sea Grant Consortium.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. McLean testified that the reauthorization bill
strengthens the program by increasing the non-match funding.
Mr. Anderson testified that the funding levels in the bills do
not keep pace with the growing demands for the Sea Grant. Mr.
DeVoe echoed the previous testimonies by saying that the
current authorization bill would underfund the program,
curtailing its ability to provide much-needed services. Mr.
Riley testified that the research of the Sea Grant has produced
numerous innovations to improve economic efficiency while
reducing environmental damage in the fishing industry.
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) began the discussion period by
asking the panel to comment on expanding Sea Grant's mandate to
national and regional issues. Mr. McLean answered that the
grant had been very successful in its previous work, and would
be best suited to deal with these larger-scale issues that
don't fit in geopolitical boundaries. Mr. Anderson responded
that the regional approach has been used for some time and has
thus far been very successful. Mr. DeVoe agreed that a larger-
scale approach was necessary for many of these issues, but that
land use decisions are largely made at the local level,
necessitating a local-level approach.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) asked about aquaculture
research, to which Mr. DeVoe responded that in South Carolina,
there has been some research on sustainable aquaculture. He
also stated that stormwater runoff is an extremely important
issue in South Carolina, and it is currently being addressed by
Sea Grant. Ranking Member Inglis then asked if any research has
been devoted to offshore windfarms. Mr. Anderson responded that
Sea Grant involvement varied by region, but the east coast
region was heavily involved in wind production. Mr. Inglis
commented that one of the greatest barriers to offshore wind
production is the transmission. Mr. McLean responded that this
is not an area of active research by the Sea grant, but that
wave-generated power is being assessed.
Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) asked whether the Sea Grant colleges
would have the same approach to conservation that land grant
colleges have previously taken. Mr. DeVoe commented that the
conservation ethic has always been part of Sea Grant; it is
simply a public perception that the oceans have changed over
the years. Mr. Bartlett then highlighted a case of septic
treatment on farmland, asking if Sea Grant was doing anything
to address the problem. Mr. McLean commented that this was an
excellent example of a case where community involvement was
necessary, and would be well-handled by the Sea Grant.
4.2(aa)_The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act: H.R. 4174
June 5, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-106
Background
On Thursday, June 5, 2008 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing on H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act. The purpose of the
hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 4174, legislation
introduced by Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME). The Committee also
examined the current status of science on ocean acidification
and research and monitoring activities focused on ocean
acidification and its potential impacts on marine organisms and
marine ecosystems.
Ocean acidification is the process by which the pH of
seawater is being lowered through the absorption of carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 have increased over the past
200 years from a pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per
million to 379 parts per million in 2005. The concentration of
CO2 in the atmosphere would be much higher if not
for the absorption of CO2 by the oceans. The oceans
have absorbed about 50 percent of the carbon dioxide
(CO2) released over the past 200 years due to human
activities resulting in chemical reactions that release
carbonic acid and lower ocean pH. The Royal Society of London
released a report in 2005 of the consequences of ocean
acidification and indicated that the increase in acidity could
be as high as 30 percent over the last 200 years. H.R. 4174 is
intended to provide a statutory structure to ensure ongoing
coordination of the relevant agencies to develop a
comprehensive federal research, monitoring and assessment
program to address the impacts of ocean acidification.
There were six witnesses: (1) the Honorable Jay Inslee (D-
WA); (2) Dr. Richard A. Feely, Supervisory Chemical
Oceanographer, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (3) Dr. Joan
Kleypas, Scientist, Institute for the Study of Society and
Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research; (4) Dr.
Scott Doney, Senior Scientist, Department of Marine Chemistry
and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; (5) Dr.
Ken Caldeira, Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie
Institution for Science of Washington; and (6) Mr. Brad Warren,
Director, Productive Oceans Partnership Program, Sustainable
Fisheries Partnership.
Summary of Hearing
The first panel consisted of the Honorable Jay Inslee (D-
WA). His statement addressed the threat of acidification and
the importance of this bill. Rep. Akin (R-MO) asked several
questions about the chemistry involved in this process, which
Rep. Inslee deflected to scientists on the following panel.
Other Members of the Committee praised Mr. Inslee for his
efforts on this topic.
The second panel began with a statement by Dr. Feely, who
spoke in support of the bill and further research on this
topic. Ms. Kleypas discussed the effect of acidification on
skeletons and shells, killing those organisms which then serve
as the basis of the marine ecosystems. Mr. Doney echoed the
previous statements, discussing how the degradation of calcium
carbonate destroys corals and other vital organisms which serve
as the basis of the ecosystem. Dr. Caldeira discussed the need
for further research to explore the scope of this problem,
calling for more funding than provided in the bill. Mr. Warren
spoke about depletion of fish stocks and the need for more
information in order to sustainably manage these resources.
Chairman Lampson began the question period by asking which
agency should take responsibility for developing a plan for the
program developed in the bill. Dr. Doney responded that the
Global Change Research Program was overwhelmed, and therefore
the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) would be a
better option.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) then asked the panel if there
were any problems with the bill. Mr. Doney responded that NOAA
receives all of the money and leadership, even though the
expertise is more broadly spread across agencies. Dr. Feely
answered that both NOAA and the JSOST subcommittee were very
comfortable with their leadership positions. Dr. Caldeira
responded that there were many people in leadership positions
at agencies that were unaware of the capabilities in this
issue, and that they should talk with the field scientists
working on the topic.
Rep. McNerney (D-CA) asked about model sophistication, to
which Dr. Caldeira responded that open oceans are very simple
models, but models of coastal environments are still being
developed. Dr. Doney responded that there was a need for more
interaction between basic science and modeling to create the
specific models needed by resource managers. Rep. McNerney then
turned to Dr. Kleypas to discuss the effects of acidification
on organisms. She responded that increasing acidification not
only erodes the calcium carbonate, but also makes it
increasingly difficult to secrete new calcium. She explained
that the only method for remediation is to reduce atmospheric
carbon concentrations.
4.2(bb)_Hybrid Technologies for Medium- to Heavy-Duty
Commercial Trucks
June 10, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-107
Background
On Tuesday, June 10, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to discuss the state of development
of hybrid technologies for medium- and heavy-duty commercial
trucks, as well as the role of the Department of Energy (DOE)
in supporting research and development of these systems. The
Members and witnesses examined the potential for energy savings
and emissions reductions, the means to efficient and
economically viable implementation of hybrid technologies, the
major barriers in deploying these technologies, and their
experiences with federal energy research programs. The
Subcommittee also received testimony on a discussion draft of
legislation to be introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses: (1)
Mr. Terry Penney, Technology Manager, Advanced Vehicle and Fuel
Technologies at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL); (2) Mr. Eric Smith, Chief Engineer of Hybrid Medium
Duty Trucks at Eaton Corporation; (3) Mr. Joseph Dalum, Vice
President of Dueco Inc.; (4) Ms. Jill Egbert, Manager of Clean
Air Transportation at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E);
and (5) Mr. Richard Parish, Senior Program Manager with
Calstart Hybrid Truck Users Forum (HTUF).
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Lampson (D-TX) pointed
to the sizable benefits to be earned from hybrid technology
use. He explained that medium- to heavy-duty trucks present a
sizable opportunity for fuel efficiency improvement and called
for federal research and development programs to that end.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) then explained that the
benefits of an alternative to oil are obvious, especially in
light of recent oil prices. He expressed interest in whether
oil prices alone provide sufficient incentive for heavy truck
companies to invest in new technologies, or if the Federal
Government would need to assist.
Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) asserted that policy must
incorporate an economy-driven approach to reducing emissions
and curb climate change, not just assign new taxes. He warned
against crippling our economic development in the move toward
green transportation, arguing not to further burden individual
truck and trucking companies already strained by high fuel
costs, but to provide incentives to translate existing, small
car hybrid technologies for use in the larger vehicles. Noting
that heavy trucks constantly stop and go, Rep. Sensenbrenner
explained that they are particularly suitable for hybrid
engines. He warned of fuel-related crises in Europe, and
reiterated the value of technological progress in avoiding a
similar fate ourselves.
Mr. Penney called for purchase incentives and increased R&D
to promote hybrid vehicles, as well as a better understanding
of a heavy truck's unique duty cycle and an overall systems
approach to their development.
Mr. Smith detailed Eaton's current hybrid power system,
noting that all current research and development with Eaton
occurs in the United States. He explained that while heavy
vehicle hybrids pose a unique challenge, U.S.-based companies
are poised to become the world leader in this field if research
efforts are strong.
Mr. Dalum focused on his company's development of a plug-in
hybrid medium-duty truck, noting technical hurdles but
predicting that a heavy-duty truck will eventually run on 100
percent electricity over limited driving ranges.
Ms. Egbert explained PG&E's success with hybrid trucks,
particularly with ``trouble'' or ``bucket'' trucks, but warned
of the current 50 percent upfront cost differential between
hybrid and traditional models and called for a government-
issued financial incentive.
Mr. Parish emphasized the crucial differences between
heavy-duty trucks and light-duty ones, and suggested a five- to
ten-year government support program for technology
implementation.
During the discussion period, the Members asked for
information on how to make large truck hybrid technology
economically viable, exploring DOE's level of involvement and
what would account for sale prices. Mr. Parish explained that
companies wish to comply with emissions regulations, but do not
have adequate funding for large truck R&D, as their light-load
hybrids are still a fledgling project. Mr. Smith noted that the
vertically-integrated passenger car industry promoted design
responsibility and easier integration of hybrid technologies,
but the horizontally-integrated heavy vehicle market demands
technology that can join existing systems produced by several
different manufacturers. He also explained that the higher
prices for hybrids are a result of all the additional
components their construction requires.
Chairman Lampson asked whether the 21st Century Truck
program had been successful, and Mr. Parish responded that it
had limited success, in part due to leadership and motivation
problems.
Ranking Member Inglis asked whether the difficulties were
mostly science or economics based. Mr. Dalum attested that it
was a bit of both, noting specific challenges of hybrid
technology itself, as well as cost barriers to their
development and distribution. This led to a discussion of the
current battery technology, such as lifespan and thermal
management. Mr. Parish concluded that the crucial element to
economical, efficient product design is a whole systems
approach.
The final portion of the discussion was on how the
government should allocate money to promote efficient product
development. Rep. Sensenbrenner argued that competitive grants
for research were the most useful, and not government
regulation or taxes. Ranking Member Inglis responded that
grants call for a large amount of money and productive energy,
and that tax credits are the more efficient way to deliver a
stimulus; moreover, he wished to internalize the negative
externalities of our traditional technologies--that is, to
punish polluters. Mr. Parish argued that government funding
should be allocated through a three-pronged approach: research
and development, demonstration programs, and rebates or tax
incentives that ensure monetary savings ultimately come down,
in part, to the final consumer. The witnesses agreed that the
efforts of universities and national labs combined with private
engineering companies would be the most successful operating as
an open-information consortium, each looking at different
elements of the whole issue.
4.2(cc)_An Insecure Forecast for Continuity of Climate and
Weather Data: The NPOESS Weather Satellite Program
June 19, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-109
Background
On Thursday, June 19, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment met to discuss the birth of the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), a
next-generation information agency to be used for military
operations and monitoring weather. The Members and witnesses
considered budget concerns, operations efficiency and specific
progress on select technologies.
There were two witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director of
Information Technology Management Issues in the Government
Accountability Office, and (2) Vice Admiral Conrad
Lautenbacher, Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Lampson (D-TX) noted
that the NPOESS has had a difficult birth, plagued by
instability, technical problems, time delays, and rising costs.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) added that the last year has been
particularly unstable and expensive, leading to threats of
funding withdrawal from the Departments of Defense and
Commerce. He called for more efficient use of taxpayer money
and a timely success of this crucial program.
Witness David Powner discussed continued concerns about
NPOESS restructuring, key risk areas for the program and their
potential impact, and the need for a long-term strategy for
program sensor restoration. He noted difficulties with
interagency coordination (as the Departments of Defense and
Commerce and NASA are all involved in NPOESS), and identified
technical sensors, security, and uncertainty of costs as
NPOESS' biggest risks. Mr. Powner explained that NPOESS needs
to finalize acquisition documents, revise cost estimates and
address long-term continuity of climate and space observations
in general.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher updated the Members on the
NPOESS' reaction to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
concerns about the program. He relayed specifics of individual
instrument progress, expressing particular concern about past
contractor performance and technical issues of the Visible/
Infrared Imager/Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), but was confident in
VIIRS' current progress. He also addressed budget concerns,
estimating the program would need for $1 billion in additional
funds beginning in 2017. Lautenbacher chided the DOD's threats
to remove funding, calling it a lack of commitment to the
program.
The question and answer period focused on problems with
budget and bureaucratic inefficiency. In particular, Members
were dissatisfied with NPOESS' Executive Committee (EXCOM) and
their failures to conduct transparent operations, cooperate
among themselves, and ensure the approval of key documents by
the DOD. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher claimed that EXCOM activity
has improved since the prior Nunn-McCurdy review, citing
agency-head attention to detail and personal involvement. The
witnesses agreed that performance of VIIRS is the program's
biggest problem, but that the DOD threat to withhold funds was
a close second. However, they decided that NPOESS still
deserves a ``green light,'' provided it can meet some key
deadlines.
Chairman Lampson asked about the particular challenges to
tri-agency coordination, and Vice Admiral Lautenbacher noted a
problem with defining the DOD's authority of the acquisition
executive. He was moderately confident in the NPOESS' current
progress in general, but Mr. Powner called it ``bureaucracy as
its worst.'' Rep. Inglis pointed out that the DOD is
threatening to withhold funding, but that it is also a part of
the problem with document delays; he and Mr. Powner expressed
concern that the DOD has its wires crossed on NPOESS
communications in general.
Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) suggested that the general
bureaucratic delays could be attributed to three issues:
incompetence, too much work to do, or not enough work to do.
The witnesses agreed that NPOESS was most plagued by the second
problem. The hearing closed with a discussion of program cost
estimates, allowing a possible $1.2 to $1.8 billion increase in
life cycle funding.
4.2(dd)_The State of Hurricane Research and H.R. 2407, the
National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007
June 26, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-112
Background
On Thursday June 26, 2008, the Honorable Nick Lampson
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a joint
hearing to examine the Nation's hurricane research and
development priorities, and to receive testimony on H.R. 2407,
the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007,
introduced by Representative Hastings (D-FL), which establishes
a National Hurricane Research Initiative to improve hurricane
preparedness.
There were two witness panels. The first panel included: 1)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and 2) Rep. Ileana Ros-Leitinin (R-
FL). The second panel had five witnesses: 1) Dr. John L.
``Jack'' Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 2) Dr. Kelvin K.
Droegemeier, former Co-Chair, National Science Board Task Force
on Hurricane Science and Engineering; 3) Dr. Shuyi Chen,
Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, University
of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences;
4) Dr. David O. Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of
Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida; and 5)
Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, Director, International Hurricane
Research Center, Florida International University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson opened the hearing with a brief statement
discussing the importance of the issue, citing the grave
effects of such natural disasters, and the need to improve our
forecasting and warning capabilities in order to save lives and
mitigate property loss. Ranking Member Inglis, Chairman Baird,
and Ranking Member Ehlers followed with opening statements
echoing Chairman Lampson's remarks.
The first witness panel included Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). They both offered statements in
support of H.R. 2407, and briefly outlined the current
hurricane research being done in Florida. Following a brief
recess, the hearing proceeded to the second panel.
Witnesses agreed on the need to implement a national
coordinated hurricane initiative. Dr. Hayes testified that NOAA
agrees with the overall goal of the bill, and supports a
committee co-chaired by NSF and NOAA to oversee and coordinate
federally-funded research efforts. He also described the
Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Project, or HFIP, that was
recently developed by NOAA and addresses many of the items
outlined in the bill language. Dr. Droegemeier highlighted the
vulnerability of the energy infrastructure in the Gulf of
Mexico and reiterated the urgency for further hurricane
research. Dr. Chen emphasized the importance of universities in
supplying the basic research and resources for developing an
integrated forecasting system. Dr. Prevatt addressed the
changes in infrastructure needed in order to mitigate the
effects of winds and storm surges associated with hurricanes.
He advocated for more research specifically addressing the
infrastructural challenges that hurricanes present in order to
minimize economic loses and reduce damage. Dr. Leatherman
concluded the opening statements by summarizing the key
research developments at the National Hurricane Center that
address the many hazards associated with hurricanes, including
storm-surge modeling, wind-engineering research and
quantitative evacuation modeling.
During the discussion period, Chairman Lampson questioned
the witnesses as to some of the challenges hindering better
hurricane forecasting. Dr. Hayes cited the need for better
observations to facilitate greater scientific understanding of
hurricanes. Also, he expressed the need for funding that
targets the transition of university research to operational
status for the public. Congressman Baird asked the witnesses to
prioritize their requested areas of funding. Dr. Hayes urged
for more operational high-performance computing while Dr.
Droegemeier emphasized the social aspect of hurricane
forecasting, citing better communication with the public in
eliciting an appropriate response. Dr. Prevatt and Dr.
Leatherman both stressed the importance of developing a strong
infrastructure and investing in research to better understand
structural interactions with wind and water surges. Dr. Ehlers
discussed with Dr. Prevatt and Dr. Leatherman the challenges
that hinder changing building codes so as to make buildings
more resistant to the hazards of hurricanes. Dr. Hayes
concluded the hearing by answering Rep. Bartlett's questions
about the dynamics of hurricanes, specifically the forces that
drive intensity changes.
4.2(ee)_Harmful Algal Blooms: The Challenges on the Nation's
Coastlines
July 10, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-113
Background
On Thursday, July 10, 2008, the Honorable Nick Lampson
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
hearing to examine the challenges harmful algal blooms and red
tide events impose on the coastlines and in marine and fresh
waters. The hearing also examined the current research on the
microbial bloom ecology as well as the options for prevention,
control, and mitigation. In addition, the hearing examined the
state of the science and recent trends on an international
level as it relates to national and global changes. The hearing
examined the National Plan for Algal Toxins and Harmful Algal
Blooms (HABs), and how the plan would affect our nation's
ability to control the HABs problem.
The Subcommittee heard from two witness panels. The first
panel included: (1) the Honorable Connie Mack (R-FL); and (2)
the Honorable Allen Boyd (D-FL). The second panel included: (3)
Dr. Robert Magnien, Director of the Center for Sponsored
Coastal Ocean Research at NOAA; (4) Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior
Scientist and Director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution; (5) Mr. Dan Ayres, Coastal
Shellfish Manager and Lead Biologist at the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife Region Six Office; and (6) Dr.
H Kenneth Hudnell, Vice President and Director of Science at
SolarBee Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) opened the hearing by discussing
how harmful algal blooms can be a great threat to many
coastline residents. The blooms cause a tremendous amount of
damage through the production of toxins and by reducing oxygen
in water.
Rep. Mack discussed the major provisions of his bill, which
directs funds to scientists to study the effects of harmful
algal blooms. Rep. Boyd added that when an outbreak occurs, it
essentially renders the coastline worthless.
Dr. Magnien discussed NOAA's national approach to combating
harmful algae blooms. The approach includes a satellite-based
warning system that notifies local managers if red tide
progresses, as well as forecasts future events.
Dr. Anderson discussed the nature of HABs and how they
affect different parts of the United States. Research funding
through the multi-agency Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful
Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program has provided scientists with the
tools to combat these problems.
Mr. Ayres spoke of the negative effects HABs can have on
fish and shellfish. He discussed the strengthening of the
HARRNESS plan by bringing together federal and academic
scientists as well as State-level managers.
Dr. Hudnell testified that human activity is allowing for
HABs to thrive. He cited dropping water flow rates as one of
the main factors that exacerbate HABs. He urged the Committee
to develop and advance a national freshwater HAB research bill.
During the discussion period, Dr. Anderson discussed
research gaps, especially the lack of instruments that
effectively detect HABs and their toxins. Satellite imagery,
for example, is an effective tool to detect HABs. Dr. Hudnell
urged the Members to address the causes of HABs and prevent
those conditions from occurring. Mr. Ayres added that continued
data adding and federal funding contribute to aid efforts to
deal with HABs. When asked about the effect of climate change
on HABs, Dr. Hudnell testified that it does have an impact,
noting that HABs are now occurring in more northern areas. He
also warned that in freshwater areas, normal filtration
mechanisms do not filter out all harmful toxins.
4.2(ff)_A National Water Initiative: Coordinating and Improving
Federal Research on Water
July 23, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-116
Background
On Wednesday, July 23, 2008, the Honorable Nick Lampson
presiding, the Subcommittee Energy and Environment held a
hearing to receive testimony on the opportunities for the
Federal Government to support and better coordinate research
and technological innovation to enhance water supplies and
water quality and to support improved water management. The
Subcommittee discussed a draft of legislation to be introduced
by Chairman Bart Gordon entitled, The National Water Research
and Development Initiative Act.
The Subcommittee heard from six witnesses: (1) Dr. Mark A.
Shannon, Director of the United States Strategic Water
Initiative; (2) Mr. Tod Christenson, Director of the Beverage
Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER); (3) Dr. Timothy T.
Loftus, Water Resource Planner for the Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning (CMAP); (4) Mr. Jerry Johnson, General
Manager at the DC Water and Sewer Authority; (5) Mr. Bradley H.
Spooner, Principal Engineer for Environmental Services at
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; and (6) Dr. Upton
Hatch, Associate Director at the Water Resources Research
Institute, the University of North Carolina.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) began the hearing by conveying the
rationale behind the draft National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act, proposed to meet the country's
water challenges over the coming decades. He emphasized the
need to improve data collection and availability, and the need
to support connections and coordination between all levels of
government in order to make the most of federal research
dollars. This would be accomplished by strengthening an
interagency committee currently under jurisdiction of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) followed with remarks
cautioning that future pieces of water legislation passed by
Congress need to be more integrated with one another as opposed
to the ad-hoc legislation of the past.
Dr. Shannon explained that if the Nation is going to meet
the coming water shortages, there must be an effort to link
basic research on water with practical applications for water
conservation. He listed several specific areas that require
additional research.
Mr. Christenson made three recommendations: that there is a
need to evaluate the country's aging water infrastructure; that
awareness and education should be employed to improve the
practices of the general public and industries; and that in
planning for the country's future, the Federal Government
should not ignore the resources of water-related industry
groups and NGOs.
Dr. Loftus discussed his experience in leading a regional
water supply planning initiative for the Chicago metropolitan
area, and drew on this to make recommendations about the
National Water Initiative. The Initiative should better enable
regional decision-makers to exchange practices and knowledge on
the challenges they encounter. This would require improving
vertical coordination between federal agencies and State,
regional and local levels.
Mr. Johnson also discussed the poor coordination between
agencies on all levels. He called for stronger federal
leadership to provide unified priorities and direction
nationwide.
Mr. Spooner reminded the Committee that water is of vital
use to nearly every form of power generation in operation, and
made several recommendations on the draft legislation. Most
importantly, he stressed that the draft bill should take into
account the significant water consumption that occurs during
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
Dr. Hatch provided testimony on the progress being made at
the National Institute for Water Research (NIWR). The Institute
benefits from a wide and established network and conducts
research with funds from the USGS, with which it communicates
directly. Dr. Hatch promoted NIWR as a valuable resource for
implementing the National Water Initiative proposed in the
draft legislation.
Chairman Lampson opened the first round of questioning by
asking each witness to comment on the quality of communication
between their agencies and the National Science and Technology
Council's Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality
(SWAQ). Witnesses agreed that there is a lack of dialogue
between federal agencies and industry as well as State and
local-level agencies. When asked about the Federal Government's
most significant deficiency in managing water, Dr. Hatch
answered that coordination between all water-related entities
could be enhanced. Mr. Christenson believed that availability
and consistency of information is lacking, while Dr. Shannon
reiterated the lack of diffusion of federal research into
practice.
Rep. Edwards (D-MD) then asked about the practice of water
conservation among industries and in domestic environments. Mr.
Christenson provided a description of the efforts that the BIER
organization has made to encourage conservation among beverage
companies. Dr. Loftus emphasized the benefits of best-practice-
sharing on conservation between regional water management
agencies, and Dr. Shannon provided hypothetical goals for a
national conservation strategy.
Rep. Bartlett's (R-MD) questions focused on the issues of
water storage and depletion, while Rep. McNerney (D-CA) sought
to discern whether conservation would have adverse effects on
agriculture. The witnesses unanimously agreed that the Federal
Government's involvement should not extend to nationwide
control of water resources, but instead should focus on
monitoring and guidance of conservation efforts.
The discussion then returned to aquifers and groundwater
storage, with Dr. Shannon commenting that still very little is
understood about these issues, and additional research is
needed. Following this, Dr. Hatch made brief suggestions on
public education methods, and then Mr. Johnson discussed the
unique experiences drawn from his position as a regional
manager interacting directly with the EPA (as opposed to State-
level regulators).
4.2(gg)_The Foundation for Developing New Energy Technologies:
Basic Energy Research in the Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Science
September 10, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-121
Background
On Wednesday, September 10, 2008 the Honorable Nick Lampson
(D-TX) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing to examine the Basic Energy Sciences program at
the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The BES program
supports fundamental research in physics, chemistry, materials
science, and engineering with an emphasis on energy
applications. A major role of the BES program is to supervise
several large-scale facilities, like the major light and
neutron source facilities, at various national laboratories
across the country. BES is the largest program within the DOE's
Office of Science with a budget of $1.28 billion in FY08. The
broad portfolio of basic research that the BES program conducts
provides essential knowledge which will foster the next
generation of energy technologies.
The Subcommittee heard from four witnesses: 1) Dr. Patricia
Dehmer, Deputy Director of Science, Department of Energy,
Office of Science; 2) Dr. Steven Dierker, Associate Laboratory
Director for Light Sources, Brookhaven National Laboratory; 3)
Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist, Chemistry Technologies and
Materials Characterization, GE Global Research; and 4) Dr.
Thomas Russell, Director of Materials Research Science and
Engineering Center on Polymers, University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Dehmer summarized the program, and described the
Department's efforts to integrate energy research efforts
between its basic and applied programs.
Mr. Dierker testified on his experience both managing and
building major light source facilities.
Mr. Hall testified on GE's experience as an industrial user
of the facilities managed by the Basic Energy Sciences program.
Mr. Russell testified on his experience as a university
user of the major facilities in the Basic Energy Sciences
program the value of the facilities to his research. He
discussed problems with the facilities, reiterating the high
demand and over-subscription.
Chairman Lampson began the question period by asking Dr.
Dehmer about the coordination of research and development
across the Department of Energy. She responded that research
had been conducted in isolation or had been ``stove-piped'' in
the past, but she thinks it is improving largely through the
efforts of the Under Secretary of Science. He then asked if she
agreed with a proposed shift of $60 million for solar funding
from Basic Energy Sciences to the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE). She responded by saying that both
offices should be robustly funded. Dr. Russell commented that
this shift in funds would reduce funding to the academic
community, where research could lead to breakthroughs.
The Chairman also asked whether American competitiveness
should be considered when reviewing proposals. Dr. Dierker
responded that proposals should be evaluated by their impacts
on industry, and that a ticket system would compromise the
peer-review process. Chairman Lampson then asked about the
Energy Frontier Research Centers, and whether they should be
renamed as awards or collaborations. Dr. Dehmer responded that
the centers were not intended to be constructed or permanent,
but would rotate with the best ideas and most successful
collaborations. Chairman Lampson followed with a question on
the ability to attract the best talent through this format. She
responded that there are many other similar centers that do not
have buildings and are not permanent centers, but are simply a
means to generate research.
Rep. Biggert (R-IL) asked Mr. Hall about protecting
proprietary research. He replied that industry users needed to
use the facilities to examine proprietary materials, which
requires proper protection. He explained that a fee is charged
on proprietary research when it is conducted in a national
laboratory, which adds a cost for industry users. Dr. Dierker
added that this is only a nominal fee that does not create a
major impediment for research.
Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) asked Dr. Dehmer about the balance
between creating new facilities and maintaining existing ones.
She responded that this is a difficult issue that comes up
often, but the facilities that were ranked as a top priority
remain successful. Rep. Bartlett and Dr. Russell then discussed
whether funding for basic science research should be limited to
proposals with societal benefit, and how this benefit should be
defined. Rep. Bartlett urged the other Members and the panel to
resist any efforts to push for science with societal benefits,
to which Dr. Russell explained that research proposals already
require an explanation of how this work will benefit society at
large. The Chairman then thanked the panel for their
testimonies and adjourned the hearing.
4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
4.3(a)_Amending Executive Order 12866: Good Governance or
Regulatory Usurpation? Part I
February 13, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-4
Background
On Tuesday, February 17, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller
presiding (D-NC), the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee held a
hearing to examine President Bush's amendment (Executive Order
13422) to Executive Order 12866, which provides guidance for
submitting proposed regulations to the Office of Management and
Budget. The hearing attempted to examine the effects of
Executive Order 13422 on the regulatory process, specifically
the amendment's use to date by the Bush Administration, its
impact on the ability of agencies to adhere to the laws passed
by Congress to protect public safety and health, and the
practical implications of having RPOs in each regulatory
agency.
The Committee received testimony from: (1) Ms. Sally
Katzen, Adjunct Professor and Public Service Fellow, University
of Michigan; (2) Mr. David Vladeck, Associate Professor of Law,
Georgetown University; (3) Mr. Bill Kovacs, Vice President of
Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce; and (4) Dr. Rick Melberth, Federal Regulatory
Policy Director, OMB Watch.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened the hearing by noting the
Committee's responsibility to examine how science is used in
the decision-making process of federal agencies within Science
and Technology's jurisdiction. He argued that Congress and the
President should pay close attention to the reasoning behind an
agency's action or inaction. He then questioned whether
Executive Order 13422 fomented an environment of agency
inaction, secrecy, and lack of public scrutiny and
accountability. He questioned whether the amendment had caused
a de facto shift in power from Congress to the Executive
branch.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) stated his belief that
much of the concern regarding the Executive Order was based on
political partisanship instead of the amendment's actual
implications. His primary concerns were the amendment's
potential repercussions for the American economy and the
influence of RPOs on the regulatory process.
Ms. Katzen was critical of the new Executive Order because
it tightens OMB control over federal agencies, limits agency
autonomy, burdens agencies to the point that they become
ineffective, and disfavors policies that promote the health and
safety of the American people. She cited differences between
President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and the recent Bush
amendment.
Mr. Vladeck agreed and expressed concern over the massive
budget cuts, staff cuts and increasing politicization of
federal scientific research. He was concerned that the
amendment usurps Congressional authority by directing agencies
to justify regulatory action on the basis of market failure. He
believed that the expansion of OIRA's authority over non-
binding guidance documents hinders the efficiency in which
agencies offer guidance to those affected by regulation.
Mr. Kovacs began his testimony by citing the financial
impact regulations have on the American economy. He stated that
the rhetoric surrounding the amendment was hyperbolic, and
summarized the amendment as simply the culmination of decades
of executive attempts to reform the management structure of
regulatory agencies. He argued that the new requirements of
Good Guidance Practices increase transparency.
Dr. Melberth testified that the Administration has a
history of using regulatory tools to manipulate science and has
shifted criteria for defining regulations away from health and
safety toward market-based criteria. He gave an extensive
example of the ineffective and inadequate regulatory process
concerning the TREAD Act's requirement that cars be equipped
with a system to alert drivers of under inflated tires.
The discussion period focused chiefly on issues of
transparency, cost-benefit analysis, and market failure. Ms.
Katzen clarified for the Chairman that the transparency
provisions under Clinton's Executive Order included public
communication between agencies and OIRA so that the public
could deem any changes made by OIRA appropriate. Mr. Kovacs
further went on to say he supported the Information Quality
Act, stating his belief in open peer review. Ms. Katzen
underlined the cost of transparency, including website upkeep
and contractors salary, and her concern over the lack of
funding towards this. Ms. Katzen argued that cost-benefit
analysis should also be transparent, stating that agencies are
not free agents, and their power to delegate comes from the
Congress.
Speaking on market-failure provisions, Ms. Katzen noted
several areas, such as civil rights and privacy, where the
market does not even touch. All of the witnesses felt that it
is difficult to determine when regulation must occur due to
market failure, because the definition of market failure is
often contentious and may mean different things to different
people.
4.3(b)_Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media
Strategies to Influence Science Policy
March 28, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-17
Background
On Wednesday, March 28, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
met to examine the relationship between science and the media.
In recent years, there have been reports of efforts within
science agencies to control which federal scientists receive
access to conferences or the press. Further, reports of oil
business interests using profits to create the impression of
doubt in the science of climate change have become increasingly
common. This hearing provided general testimony on the history
and present state of these matters and, more specifically, a
look at climate change science as a case study of how media
campaigns are mounted to confuse the public.
The Subcommittee heard from four witnesses: (1) Mr. Sheldon
Rampton, co-author of books Toxic Sludge is Good for You and
Trust Us, We're Experts!, and co-founder of SourceWatch.org;
(2) Dr. James McCarthy, Harvard Professor and member, Union of
Concerned Scientists; (3) Mr. Tarek Massarrani, Government
Accountability Project (GAP); and (4) Mr. Jeff Kueter,
President, The Marshall Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller began with concerns that the facts and
science regarding global warming and climate change are
challenged, manipulated, and contested in the public debate by
media, big business, and the Bush Administration. From the
public's perspective, climate change news stories often become
little more than two ``experts'' staking out opposite
positions. The fact that one ``expert'' may be articulating a
consensus scientific position that represents the work of
thousands of active researchers, and the other ``expert'' is
paid to be a professional skeptic is not obvious to the average
citizen.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the existence of a
consensus among climate scientists. He implied that such a
consensus is based on bias because of funding disparities
favoring proof of, and agreement with, the idea of global
warming. He also questioned what he felt was the Majority
Members' assumption that private funding of scientists creates
and promotes bias in the privately-funded scientists' work in
favor of the private interests.
Full Committee Chairman Gordon (D-TN) reiterated the idea
of a consensus that global warming was occurring and applauded
the hearing for examining the process through which public
doubt in commonly accepted science is manufactured by special
interests for private benefit.
Mr. Rampton testified about the general practice of science
manipulation for public relations purposes, describing a
``modern propaganda'' industry. He then commented on the
frequency of endorsements from scientific experts in order to
sell a product or policy in favor of certain industries,
particularly through scientific journals, and expressed concern
that this practice drastically undermines scientific integrity.
Dr. McCarthy described evidence of a broad consensus on
global warming developed over the previous 25 years, citing
various reports, and pointed to findings of ExxonMobil's
successful influence on the Bush Administration to neglect
climate change findings. He provided three recommendations to
mitigate problems of biased media in science.
Mr. Massarani outlined the GAP's investigation and
consequent findings about the suppression of scientific
communication, entitled Redacting the Science of Climate
Change. His conclusion was that information-restricting
practices often originate in executive offices and represent
institutionalized infringement of federal employees' whistle
blowing rights, frequently undermining the government's
obligation to disseminate results of publicly funded research.
Mr. Kueter argued for a more skeptical look at climate
change findings, noting that all participants in policy-making
have preferences that color their interpretation of scientific
research, so the research funding sources should be questioned
and debated less than the research findings.
During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses
debated the prevalence of specific industry campaigns adverse
to general consensuses of the scientific community and the Bush
Administration's position on climate change. They also
discussed the role of the Freedom of Information Act, political
pressure on scientists, and scientific publication concerns,
and the witnesses provided their recommendations to repair the
media's role in representing scientific findings.
4.3(c)_Amending Executive Order 12866: Good Governance or
Regulatory Usurpation? Part II
April 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-21
Background
On April 26, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a second hearing to discuss the amendments to Executive
Order 12866 contained in Executive Order 13422. It attempted to
discuss the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs'
(OIRA) perspective on how and why the new order was created and
how it would be applied. It was also devoted to examining
possible remedies to the regulatory situation.
The witnesses were divided into two panels. The first panel
consisted solely of (1) Mr. Steve Aitken, General Counsel at
OIRA. The second panel included: (2) Dr. Peter Strauss,
Professor, Columbia Law School; (3) Mr. Gary Bass, Director,
OMB Watch, (4) Dr. Robert Hahn at the American Enterprise
Institute, and (5) Dr. Richard Parker, Professor, University of
Connecticut Law School.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened by noting that some of the
disagreements over OIRA's role in the regulatory framework
covered by Executive Order 12866 were being reopened by the
changes made with Order 13422. He mentioned the new market
failure requirement and prior Congressional decisions to leave
such considerations out of rule-making specifically to avoid a
bias against regulation. Chairman Miller expressed interest in
the process of drafting E.O. 13422, the deficiencies it was
designed to address, and how OIRA planned to implement it. He
also wanted to hear about the advantages and disadvantages of
using cost-benefit analysis and market failure as regulatory
tools. Finally, he indicated his concern about the newly
created RPO position and its possible effects on the regulatory
process.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) defended the changes made by Order
13422, arguing that they were minor clarifications which could
be rescinded by the next Presidential administration if it so
chose. He claimed that the controversy had less to do with the
policies themselves than who was implementing them, because any
President would have the right to do what Order 13422 purported
to do.
Mr. Aitken emphasized that the Order was designed to impact
the release of guidance documents, not regulations. He stated
that RPOs were not new positions and many of the existing ones
were already subject to Senatorial approval. He explained that
the ``market failure'' criteria was a restatement of the
Clinton-era use of ``failures of private markets'' as a factor
to justify regulation and that an agency could justify
regulation without a market failure if it identified another
serious problem that the agency meant to address. He claimed
that most of the significant regulations issued by agencies
were already in response to market failures.
Chairman Miller asked about the specifics of Order 13422's
development, and Mr. Aitken answered that the standard process
set out in Executive Order 11030 (Preparation, Presentation,
Filing, and Publication of Executive Orders and Proclamations)
was followed and it did not include releasing a draft for
public comment. He touched on the draft revision process and
circulation specifics. Chairman Miller also asked how the
concept of market failure would be applied in real regulatory
decisions and if it meant that regulation would ordinarily be
discouraged. Mr. Aitken responded that in many situations, an
agency has discretion to regulate, and must exercise that
discretion in the case of market failure.
Congressmen Rohrabacher and Baird (D-WA) asked about
Presidential accountability for regulatory statutes. Mr. Aitken
explained that RPOs could now approve the agency's regulatory
plan and sign off on new regulatory action. He said this was in
line with the principle that the Executive appointees should
decide what actions the agency engages in. He stated that there
had not been any transparency requirements for the RPOs in
Order 12866. He also stated that agencies must always
faithfully execute the statutes which have been enacted, but
Congress gave agencies discretion because of the complexity in
enacting its intent. A President could use the leeway granted
to the agency to mold the law's execution to his agenda.
After a short recess, Dr. Strauss stressed the importance
of understanding RPO accountability and preserving the
distinction between the Congressional and Presidential roles in
RPO activity. He expressed concern that the changes made by
Order 13422 lessened Congressional control over the federal
agencies and increased Presidential control.
Dr. Hahn argued that the changes made by Order 13422 were
not as substantial as critics made them out to be. He claimed
that including guidance documents for OMB was a good idea and
would not significantly add to an agency's regulatory burden.
Given the guidance document's effects on private entities,
there should be some method of outside review. He also argued
that increasing Presidential control over regulators would
increase accountability.
Mr. Bass pointed out that the dialogue between OIRA and
federal agencies lacked transparency, which was a more critical
problem. He argued that more information was needed about the
responsibilities, authorities, and identities of the RPOs, as
well as requiring complete disclosure of every RPO decision. He
also pressed for more complete RPO communications records.
Dr. Parker noted that OIRA oversight concentrates authority
with an agency with little scientific or technical expertise,
despite the often scientific or technical nature of the
regulatory issues. This Presidential control over process is
not mandated by statute or granted by express Congressional
action. Moreover, the regulatory zeal which had prompted review
of regulations was greatly exaggerated and the cost-benefit
system excluded many useful regulations.
During the second discussion period, Chairman Miller asked
about RPOs exceeding their authority and how to mitigate this
problem. Dr. Strauss suggested using Congressional budgetary
authority to limit expenditures by the agencies if they strayed
too far from Congressional intent, or to force a compromise
with the executive branch on the transparency issue. He argued
that while the Executive branch can require agencies to collect
certain information before making a regulatory decision, the
criteria the agency used would still be determined by statute,
not by the President. His concern was that the OIRA review
process was being used to paralyze regulation. Dr. Parker added
that a lot depends on how language like the market failure
standard is actually implemented. Mr. Bass argued that the
language came dangerously close to forcing agency
determinations.
4.3(d)_Transitioning the Environmental Measurements Laboratory
to the Department of Homeland Security
May 3, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-25
Background
On Thursday, May 3, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to investigate the proposed closure of the
Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) in lower Manhattan,
ending a program costing around $7 million with expertise in
measurements and study of radioactivity. In 2003 the lab was
transferred from the Department of Energy to DHS's Science &
Technology Directorate. But since then, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has taken this once valuable national
asset and denigrated it--terminating programs of priceless
value to both the Nation's first responders and U.S. national
security community, halting others and drafting plans to close
the lab completely.
The hearing was organized into three panels. The first
panel included: (1) Mrs. Lynn Albin, Radiation Health
Physicist, Office of Radiation Protection, Washington State
Department of Health; (2) Mr. Charles F. McBrearty, Jr., Former
Director of Materials Technology, Air Force Technical
Applications Center (AFTAC) at Patrick Air Force Base in
Florida; (3) Jonathan A. Duecker, Assistant Commissioner,
Counterterrorism Bureau of the New York Police Department; and
(4) Dr. Tony Fainberg, former Program Manager, Radiological and
Nuclear Countermeasures, Office of Research and Development of
the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The second panel included (5) Dr. John F.
Clarke, Deputy Director, Office of National Laboratories in the
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security. The third panel included: (6) Admiral Jay M. Cohen,
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of
Homeland Security; and (7) Mr. Vayl Oxford, Director, Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened by noting that the threat of nuclear
terrorism is the most pressing current nuclear threat. The
ability to detect radioactive material and quickly assess
radiological levels after a disaster is a paramount concern to
disaster planners. Chairman Miller commended the commitment to
frugality on DHS' part, but with hundreds of millions of
dollars left unspent in the S&T directorate, the loss of a
resource like EML does not appropriately balance the need for
this work with its cost.
Rep. McCaul (R-TX) was interested in knowing how EML fits
into the needs of DHS, given its current capabilities. He noted
that EML will have to adapt to a new place in the government,
and commended EML's relationship with State and local entities.
Mr. McBrearty testified on the good working relationship
between the Air Force Technical Applications Center and EML.
When he suddenly received news of EML's closure he went to DHS
personally to argue on its behalf. The decision was maintained
and AFTAC moved to Los Alamos, and the Pacific Northwest labs.
Dr. Fainberg testified that the management at DHS had
little idea of what was going on at EML. He argued that the lab
was in poor condition and was expensive. Dr. Fainberg stated
that Dr. Clarke tried to stop acquisition of new equipment for
a research project that Dr. Fainberg thought was accepted. The
opaque methods of DHS leadership precipitated the resignation
of Dr. Fainberg from DHS.
Ms. Albin complemented EML on their Quality Assurance
Program (QAP), a program that provided performance testing of
radiological detection to governmental bodies for free. This
testing resource provides assurance to first responders that
the equipment is calibrated and accurate. Without this resource
local governments must go elsewhere, to other federal offices
and private testing labs.
Mr. Duecker testified of the numerous ways that EML helps
the NYPD to defend against, plan, and prepare for a
radiological attack. EML's expertise is extremely valuable to
protect New York City from attack and, through the Securing the
Cities Initiative, this expertise can be transferred to other
cities.
In the second panel, Dr. Clarke testified about DHS reviews
that found EML lacking in the ability to transfer their
expertise to DHS projects. The reviews found that labs were
under-used, expensive, and deteriorating, and the cost of the
lab did not result in acceptable contributions to DHS; this led
to Dr. McCarthy's decision to close EML. During his discussion
period, Dr. Clarke briefed the Members on the details of the
closing decision and the fate of EML programs.
In the third panel, Mr. Oxford explained the three core
areas in which DNDO has worked with EML and concluded that EML
has been a crucial partner in nuclear detection.
Admiral Cohen described his organizational priorities and
accomplishments in his first year of service with DHS. Admiral
Cohen told the Subcommittee that he has no plans to close EML.
He intends to maintain the lab's presence in New York City and
to re-emphasize the lab's core mission towards the Testing &
Evaluation (T&E) of equipment.
During the discussion, Chairman Miller asked Mr. Oxford
about what unique skills the EML brings to the table, and Mr.
Oxford cited the agency's valuable flexibility in a changing
security landscape. He noted that EML provides a valuable link
between New York City officials and valuable technical
assistance, and that it had a close relationship with New York
first responders.
4.3(e)_The NASA Administrator's Speech to Office of Inspector
General Staff, the Subsequent Destruction of Video Records, and
Associated Matters
May 24, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-33
Background
On Thursday, May 24, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight met
to investigate allegations that senior staff at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) physically
destroyed records of a controversial meeting between NASA's
Administrator Michael Griffin and Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) staff.
The first panel had two witnesses: (1) Ms. Evelyn
Klemstine, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, NASA Office
of Inspector General; and (2) Mr. Kevin Winters, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations, NASA Office of Inspector
General.
The second panel had two witnesses: (1) Mr. Michael
Wholley, General Counsel, NASA; and (2) Mr. Paul Morrell, Chief
of Staff, NASA.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened the hearing by noting the PCIE
recommended that serious discipline be considered for Inspector
General Cobb. Despite Chairman Miller, Chairman Gordon and
Senator Nelson's call for his removal, Mr. Cobb remains in
office with the confidence of both the President and
Administrator Griffin. Mr. Cobb's conduct and relationship to
NASA senior staff remains a concern to the Committee,
especially in light of the destruction of Administrator
Griffin's speech to OIG staff.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) echoed Chairman
Miller's statement, indicating that he will be recommending an
investigation by the Justice Department. Destroying government
property, in this case video records, brings criminal penalties
under federal law.
Chairman Miller and Rep. Sensenbrenner both asked for the
details of the meeting involving Mr. Cobb and Mr. Griffin
compared to NASA's general meeting practices. Mr. Winters
stated that he had never attended an all-hands meeting which
was not recorded. Ms. Klemstine said it was obvious the meeting
was being recorded and she only discovered later that NASA
management wanted the video records destroyed.
Chairman Miller then asked about the atmosphere during the
meeting itself. Mr. Winters responded that there was tension
during the meeting, since Administrator Griffin discussed
allegations against Mr. Cobb with Mr. Cobb present. In Mr.
Winter's opinion, the image of the head of NASA appearing with
Mr. Cobb to discuss the allegations with the Office's staff
looked bad. After the meeting, Ms. Klemstine wrote an e-mail to
the Deputy Inspector, Thomas Howard, documenting staff
concerns.
Chairman Miller then asked the panel when they discovered
the recording of the meeting had been destroyed. Mr. Winters
discovered the destruction after the fact. Ms. Klemstine
explained that she was informed about the records' destruction
by a member of her staff, but ultimately decided not to
interfere.
The second panel began with Mr. Wholley, who stated that
Mr. Morrell did not instruct him to destroy the records but
that he had reviewed the Federal Records Act (FRA) and
determined that their retention would mean they became
protected records and thus could not be destroyed later. He had
no role in the monitoring of Mr. Cobb's actions under the
corrective action plan offered by Mr. Griffin. He claimed that
he did not destroy the records in an attempt to conceal their
content and apologized for causing a need for a hearing.
Mr. Morrell explained that he had ordered the meeting not
to be recorded and then noticed recording equipment in the
meeting. He learned from the facility manager where the meeting
was held that the order to record it had come from the Office
of Public Affairs. He had requested the copies of the meeting's
video records from the Office of Public Affairs and left them
with Mr. Wholley. He asserted that he had not ordered the
records' destruction and was unaware of that fact until later.
During discussion, Mr. Morrell stated that he wanted to
encourage open and honest dialogue during the meeting and that
the recording would inhibit dialogue. When asked if Mr. Cobb's
presence and proximity to Mr. Griffin discouraged open dialogue
during the meeting, Mr. Morrell admitted that that may have
been a factor. Mr. Morrell explained that he had never intended
for the records to be destroyed, but had simply requested that
Mr. Wholley look into the legal possibilities. He stated that
he had later avoided direct contact with the witnesses because
of his involvement in the destruction of the video records. On
Mr. Morrell's claim that he had not been involved in the video
tapes destruction, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner showed an e-
mail from the facility manager stating the opposite.
Rep. Sensenbrenner asked whether the video records were
public records, as he believed, and if Mr. Wholley had done the
relevant legal research to find out, which he believed Mr.
Wholley had not. He asked if the relevant law allowed the
destruction of records to avoid their publication and concluded
that it did not. Mr. Wholley admitted that he was unfamiliar
with the law on the subject and that he had destroyed the video
records in his belief that they were not yet federal records
and had not considered the political implications of his
actions.
Chairman Miller asked Mr. Wholley why he had not consulted
one of the attorneys in the General Counsel's office with more
expertise before destroying the video records. Mr. Wholley
answered that he preferred to do his own research, especially
regarding such a sensitive matter. Miller then asked if Mr.
Wholley was aware of the evidentiary implications of destroying
records regarding a matter under Congressional investigation.
Wholley answered that destroying records about a matter under
investigation allowed the legal inference that the destruction
was a cover-up, but claimed not to have considered long-term
implications of his actions.
Finally, Chairman Miller asked about the nature of Mr.
Wholley's relationship with Mr. Cobb. Mr. Wholley said that he
met weekly with Mr. Cobb about matters before their offices,
that they had discussed their respective interviews with
Committee staff, though not substantively, and that they
discussed leadership on occasion.
4.3(f)_Oversight Review of the Investigation of the NASA
Inspector General
June 7, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-37
Background
On June 7, 2007, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a joint hearing with the Senate Subcommittee on
Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences to review the matter of
NASA Inspector General Robert ``Moose'' Cobb in 253 Russell
Senate Office Building. Cobb continues to serve as NASA
Inspector General after a six-month investigation by the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) found
that Cobb had abused his authority and exhibited the appearance
of a lack of independence from NASA management. In response to
the report, Chairman Gordon (D-TN) of the House Committee on
Science and Technology, Chairman Miller (D-NC) of the House
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, and Senator
Nelson (D-FL), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Space,
Aeronautics and Related Sciences asked the President to remove
Mr. Cobb. This hearing examined how Mr. Cobb conducted himself
in his office in order to allow Members to engage the broader
questions of the proper relationship of an Inspector General to
the agency and to Congress.
The first panel included the following five witnesses: (1)
Mr. Kevin Carson, former Assistant IG for Audits; (2) Mr. Lance
Carrington, former Assistant IG for Investigations; (3) Ms.
Deborah Herzog, former Deputy Assistant IG for Investigations;
(4) Ms. Danielle Brian, the Director of the Project on
Government Oversight (POGO); (5) Professor Paul Light, New York
University.
The third panel included: (6) Mr. Robert Cobb, Inspector
General, NASA.
Summary of Hearing
Senator Nelson opened by citing numerous allegations
against Mr. Cobb. For example, in 2002 Mr. Cobb failed to
notify the U.S. State Department that NASA computers were being
hacked into, of two events in 2004 and 2005 where Mr. Cobb
blocked or slowed search warrants against NASA properties, and
the 2002 blocking of an OIG investigation into the safety of
the Space Shuttle Endeavour. He states that there are no longer
boundaries between NASA's management and the Office of the
Inspector General, and sees this as a direct result of Mr.
Cobb's actions.
Full Committee Chairman Gordon noted that IGs need to be
independent to effectively conduct their job. He noted that, if
an IG views him or herself as part of an agency's management
team, then they can't be an effective check on that management
team. He stated that it was clear that, from the very
beginning, Mr. Cobb saw himself as a part of Sean O'Keefe's
team. Chairman Gordon ended by once again requesting Mr. Cobb's
resignation.
In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller
discussed Mr. Cobb's abusive behavior, though he said it was
most important that the hearing focus on the Inspector
General's lack of independence from NASA. He was frustrated
that Mr. Cobb admits no wrong, blames others for all of his
problems and has learned nothing from the PCIE investigation.
Mr. Kevin Carson's testimony outlined his experiences as an
auditor at the NASA OIG prior to and during Mr. Cobb's post as
Inspector General. He noted a number of instances where the
previous Inspector General had investigated safety issues at
NASA and reported controversial results without fear of Agency
repercussions. Mr. Cobb, on the other hand, frequently had NASA
management review audit reports before they were officially
released. Mr. Carson also noted that Mr. Cobb berated the
auditing staff if he disagreed with their results. Mr. Cobb
eventually merged the Office of Investigations with the Office
of Audits, moving the Office of Audits to NASA's headquarters
in order to, as Mr. Carson said, ``choke'' the auditors and
prevent them from producing unbiased reports.
Ms. Debra Herzog's testimony focused on Mr. Cobb's use of
profanity to intimidate his staff, and his hesitancy to issue
warrants against NASA. She explained that she regularly
observed or heard of Mr. Cobb using profanity to humiliate and
demean employees. Herzog also named several instances where
search warrants were approved on NASA properties, only to be
delayed by Mr. Cobb, who would not accept the warrants without
much persuasion.
Mr. Lance Carrington provided more examples of Mr. Cobb's
abusive behavior. For example, Cobb referred to special agents
as ``knuckle draggers'' and described their work as crap;
regardless of any successes. Cobb also routinely used profanity
when he spoke to employees. Carrington also described instances
where Mr. Cobb avoided acting on search warrants until he was
told that the F.B.I. would be implementing them, regardless of
the OIG's actions.
Dr. Paul Light outlined the criteria of what the Congress
intended when creating the office of Inspector General. He
explained the Inspector General should have expertise on the
area which he or she is operating, ``be a strong manager of the
office,'' ``be assertive,'' have ``maximum independence,'' and
have an ``impeccable reputation.''
Ms. Danielle Brian of POGO testified that Mr. Cobb's
actions were extremely inappropriate for an Inspector General.
She cited such examples as his frequent social outings with
NASA administrators and the reduced number of audits performed
during Mr. Cobb's tenure. She also explained that NASA
Administrator Griffin's role in the IG office meetings and
appointments showed a complete lack of independence of the OIG.
In response to the allegations against him, Mr. Robert Cobb
testified that he did not suffer from a lack of independence,
but merely gained the confidence of Administrators O'Keefe and
Griffin. He disagreed with the Integrity Committee's findings.
He admitted to verbally abusing his staff, but said that they
occurred on a limited number of occasions. He also addressed
his reasoning in slowing search warrants, saying that in some
cases he was unsure that a crime had been committed or that he
wanted to gather further evidence before executing the search.
He also argued that the small number of audits was not due to
his lack of independence and therefore a hesitancy to hold NASA
accountable, but was because NASA was more willing to cooperate
with him. He also denied that he was ``in the pocket'' of
NASA's leaders, describing his friendly relationship as being
part of his job in keeping a less tense relationship with the
heads of the Agency. Essentially, the Inspector General
admitted no fault in any of the cases presented before the
Joint Committee, and, conversely, considered all allegations to
be the result of a few disgruntled employees.
4.3(g)_The duPont Aerospace DP-2 Aircraft
June 12, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-38
Background
On June 12, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine the history, technical viability,
critical assessments, testing mishaps and management of the DP-
2 Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) aircraft being
developed by the duPont Aerospace Company. The DP-2 program,
funded exclusively through congressional earmarks since 1988,
has received more than $63 million. Yet, multiple technical
reviews of the DP-2 concept have repeatedly rejected it on its
technical merits since 1986 and serious concerns continue to
arise about the ability of duPont Aerospace to effectively and
safely manage the program. Three DP-2 prototype aircraft have
been developed and the DP-2 has suffered from four mishaps in
the past four years. The Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics
held a hearing on this project in May 2001.
The purpose of this hearing was to review the technical
virtues of the DP-2, concerns about the safety of the aircraft,
duPont Aerospace's management of the program and the company's
adherence to safety protocols and procedures. This is
particularly important given the fact that Tony duPont,
President of the duPont Aerospace Company, envisions the
development of a commercial version of the DP-2 aircraft.
Finally, the Subcommittee examined what sort of return on
investment the U.S. Government has received for its two decades
of support and more than $63 million investment in this program
to date.
The first panel included: (1) Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA),
Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee.
The second panel included: (2) Mr. John Eney, Former Head,
Aircraft Conceptual Design Group, Naval Air Development Center
and Naval Air Systems Command; (3) Dr. William Schreuren,
Former DARPA DP-2 Program Manager; and (4) Mr. Mark Deadrick,
Former DuPont Aerospace Employee.
The third panel included: (5) Mr. Anthony ``Tony'' duPont,
President, duPont Aersospace Company.
The fourth panel included the following four witnesses: (6)
Mr. John Kinzer, DP-2 Program Manager, Office of Naval
Research; (7) Col. G. Warren Hall, NASA AMES Chief Test Pilot,
Chairman, DP-2 Air Worthiness Review Panel; and (8) Lt. Col.
Michael Tremper, Defense Contract Management Agency, Resident
Pilot, duPont Aerospace Company.
Mr. Hunter has been a long-time supporter of the DP-2.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened the hearing by explaining the vision
of the DP-2, an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff. The
Chairman questioned the ability for the DP-2 project to ever
take off as to date the aircraft has yet to achieve flight.
Full Committee Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) expressed the
merits of the DP-2 program and the importance of continuing
funding for it.
Rep. Hunter has been a long-time supporter of the DP-2.
During his testimony, he indicated that the Armed Services
Committee has been interested in the project, citing other
successful projects which took a long time to complete, but
were beneficial in the long run. During the first discussion
period, Chairman Miller asked Rep. Hunter how to make a good
judgment call on a project when so many experts are asking for
its termination. Rep. Hunter believed that some experts still
saw merits in the DP-2 project.
On the second panel, Mr. Eney testified about the lack of
success seen in a 1986 launch of the DP-2 aircraft and did not
see hope for it in future assessments, as it was constantly
rejected by non-partisan experience engineers and scientists.
Mr. Eney first reviewed the DP-2 concept in 1986 and later led
a team of senior Navy aerospace engineers on a site visit to
the duPont Aerospace facilities in San Diego in 1999 while the
first DP-2 prototype was partially completed.
Dr. Scheuren was on a DARPA review team that provided a
critical evaluation of the technical merits of the DP-2 concept
in 1990. He later became the DARPA DP-2 Program Manager in the
mid-1990s and is former Commanding Officer of the first Marine
Corps Harrier Squadron. He testified on some of the technical
limitations to the DP-2.
Mr. Deadrick was the former Manufacturing Engineering
Manager at duPont Aerospace Company. Mr. Deadrick first began
working for duPont Aerospace as a college intern in 1988. He
was employed as a full time Mechanical/Aerospace Engineer at
duPont from 1992 to 1994 and as Manufacturing Engineering
Manager from 2002 to 2005, when he was in charge of the
composite fabrication and assembly of the DP-2 aircraft. He
discussed his experience working on the DP-2, citing the
technical merits of the project but also its mismanagement.
Much of the discussion focused on the mismanagement and
problems with the program. Dr. Eney discussed problems with DP-
2's vectored thrust. He also believed that the DOD is the best
judge of the program, stating that Congress should be
consistent with DOD's evaluation. The panelists and the Members
further engaged in conversation about the technical aspects of
the program, comparing its success with the Harrier jet.
During his testimony, Mr. duPont stressed the fact the DP-2
is currently a research project. He also cited the success of
DP-1 as a reason to continue funding for DP-2. He attested that
the DP-2 was almost ready to fly, but it needs to be backed by
more funding. During discussion, he attested that the DP-2
project would be less expensive than a V-22 project, but not
necessarily an inexpensive project. He also explained despite
its intensity, vertical thrust would have little consequences
on the ground below the aircraft.
On the fourth panel, Mr. Kinzer testified on the status of
DP-2, stating that it had yet to achieve extended hover. Col.
Hall testified on his time as the Chairman of NASA's
Airworthiness and Flight Safety Review Board, as he had
oversight over the DP-2 project.
Col. Tremper is a pilot for Delta Airlines and has been the
Government Flight Representative to duPont Aerospace since 1999
providing operational oversight of the DP-2 program. He
remarked that the DP-2 project received a ``high risk'' rating
by the Aviation Program Team, citing four mishaps involving the
test aircraft.
During the discussion period, Mr. Kinzer disagreed with Mr.
duPont's estimates on the capability of the DP-2 aircraft,
believing its range and payload to be considerably lower than
what Mr. duPont had stated. He was skeptical whether DP-2 could
safely achieve forward flight, and Col. Tremper added they were
noncompliant with safety inspections. On a final note, Col.
Tremper noted the importance of funding research on the concept
of vector thrust, with Mr. Kinzer adding that DP-2 does have
the potential to demonstrate extended hover.
4.3(h)_The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah
River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part I
July 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-45
Background
On July 17, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a joint hearing entitled ``The Department of
Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), Part I.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
past and current work of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), its relationship to the Savannah River Site and the
Communities bordering the Site, and the events leading to the
Department of Energy's (DOE) decision to withdraw funding for
the laboratory in fiscal year 2007.
SREL is a research laboratory owned by the University of
Georgia that studies and monitors the radiological waste held
at the Savannah River Site (SRS), a National Environmental
Research Park (NERP). The laboratory maintains long-term
records of environmental indicators and engages in other
research pertaining to the effect of the pollutants held there
on natural and artificial environments, including agricultural
systems. This first part of a two part hearing looked into the
scientific validity of the work at SREL.
The hearing heard testimony from two panels. The first
panel included: (1) the Honorable John Barrow (D-GA),
Representative of Georgia's 12th Congressional District. The
second panel included: (2) Dr. Jerry Schnoor, professor of
civil and environmental engineering, University of Iowa; and
(3) Dr. Ward Whicker, Professor of Radio-biology, Colorado
State University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by decrying
the actions and the threatened closure of SREL. He stressed the
quality and independence of SREL's work, which was useful not
only in maintaining the safety of the Savannah River Site, but
has helped others understand other polluted areas. Chairman
Miller accused DOE of creating a unique process to review
SREL's funding, a process designed to shut it down. Chairman
Lampson (D-TX) added that the lab has saved the public millions
of dollars through a better understanding of the environmental
challenges of this pollution.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) expressed
disappointment that the hearing began by accusing DOE of
impropriety without anybody from DOE present to defend itself.
Chairman Miller stated that extraneous events and the second
hearing provides ample opportunity for fairness in this
process. Rep. Sensenbrenner agreed that SREL has done good
science but thought the issue was what went wrong with the DOE
in making their decisions.
Rep. Barrow testified that SREL and the surrounding NERP
are crucial tools to understand out pollutants interact in the
environment. The fact that the government has created these
areas means that the kind of monitoring and science SREL does
should be done. He further stated that a private contractor
cannot provide the quality of monitoring that SREL has done.
Dr. Schnoor is independent of SREL but knowledgeable of its
work. He testified that the ecological risks of pollution are
better understood at SREL than anywhere else in the United
States. SREL provides independent and verifiable information on
the remediation of the pollutants found on the site.
Dr. Whicker testified to the importance of SREL's work,
especially in clean-up risk analysis. He explained that there
are thresholds in clean-up as contamination increases.
Understanding the conditions where it is useful to commit to a
more drastic technique requires good science, and SREL has been
instrumental in this research. Furthermore, the basic research
of pollutant movement and natural sequestration clarifies
existing risks and characterizes new ones in environmental
clean-up.
During questions, Dr. Whicker testified that a private
contractor could not have done the SRS risk assessment that
SREL does. Dr. Schnoor emphasized that the method for
remediation at SRS, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA), cannot
be done without long-term monitoring. Rep. Sensenbrenner asked
why SREL doesn't support itself through normal peer-review
grants. Dr. Schnoor responded that SREL does compete for
research grants, and its specially appropriated funds are for
operating and infrastructure costs, like other national
laboratories.
4.3(i)_The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah
River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part II
August 1, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-50
Background
On August 1, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a joint hearing entitled ``The Department of
Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
(SREL), Part II.''
The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory was founded by
University of Georgia in 1951 to monitor the environmental
effects of the Savannah River Site (SRS) which is home to the
much larger Savannah River National Laboratories (SRNL). It is
run by the University of Georgia (UGA) and operates under
agreements made with the Department of Energy (DOE).
It has regularly obtained individual and specific funding
within the DOE. SREL lost this funding in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006. The Georgia and South Carolina Congressional delegations
met with DOE, UGA, and SREL to reverse this decision. An
agreement was made in May 2005 to ease the transition by
allocating $4 million in FY06 and $1 million FY07 and with an
invitation to seek funding elsewhere. The Director of SREL then
set to establish a new cooperative agreement with the SRS
through its Director, Mr. Jeff Allison. This agreement funded
SREL $20 million over four years. Mr. Allison then was made
aware of the previous agreement in May 2005, and was told to
make his offer commensurate with this. As a result SREL lost
this funding, and instead any additional funding would come
pending a technical-peer review of its proposed tasks based on
a mission critical need. The proposal from SREL of 27 tasks
totaling about $3 million was reduced to six tasks for $800,000
by the judgment of DOE Project Directors. Given this and a lack
of outside funds, SREL is threatened with closure.
The witnesses were convened into four panels. The first
panel held: (1) Hon. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy. The second panel held: (2) Dr. Paul
Bertsch, former Director, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,
and (3) Ms. Karen Patterson, Chair of the Citizens Advisory
Board (CAB), Savannah River Site. The third panel held: (4) Mr.
Jeffrey M. Allison, Manager, Savannah River Operations Office;
(5) Mr. Charlie Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Environmental Management, (6) Mr. Mark Gilbertson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Technology, Office
of Environmental Management; and (7) Ms. Yvette T. Collazo,
Assistant Manager, Closure Projects, Savannah River Operations
Office. The fourth panel held (8) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, the
Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by stating that
SREL's work has lead to better understanding of the SRS site
and to pollution in general. It was, by any financial measure,
a very inexpensive lab to operate and it would be difficult to
find a better return on investment anywhere in the federal
science complex.
Chairman Lampson (D-TX) questioned why Mr. Allison would
negotiate a new agreement if SREL was supposed to become
independent. He doubts that DOE negotiated in good faith with
SREL given the documented record. Chairman Lampson said that
whatever plans DOE has for SREL, they should be firm and
transparent. He expressed his hope that, given SREL's exemplary
track record, it would continue to be independent and
adequately funded.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) criticized the
Chairman's bad faith in the operation of the hearing, and
accused the Democrats of trying to paint the DOE in a bad
light. He defended the DOE and said that they acted in good
faith by fulfilling established agreements.
Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) defended the nature of
independent financing for SREL through a project by project
basis. He condemned the public sector's resistance to change
compared to the private sector's flexibility. Rep. Inglis
suggested that DOE might be getting better research for the
cost through these different methods.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) also recognized the good work
that SREL has done. He thought that in May of 2005 it was well
known that SREL would have to operate independently and with
less money. He commended the efforts of Mr. Anderson and Ms.
Sigal in obtaining two more years of funding. He concluded that
it was Dr. Bertsch's responsibility to find suitable funding
options.
Mr. Sell defended DOE by reiterating that they did not act
in bad faith. DOE wanted to end special support for SREL and
make it an independent UGA run lab. Mr. Sell stated that it was
implicit in the 2005 agreement that non-competitive funding
would end after FY07. He cited the example of SRNL which became
an independently funded laboratory that has expanded and
increased its budget while thriving through such funding means.
He stated that SREL and UGA are responsible for the
unsuccessful transition.
During the discussion, Mr. Sell emphasized that the
agreement between UGA and DOE implied that SREL would become
independent, and that SREL knew this by quoting a statement
from Dr. Bertsch in July 2005. Dr. Bertsch said that if federal
funding ends, he would look for other funding sources.
Questions also emphasized that the requirement for independence
was not delineated within any of the agreements. Mr. Sell could
not specify any studies assessing a closure of SREL. He could
not say if the jobs terminated at SREL are now contracted out.
Dr. Bertsch, the former director of SREL, discussed SREL's
importance, such as its role for monitoring SRS's long-term
waste. Dr. Bertsch explained that until May 7, 2007, he was
consistently told by SRS management and program staff that
SREL's work was important, that there was a need for the work,
and that there was sufficient funding for the work. He also
noted that in his 23 years at SREL, all contracts were
developed with the SRS Site Manager and program staff and,
until now, there had never been involvement from DOE-HQ of this
magnitude.
Ms. Patterson testified that the Citizens Advisory Board
supports SREL because it provided independent analysis of
actions by the DOE at SRS. She lamented the loss of expertise,
data sets, and scientific legitimacy.
During the discussion, Dr. Bertsch said that DOE had never
previously asked SREL to compete for grants. He thought that
with the Allison agreement, SREL would be under the
Environmental Management portfolio at DOE and not Office of
Science. Furthermore he wondered what exactly independence was,
since he worked in DOE owned labs and buildings and studied the
Savannah River Site; without DOE there is no SREL. Ms.
Patterson argued that a private contractor would not carry the
same legitimacy as SREL environmental analysis.
Mr. Anderson testified that DOE wanted UGA to take a lead
in SREL funding, since it was going to be cut. He noted that
SREL was not abruptly cut, but had two years to transition to
UGA. Additionally, he claimed that competitive funding was
successful since SREL won $800,000 in DOE funding. Any blame
for SREL's financial troubles should be placed on UGA.
Mr. Allison testified that despite the 2006 agreement, the
previous May 2005 agreement had to be honored, leading to
SREL's reduced funding. He remains hopeful about future work
with SREL.
Mr. Gilbertson discussed his role in DOE to ensure that all
research is done efficiently. He led the review of SREL's
proposal and helped UGA guide SREL's new direction.
Ms. Collazo's did program oversight for SREL. This
oversight lead to $1.8 million total from DOE with operational
costs included. She believes that DOE has met its commitments
in good faith.
Questions began with Allison responding that he received no
direction on what terms the cooperative agreement would be
made. Mr. Allison did say that now SREL is needed for sewer and
groundwater research. The ``mission critical'' standard to Mr.
Allison meant those actions required for cleanup; Mr.
Gilbertson said it is the broad discretion of the project
directors. Mr. Allison responded that there was no place to
submit the projects that were rejected.
Mr. Orbach affirmed DOE's Environmental Remediation
Sciences Division policy that all research funds are peer-
reviewed and merit based. As this was being carried out, FY06
represented a budget crunch for Office of Science, and the
specific funding for SREL was cut.
Mr. Orbach, during questions, established that SREL did not
lose confidence of the Office of Science during the FY06
budget; however, given the needs of the Office of Science there
was no analysis of activities done by SREL outside the Office's
interests. The loss of funding was precipitated by a shift of
focus away from surface ecology and to subsurface ecology. Mr.
Orbach testified that this change reflects the current
knowledge of subsurface transport of pollutants is lacking and
could pose significant problems.
4.3(j)_The National Security Implications of Climate Change
September 27, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-58
Background
On Thursday, September 27, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight met to examine current thinking on the nature and
magnitude of the threats that global warming may present to
national security and to explore the ways in which climate-
related security threats can be predicted, forestalled,
mitigated, or remedied. The hearing looked at the current state
of research into the dangerous consequences of climate change,
as well as the strategic thinking that is being developed in
hopes of anticipating and coping with such threats.
There were two panels of witnesses. On the first: (1)
General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Military
Advisory Board, the CAN Corporation; and (2) Mr. R. James
Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton. On the second:
(3) Dr. Alexander Lennon, Research Fellow, International
Security Program, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; (4) Dr. Andrew Price-Smith, Professor, Department of
Political Science, Colorado College; and (5) Dr. Kent H. Butts,
Director, National Security Issues, Center for Strategic
Leadership, U.S. Army War College.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened the hearing by warning that climate
change could result in severe political and economic
instability, noting that the unrest created by the Great
Depression were the seeds of World War II.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) warned against creating
an overly apocalyptic, politicized response to climate change,
emphasizing the need for an eye on energy independence and
competitive economic development in the fight against global
warming.
General Sullivan asserted that the Military Advisory Board
found climate change to be a serious threat to America's
national security and to the rest of the world and provided
five recommendations to address these issues, calling for
immediate action despite any scientific uncertainties.
Mr. Woolsey explained the threats of climate change in two
categories, the ``malignant,'' and the ``malevolent,'' arguing
that the most dangerous effect of climate change is sea level
height change and providing a number of recommendations for
action.
During their discussion period, Mr. Woosley and General
Sullivan confirmed Chairman Miller's suggestion that rapid
action is critical. At Rep. Sensenbrenner's request, each
witness offered their advice for American action in foreign
countries to promote stability and goodwill toward the U.S.
simultaneously. Both witnesses explained the relationship
between human behavior and climate change. The witnesses also
discussed energy sources, military prioritization, alternative,
green technologies, emissions reductions, and public support
for mitigating climate change.
After a short recess, Dr. Lennon explained that as climate
change worsens, American security will be most threatened by
nations around the equator, and he offered what he saw as the
four greatest security risks. First, climate change would
exacerbate water, food, and energy shortages and increase the
risk of at least political stress if not resource conflicts,
possibly over water in the Middle East and even sources of
protein, such as fish, in East Asia. Second, while many
countries will face stress from climate change, potential
consequences in China present unique challenges because of its
geopolitical significance. Third, migration within and from
south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, including to Europe,
threatens our foreign policy and national security interests.
Finally, and potentially of greatest concern, are that the
effects of global climate change will increase the risk of
State weakness and failure, exacerbating the threat of global
terrorism over the next generation.
Dr. Price-Smith explained the impact of changes in
precipitation on rates of infectious disease and the
relationship of health to economic and political stability.
Dr. Butts profiled the Department of Defense's role in
addressing climate change and offered recommendations for its
actions in the future. Specifically he focused on the value of
the regional combatant commands in building sovereign nation
capacity for mitigating destabilizing climate change threats.
During the discussion, Rep. Hooley (D-OR) asked about the
need for new multi-national cooperative structures. Dr. Butts
argued that the necessary institutions are in place, but Dr.
Price-Smith saw deficiencies in public health organizations and
suggested a study for a reorganization plan. Dr. Lennon
suggested more international summit conversations. Dr. Price-
Smith added evidence of existing trends in disease vectors. Dr.
Butts provided Rep. Hooley with further recommendations for
encouraging appropriate action in the DOD, calling for a more
centralized climate change system.
4.3(k)_Disappearing Polar Bears and Permafrost: Is a Global
Warming Tipping Point Embedded in the Ice?
October 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-64
Background
On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a hearing on the impacts of global warming on
the Arctic. This hearing provided the Committee with an
opportunity to hear from witnesses on three inter-related
matters: (1) the current situation in the Arctic, including the
situation facing the polar bear, (2) ways in which warming in
the Arctic may accelerate global warming, especially through
the emission of more greenhouse gases, and (3) interim steps
that could be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while
the Congress weighs more elaborate carbon trade or tax
proposals.
There were four witnesses (1) Dr. Sue Haseltine, Associate
Director for Biology at the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of Interior; (2) Ms. Kassie R. Siegel, Director of
the Climate, Air and Energy Program at the Center for
Biological Diversity; (3) Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh
Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, and,
finally; (4) Dr. Glenn Juday, Professor at the School of
Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Alaska at Fairbanks.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller provided
background on both causes and potential consequences of warming
trends. Because sea ice is the primary hunting habitat for
polar bears, its continuing decrease will, according to the
U.S. Geological Survey estimates, results in the extinction of
two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2050. Scientists are
also concerned about ``tipping points,'' or atmospheric
processes that could lead to irreversible changes in the sea
level and global climate. He stated that the U.S. must not
ignore the threat of global warming but embrace the challenge
of diminishing it.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) agreed that climate
change and Arctic melting are worrisome, though disagreeing
with the urgency of counteracting the warming. He proposed that
combating climate change should include both reducing
greenhouse emissions while still meeting the U.S.'s energy
demands through technologies such as nuclear power. He sees the
USGS study on polar bears encouraging in that there will still
be a viable population of polar bears in a century, regardless
of the decrease in numbers.
Dr. Sue Haseltine, the Associate Director for Biology at
the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior
discussed their findings regarding the future of the polar
bear. Recent data published by USGS and Canadian scientists
document lower survival rates among young and sub-adult bears
and establish scientific linkages between less ice cover,
reduced survival, and population decline.
Ms. Kassie R. Siegel, Director of the Climate, Air and
Energy Program at the Center for Biological Diversity,
explained that government scientists predicted the polar bear
would be extinct in Alaska by 2050 if current greenhouse gas
emission trends continue. She explained that we need to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, methane and black carbon emissions.
Reducing methane and black carbon emissions are currently at a
cost-benefit or at no cost. She explained that methane could be
captured from landfills and agricultural areas and used for
electricity. She also explained how using energy efficient
appliances and correcting pipeline leakages could significantly
cut emissions.
Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at
Pennsylvania State University, appeared before the Committee to
testify about the findings of the IPCC report earlier this
year. He discussed sea ice, albedo and ice sheet melting.
Dr. Glenn Juday testified on the state of natural carbon
sinks. He stated that temperature rise in Alaska is causing
permafrost layers to thaw, which will result in additional
methane emissions, difficulties constructing railroads, roads,
pipelines, and buildings. He also discussed the health of a
major carbon dioxide sink, the boreal forests. He noted that
there is an increasing number of boreal forests in the ``kill
zone'' where warm temperatures cause tree death.
During the discussion period, Chairman Miller noted a
recent paper by Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist, that paints
a more optimistic view on polar bear survival. He asked if
astrophysics is one of the disciplines that have an
intersection with research in the Arctic or into polar bears.
Each witness commented that they did not agree with Dr. Soon's
interpretations. Ms. Siegel also noted that the publication in
which Mr. Soon's studies are printed is not a legitimate
scientific publication.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) mentioned several times throughout
the hearing that climate scientists skewed results in order to
get funding. Mr. Alley contested that he would never skew
scientific information to secure funding, and doubted that his
colleagues would either. Rep. Rohrabacher also asked Ms. Siegel
whether her organization received funding from George Soros,
which Ms. Siegel denied. Chairman Miller mentioned that Dr.
Hansen had also submitted testimony saying he had, at no time,
received funding from Mr. Soros.
When Rep. Rohrabacher asked the witnesses whether carbon
emissions caused global warming, or in fact, emissions were
caused by warming. Mr. Alley gave a long and detailed response
explaining that CO2 emissions both cause and are
caused by warming, hence the cascade of warming the Earth is
now experiencing. He explained that though the nature of the
Earth's orbit does cause a warming cycle, our current warming
trend is larger than that naturally caused by the orbit.
4.3(l)_Radiological Response: Assessing Environmental and
Clinical Laboratory Capabilities
October 25, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-67
Background
On October 25, 2007, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to discuss U.S. environmental and clinical
radiochemistry laboratory capacity to respond to a detonation
of a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) or dirty bomb.
The witnesses at the hearing were: (1) Ms. Dana Tulis,
Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM),
Environmental Protection Agency; (2) Dr. Robert T. Hadley,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Department of Energy
and Chair of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment
Center's (FRMAC) Laboratory Analysis Working Group; (3) Dr.
Robert L. Jones, Chief of Inorganic Toxicology and Radionuclide
Labs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Co-Chair
of the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN)
Network Coordinating Group's Radiological Laboratory Response
Workgroup; (4) Dr. John Vitko, Director of the Chemical and
Biological Division, Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security; and (5) Dr. John Griggs, Chief
of the Monitoring and Analytical Services Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL) and Co-Chair of the ICLN Network Coordinating Group's
Radiological Laboratory Response Workgroup.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Tulis outlined EPA's current testing capacity as well
as its interagency efforts with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS). She discussed EPA's real-time air monitoring program,
RadNet, and its unique responsibility to manage the response to
a radiological incident as well as the establishment of an all-
media laboratory response network, called eLRN.
Dr. Hadley explained FRMAC's mission and the role it played
during recent counter-terrorism exercises. He highlighted
FRMAC's capabilities during the emergency phase of a
radiological disaster, or the first four to seven days, but
noted it did not attempt to deal with long-term remediation.
Dr. Jones discussed the public health response needed after
a dirty bomb attack. He explained that after an attack, health
officials will need to determine what people were exposed to,
who was exposed, and their exposure level. According to Dr.
Jones, the Nation's ability to answer these questions is
limited. The nation does not have the necessary public health
infrastructure and that considerable applied method development
remains to be done. For example, available methods for
measuring radionuclides in urine takes five to 30 days and the
few labs that can measure urinary radionuclides process fewer
than 20 samples per day.
Dr. Vitko discussed the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory
Networks (ICLN). He explained the ICLN identified EPA, DOE,
DHHS as the agencies tasked with radiological response and
remediation. The ICLN also completed the first assessment of
the Nation's laboratory capabilities across the chem/bio-
radiological spectrum.
During the first round of questions, Chairman Miller asked
about the Nation's current capability to respond to a
radiological attack and what gaps existed in that
infrastructure. Dr. Griggs, Ms. Tulis, Dr. Hadley, and Dr.
Jones stated that with a single attack, the gap between the
laboratory capacity and response needs could peak at 9,000
samples a week, with a million samples unprocessed. With
multiple attacks, the number would double or even triple
depending on the number of attacks. This meant that it would be
impossible to tell if people or buildings had been contaminated
with or exposed to radiological material. Such uncertainty
could lead to large-scale public panic. Witnesses noted that
EPA has attempted to build its disaster response infrastructure
and DOE has a laboratory infrastructure, but it only maintains
what it needs to test its own workers and sites, which is only
of limited use during an emergency.
Chairman Miller asked about the impact of the closing of
the Environment Measurement Laboratory's Quality Assurance
Program (QAP), which assessed the operations at radiochemistry
laboratories. Dr. Griggs and Dr. Jones explained that the
nationwide assessment of laboratory capacity had actually
utilized historic data from the QAP program's laboratory
assessments, which was a critical data set.
Chairman Miller asked why the Nation lacked the capacity to
respond to a radiological attack and what could be done to fix
that gap. Ms. Tulis, Dr. Hadley, and Dr. Griggs explained that
effective cleanup operations from previous radiological sites
had reduced the need for radiological testing laboratories, so
that EPA was almost a victim of its own success. They stated
that the demand for laboratory services was not enough to
sustain the number of laboratories which would need to be in
operation to respond to a major attack. A pilot project in two
states is underway to help laboratories enhance their capacity
to test environmental samples and also to discover what
laboratories would need to do to improve capability nationwide.
The goal is to be to be ready for a major disaster within five
years.
4.3(m)_The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Library
Closures: Better Access for a Broader Audience?
March 13, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-85
Background
On Thursday, March 13, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to
consolidate and modernize its library network and the impacts
of their implementation of this plan on EPA employees and the
public.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages an
extensive library system designed to serve the specific needs
of its research and regulatory scientists, its enforcement
specialists and the interested public. Beginning in 2003, EPA
managers began a series of studies of how to consolidate and
restructure their library system to reduce costs among its 26
branches.
By the end of FY 2006, seven libraries were closed. The
libraries closed included three regional libraries (Dallas,
Chicago, Kansas City), a technical library in Edison, NJ
associated with the Region two library, a laboratory library in
Region three located in Fort Meade, MD, and two libraries
located in Washington, D.C. (the headquarters library and the
chemical library managed by the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)).
Because EPA did not complete work necessary to restructure
its library network, the collections previously housed in these
libraries are still not fully accessible to EPA employees and
the public.
The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses: 1) Mr.
John Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and Environment
for the Government Accountability Office; 2) Mr. Charles
Orzehoskie, President, American Federation of Government
Employees, Council 238; 3) Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior
Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program for the
Union of Concerned Scientists; 4) Mr. Jim Rettig, President-
elect, American Library Association; and 5) Ms. Molly
O'Neill,Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) and Chief Information Officer, Environmental
Protection Agency.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller testified on the importance of the EPA
libraries. He explained that the most generous possible
explanation for the closures was that EPA managers were
stunningly incompetent, but it is possible that the explanation
is more sinister. The EPA ignored their own careful plans and
abruptly closed libraries, limited access to the public and EPA
employees, and just threw away documents that may be
irreplaceable.
Mr. Stephenson testified on the GAO report released that
day on the EPA's library restructuring. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that the EPA's effort to
close regional and research libraries around the country has
been plagued by managerial problems. The report also says that
the decision to close libraries was not justified and strongly
suggests that the entire process EPA has followed in closing
the libraries is flawed and could deprive the public, EPA
staff, State and local agencies, and academics with valuable
environmental data.
Mr. Orzehoskie, speaking on behalf of almost 9,000 EPA
employees, questioned the libraries' closings. He explained
that they had been told that the libraries were closed to save
the government money, yet EPA's own Office of Environmental
Information did a cost-benefit analysis in 2004, which
estimated that EPA's library network saved Agency professional
staff 214,000 hours, a cost saving of approximately $7.5
million. The benefit-to-cost ratio was conservatively estimated
at 4.4 to one.
Dr. Grifo explained EPA began to close or reduce access to
parts of its network of libraries as part of a modernization
plan. This process took items out of circulation before making
them available electronically, and did not fully consider how
to make the diversity of EPA's library holdings accessible
during the transition period and beyond. She suggested
restoring librarians to the regions that were closed, and she
proposed setting deadlines for the digitization of EPA's
documents and for allowing public access to all of the EPA's
informational holdings.
Mr. Rettig testified on the importance of the EPA
libraries, the potential loss of information, and the necessity
of having a staff librarian. He explained that EPA has not
reached out to the EPA library user community, the thousands of
scientists, researchers, and attorneys who use these resources
daily, as well as members of the public, who have benefited
greatly from access to these unique collections.
Finally, Ms. O'Neil's testimony focused on the progress EPA
is making on strengthening its national library network and
ensuring that information is made available to EPA employees
and the American public.
During the discussion, Chairman Miller asked what services
are currently available to EPA employees. Ms. O'Neill assured
him that the materials were still available through online
sources and, to her knowledge, nothing was thrown away. Ms.
O'Neill also discussed how the libraries were working with
librarians and the communities to improve services to the
public and EPA employees. Mr. Orzehoskie claimed that library
services his region have not been restored.
Ranking Member Hall asked about the EPA's actions since the
Senate hearings last year. Ms. O'Neill discussed the EPA's
response plan, due March 2008, that they are drafting to
present to Congress. Chairman Miller later requested that Ms.
O'Neill make time to meet with the other witnesses, share the
report with them, and get their feedback.
4.3(n)_Toxic Trailers: Have the Centers for Disease Control
Failed to Protect Public Health?
April 1, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-88
Background
On Tuesday, April 1, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing on how the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry's (ATSDR's) a sister agency of the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), failed to protect the public's health
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The agency failed to translate scientific findings and
facts into appropriate public health actions which would have
resulted in properly informing and warning tens of thousands of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors living in FEMA-provided
trailers and mobile homes of the potential health risks they
faced. Instead of pushing to have the residents removed
immediately, the agency did virtually nothing.
The hearing examined the direct involvement of the Director
and Deputy Director of ATSDR in reviewing, vetting and
approving the release of the agency's February 2007 Health
Consultation on formaldehyde which was scientifically unsound
and quickly dismissed by the agency's chief toxicologist after
it had been forwarded to FEMA. Dr. Christopher De Rosa, ATSDR's
chief toxicologist and then-Director of the Division of
Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, immediately drafted a
swift, sharp letter to FEMA pointing out many of the scientific
faults with the report and said to release it as it was would
be ``perhaps misleading.'' The Director of ATSDR finally had
the letter sent to Mr. Rick Preston from FEMA's Office of
General Counsel, who had requested the report in the first
place, from a separate ATSDR office on March 17, 2007.
Amazingly, Mr. Preston acknowledged in interviews with
Subcommittee staff that he simply placed the letter in a file
drawer and never shared it with anyone else.
Without knowledge of the March letter, the February Health
Consultation by itself led senior FEMA officials to believe
that concentrations of formaldehyde in FEMA-provided temporary
housing units did not present a public health hazard. That
interpretation of ATSDR's Health Consultation and the
astonishingly lackluster effort by ATSDR officials to correct
public mis-statements by FEMA officials or to immediately
revise their own flawed report in the Spring of 2007 led FEMA
to maintain the status quo and keep tens of thousands of
Hurricane Katrina and Rita survivors living in potentially
formaldehyde-laden toxic trailers for at least one year longer
than necessary or warranted. Apart from the March 17th letter
ATSDR had no response at all. If they had, perhaps more than
30,000 families would not remain in these temporary housing
units today.
The first panel included: (1) Dr. Heidi Sinclair, Assistant
Professor of Pediatrics at Louisiana State University and the
Medical Director with Baton Rouge Children's Health Program;
(2) Mrs. Lindsay Huckabee, a resident of a FEMA-provided mobile
home in Kiln, Mississippi from October 2005-to-present; and (3)
Ms. Becky Gillette, the Formaldehyde Campaign Director, Sierra
Club Gulf Coast Environmental Restoration Task Force.
The second panel included: (1) Dr. Christopher DeRosa,
former Director of the Division of Toxicology and Environment
Medicine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; and
(2) Dr. Meryl Karol, Professor Emerita, Department of
Environmental & Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh.
The third panel included: (1) Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National
Center for Environmental Health, (NCEH); (2) Dr. Tom Sinks,
Deputy Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry and National Center for Environmental Health; and (3)
Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, Jr. (ret.), Deputy
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Summary of Hearing
During the first panel, Dr. Sinclair discussed her
experience as a pediatrician for patients who were exposed to
formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. Mrs. Huckabee provided testimony
on her family's experiences and health problems while living in
a mobile home provided by FEMA over the past two years. She
also discussed FEMA's and the CDC's failure to address her
concerns over the formaldehyde levels in her trailer. Ms.
Gillette testified on the Sierra Club's efforts to ensure that
FEMA and ATSDR were aware of the many health problems
associated with the formaldehyde in the trailers and how the
Sierra Club was ignored.
Chairman Miller began by questioning Ms. Gillette about her
experiences with ATSDR and FEMA. Ms. Gillette indicated that
she had never heard back from ATSDR about her health test
results. Dr. Sinclair suggested tracking the trailer residents
in order to monitor the extent of the health effects and to
assist them in the future. Dr. Sinclair said that long-term
reproductive health effects of formaldehyde were unknown.
During the second panel, Dr. Meryl Karol disagreed with the
ATSDR's recommendations to use 0.3 ppm as their level of
concern. She stated that the level should not be above 0.1 ppm.
Dr. Chris De Rosa testified on his efforts to ensure that ATSDR
adequately respond to the public health issues facing the
residents exposed to formaldehyde.
Chairman Miller asked about ATSDR's process for reviewing
reports. Dr. De Rosa discussed ATSDR's review process for
reports, specifically for the February 1, 2007 report. Dr. De
Rosa and Dr. Karol both felt that people should be tracked over
time to ensure that there are no long-term health effects.
Chairman Miller also asked Dr. Karol about the February 2007
health consultation. She noted that the report did not address
long-term health effects.
Dr. Frumkin and Dr. Sinks provided joint testimony on the
ATSDR's role in the investigation of formaldehyde in FEMA
trailers and that in retrospect they did not respond as
aggressively as they should have. Vice Admiral Johnson provided
testimony on the steps that FEMA has taken and will be taking
to get residents out of trailers and ensure their safety.
During the discussion, Dr. Frumkin answered a series of
questions about his involvement with the February 2007 Health
Assessment. Both Dr. Sinks and Dr. Frumkin commented on the
process by which that document was reviewed and how Dr. De Rosa
was excluded from the review process. They discussed a March 9
letter from Dr. De Rosa, which included the concern that long-
term health impacts were not addressed. Dr. Sinks and Dr.
Frumkin indicated that despite numerous e-mails and documents
about the involvement of FEMA lawyers, they had not realized
that lawyers from FEMA had requested the consultation. Rep.
Lampson (D-TX) asked Dr. Frumkin to elaborate on specific
changes being made to prevent a recurrence of their failures in
the FEMA health consultation. Dr. Sinks and Dr. Frumkin
discussed Dr. De Rosa's performance, and indicated that they
had no intentions of threatening his employment.
In addition, Vice Admiral Johnson explained that FEMA
requested a short-term health consultation because they were
more focused on mitigation of formaldehyde in the trailers. He
went through the costs, FEMA inventory, and sale of travel
trailers and explained that flyers had been distributed to
trailer residents to warn them about harmful health effects of
formaldehyde. Rep. Lampson (D-TX) asked several questions
regarding plans to test mobile homes at Maxwell Air Force Base,
to which Vice Admiral Johnson acknowledged that more testing
had been planned.
In closing, Chairman Miller cited the suffering of
thousands of Katrina victims who suffered due to the
formaldehyde in FEMA trailers, and expressed regret that FEMA,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) were not able to rely
upon a current health assessment of formaldehyde. As all the
witnesses had agreed, he saw no virtue in not knowing, and
finding out quickly, chemical health risks.
4.3(o)_EPA's Restructured IRIS System: Have Polluters and
Politics Overwhelmed Science?
May 21, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-104
Background
On Wednesday, May 21, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to discuss the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), a database established in the 1980s to provide a
single source of information on the risks associated with
exposure to chemicals. The IRIS database provides a hazard
identification and dose-response analysis, scientific
information that when combined with estimates of exposure allow
regulatory agencies to produce a risk assessment. A new risk
assessment review process was put in place for IRIS updates on
April 10, 2008, which will drastically slow down the time
review process and give polluting agencies even more
opportunity to slow the IRIS process and avoid the consequences
of an accurate reporting of the risks of chemicals.
The first panel included: (1) Mr. John Stephenson, Director
of Natural Resources Environment, Government Accountability
Office. The second panel included: (2) Dr. George Gray,
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency; and (3) Ms.
Susan Dudley, Administrator for the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller explained that as
a result of OMB's control of IRIS evaluation procedures, four
chemicals have been listed on IRIS in the last two fiscal
years. EPA scientists produced 15 or so assessments in each of
these years, but the assessments disappeared into an abyss of
elaborate, endless reviews, mostly behind closed doors. The
system is fundamentally broken and cries out for reform.
Mr. Stephenson discussed GAO's recent report on the new
changes, entitled ``Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and
New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and
Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System.'' He
explained that the new changes to the IRIS process are
unacceptable, threaten to make IRIS' database obsolete, and
that EPA efforts to improve the process have been ineffective.
He worried about process transparency and suggested legislative
action might be necessary to fix IRIS' problems, particularly
in light of its failures to regulate chemicals such as
trichloroethylene (TCE).
During the discussion, Mr. Stephenson agreed with Chairman
Miller that the new EPA process is more complicated than the
old, despite anticipated arguments from the second witness
panel. Rep. Reichert (R-WA) and Rep. Baird (D-WA) both asked
how the process can balance the competing priorities of
timeliness and thoroughness. Mr. Stephenson agreed that it was
always a difficulty; in this situation, timeliness was often
defeated because there were no schedules imposed. He stressed,
however, that EPA independence is a crucial element in
improving its productivity. He also noted that the new IRIS
process' lack of transparency allowed more agencies with
conflicts of interest to weigh in on risk assessment.
During the second panel, Dr. Gray argued that the new IRIS
process is more streamlined, efficient, and transparent than
the old process. He claimed this would be proven once EPA had a
chance to implement and evaluate the new process.
Ms. Dudley defended the OMB's involvement with IRIS by
pointing to its support for large increases in funding, and
explained that interagency coordination allows EPA to take
advantage of more broad scientific expertise.
During the question and answer period, Mr. Stephenson
rejoined the panel. Ms. Dudley objected to Mr. Stephenson's
statement that OMB reviewed EPA's response to the GAO report.
Chairman Miller asked Ms. Dudley if the role of the OMB was to
review other agencies' scientific assessments, and she
responded that the OMB serves a coordinating function; thus,
its scientists should be allowed to arrange such reviews. She
also explained that OIRA does not perform scientific analysis
itself, but coordinates other agencies to perform analysis,
none of which are non-Federal agencies. Chairman Miller showed
Dr. Gray and Ms. Dudley the pre- and post-IRIS reform charts,
those detailing the review process, and they confirmed that the
charts accurately represented the organizational changes,
albeit without timelines on the post-reform version.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Dr. Gray about the charts
once again, and Dr. Gray declined to take responsibility or
fully endorse their accuracy. He then decided that the latest
post-reform diagrams did reflect the process as it is currently
defined. Rep. Rohrabacher prompted Dr. Gray to establish that
the post-reform diagram, while it looked more complex than the
pre-reform diagram, in face represented a simpler, more
efficient, more transparent process.
Witnesses Gray and Dudley then described several steps of
the review process individually at the request of Chairman
Miller. In a discussion on transparency, Ms. Dudley asserted
that some closed-door deliberation and discussion is necessary
for frank interagency discussions. Mr. Stephenson asserted that
he could not understand this reasoning. Rep. Miller asked if
OMB ever conducted deliberative discussions with private
chemical manufacturers, and Ms. Dudley said that it did not.
Chairman Miller asked when the purported increase in
efficiency would prove itself, and Dr. Gray explained that it
would take some time to get used to the changes, and that the
EPA should be aggressive about implementing them. Dr. Gray and
Ms. Dudley expressed their confidence in the newly established
review timelines, but Mr. Stephenson worried that there were
crucial timelines missing from the plan, and that the total
review process could still take up to six years under the new
restrictions.
4.3(p)_American Decline or Renewal? Part I_Globalizing Jobs and
Technology
May 22, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-105
Background
On Thursday, May 22, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to assess the effects of the globalization of
jobs and technology on the American economy, and to develop an
understanding of the incentives and disincentives that
influence United States firms' decisions to locate at home or
abroad. Firms' thinking both on whether to retain or to
offshore existing U.S.-based capacity and on where to locate
new investment was be explored.
The witnesses were arranged on two panels. The first
included: (1) Dr. Ralph E. Gomory, Research Professor, NYU
Stern School of Business, Henry Kaufman Management Center; (2)
Dr. Margaret Blair, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law
School; and (3) Dr. Bruce R. Scott, Paul Whiton Cherington
Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School.
The second panel included: (4) Mr. James R. Copland III,
Chairman, Copland Fabrics, Burlington N.C.; (5) Mr. Brian
O'Shaughnessy, Chairman, Revere Copper Products, Inc., Rome,
N.Y.; and (6) Mr. Wes Jurey, President & CEO, Arlington Chamber
of Commerce, Arlington, T.X.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement Chairman Miller asserted that the
Committee's jurisdiction gave them broad authority to discuss
the needs of American business and economic competitiveness. He
explained that the first panel would discuss economic models
and the effect of the world trading system on Americans and the
second panel would discuss both the struggles faced by many
manufacturers to keep production domestic as well as the lures
of offshore production.
Full Committee Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) offered opening
remarks in Subcommittee Ranking Member Sensenbrenner's place.
He commented on the importance of STEM education and Federal
Research and Development Projects as they relate to the larger
issues of globalization and American economic advancement.
Dr. Gomory and Dr. Blair highlighted how globalization has
lead to divergent interests between countries and corporations.
Dr. Gomory specifically cited lack of corporate responsibility
to employees and communities and profit driven business leaders
as a major port of the problem. All panelists suggested
potential solutions to these issues including increasing
business regulation in order to alleviate pressure to drive up
share prices and maximize profits and rewarding companies for
having high value-add jobs.
During the question and answer period, the witnesses
discussed corporate executive accountability and potential
solutions for making them more answerable to their shareholders
and local communities. One suggestion was changing the way
executives are compensated so they are less concerned with the
bottom line by restricting stock options or giving tax benefits
to companies as a reward. The panel also addressed the
possibility of giving the shareholders more control over the
company and its stocks. Finally, the panel discussed the role
of pension and hedge funds in governing and controlling
corporate actions and economic choices.
All three witnesses on the second panel asserted that in
today's economy it is very difficult for American companies to
compete with other nations who do not have the same quality
standards and safety regulations. Mr. O'Saughnessy specifically
cited the lack of a national economic policy as a government
shortcoming. He and Mr. Jurey agreed that the U.S. must reform
the tax system to reward companies for domestic production.
Additionally, all the witnesses highlighted the importance of
redeveloping a skilled American workforce and providing
individuals with the tools and opportunities they need to make
domestic production successful.
During the question and answer period, many of these same
concerns were reasserted in greater detail. China was a major
point of discussion, including its government subsidies of
production and American companies' inability to compete on such
an unbalanced playing field. They also further addressed the
need for a domestic economic policy and uniform international
policy. Two additional major points were creating tax benefits
and increasing government regulation. Finally, the panel
asserted that community colleges and other educational
institutions play a pivotal role in boosting the skilled
workforce and increasing domestic production.
4.3(q)_Toxic Communities: How EPA's IRIS Program Fails the
Public
June 12, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-108
Background
On Thursday, June 12, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
met to examine the shortcomings of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Integrated Risk Information System Program, which is
responsible for assessing and regulating chemical pollutants in
order to protect public health. The Members and witnesses
discussed IRIS's slow pace in assessing chemicals and providing
the public with information, citing bureaucratic failures for
the difficulties, and considered possibilities for improvement.
The Subcommittee heard form the following witnesses: (1)
Mr. Jerome Ensminger, Master Sergeant U.S. Marine Corps (ret.);
(2) Mr. Lenny Seigel, Center for Public Environmental
Oversight; and (3) Dr. Linda Greer, Senior Scientist at the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller explained that
the glacial pace at which EPA is completing assessments of
chemicals has real consequences for public health and tragic
consequences for individuals and their families. Dogged
attention to scientific detail and the intrusion of politics
have overcome the primary goal of protecting public health.
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI) added that IRIS was
originally developed for the task of establishing a uniform
toxicity database within the EPA, but has since splintered into
an authoritative resource for many other agencies, limiting its
effectiveness. He called for the EPA to limit assessment
timeframes, perhaps by giving more notice of its assessments to
interested parties.
Master Sergeant Ensminger discussed his personal experience
with environmental toxins at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He
gave the details of Lejeune's contamination and told the tragic
story of his daughter's struggle with acute lymphocytic
leukemia as the result of toxic exposure. He criticized the
Navy and Department of Defense for consistently ignoring the
recommendations of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ASTDR) and endangering military families.
Mr. Siegel judged that the EPA's new IRIS process,
announced in April, merely institutionalizes a deeply flawed
and risky approach to protecting public health, pointing to
specific incidences of human trichloreoethylene exposure. He
recommended more public access to the decision-making process,
limiting conflicts of interest in risk-relevant research
funding, and a public process of assessing hazardous materials.
Dr. Greer testified on the lack of attention to public
health and science from the Bush Administration, pointing to
its recent changes to the IRIS program that delays action and
allows polluting agents more freedom to harm the environment.
The question and answer period focused on transparency and
accountability of IRIS decision-making and what kind of
oversight would be necessary to improve IRIS' current
situation. Mr. Siegel confirmed that the citizen groups had
little opportunity for public comment on IRIS efforts. Mr.
Miller asked whether federal agencies could weigh in on an IRIS
assessment, along with public comments, and Dr. Greer replied
that it was certainly possible. Mr. Siegel expressed concerns
that polluting agencies mislead the public. Sergeant Ensminger
weighed in on the government's efforts to identify those
exposed to dangerous toxins, saying they were stubbornly
insufficient. Mr. Siegel then pointed out that one difficulty
in health risk management is that cumulative chemical exposures
are what cause health problems, so that the same amount of
exposure can be more dangerous for certain at-risk populations.
Ms. Greer explained that IRIS' problems are both policy and
science-related; the overall keys to success are consistency,
achieving objective, clear and health-protective decisions, and
increasing public access to information. The witnesses agreed
that another priority is establishing clearer links between
exposures and particular diseases. They also agreed that ATSDR
and the IRIS program have consistently failed the public and
are in dire need of process reform.
4.3(r)_American Decline or Renewal? Part 2_The Past and Future
of Skilled Work
June 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-111
Background
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing entitled ``American Decline or Renewal? Part 2--
The Past and Future of Skilled Work.'' The hearing surveyed the
efficacy of past and current efforts to aid dislocated workers
and communities, as manufacturing and skilled labor has been
deeply affected by globalization. The Members and witnesses
also assessed the structure of international trade in order to
predict how well domestic efforts at retraining and
reinvestment can be expected to succeed in the future.
The witnesses included: (1) Dr. John Russo, Co-Director,
the Center for Working-Class Studies and Coordinator, the Labor
Studies Program, the Warren G. Williamson School of Business
Administration, Youngstown State University; (2) Mr. Frank H.
Morgan, Attorney, White & Case LLP; (3) Mr. Howard F. Rosen,
Executive Director, Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition and
visiting fellow, the Peterson Institute for International
Economics; (4) Ms. Jeanie Moore, Vice president, Continuing
Education Programs, Rowan-Cabarrus Community College; (5) Dr.
Thomas I. Palley, Founder, Economics for Democratic & Open
Societies Project; and (6) Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director,
Center for Employment Policy and senior fellow, The Hudson
Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller opened the discussion citing high American
debt and low consumer confidence, calling for another look at
familiar economic assessment formulas. Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) voiced a complaint about the Majority
having hired an outside consultant to examine globalization
issues.
Dr. Russo gave testimony on and offered solutions to de-
industrialization and its impact on local communities such as
Youngstown, Ohio, pointing to feelings of identity loss and
betrayal among laborers and their families.
Mr. Morgan criticized the Department of Labor for its
failures investigating and responding to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) program petitioners' cases.
Mr. Rosen cited problems of unemployment insurance and
inflexibility in assistance services, and he emphasized the
need for economic and labor infrastructure to catch up with
economic reality.
Ms. Moore shared her story of the Kannapolis, North
Carolina community, promoting the need for adult education.
Mr. Palley expressed concern that globalization, or ``barge
economics,'' undermines earlier policy tools and threatens
dissolution of the social contract that promotes shared
prosperity.
Ms. Furcthgott-Roth defended globalization in part for its
promotion of lower-cost consumer goods, but suggested
administrative simplicity, skill-flexible worker training
plans, and community colleges as means to improving the TAA.
In the discussion portion of the hearing, the Members and
witnesses focused on the issues of displaced workers, corporate
responsibility, and the problem of international competition
promoting a ``lowest common denominator'' in environmental
standards, labor pay, etc. Dr. Palley asserted that the goal of
globalization should be shared prosperity, and called for
higher international labor standards, environmental standards,
and tax incentives for companies that increase value-added
production domestically. In addition, Mr. Rosen called for more
domestic investment. Ms. Furcthgott-Roth argued that American
quality of life is better due to globalization, but called for
energy reform and passage of the Columbia Free Trade Agreement.
The witnesses conceded that offshoring American corporations
are often victims of unfair competition themselves, ``forced''
to move operations to remain financially viable. The Members
and witnesses ultimately agreed that adult education and aid
programs such as the TAA needed to be more widely used, easier
for possible participants to use and understand, and more
sensitive to the difficulties of displaced workers.
4.3(s)_Biobanking: How the Lack of a Coherent Policy Allowed
the Veterans Administration to Destroy an Irreplaceable
Collection of Legionella Samples
September 9, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-120
Background
On Tuesday, September 9, 2008, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a hearing to make public the findings of the
Subcommittee investigation on the destruction of one of the
world's leading collections of Legionella disease at the
Veterans Administration (VA) Pittsburgh Health Service in
December 2006. The collection represented the life's work of
two top experts on Legionella and hospital infections, Dr.
Victor Yu and Dr. Janet Stout. Its destruction brought
condemnation of the Veterans Administration from biomedical
researchers, and raises important policy questions regarding
the protection of biomedical sample collections built with
federal support.
There were three witness panels. On the first: (1) Dr.
Victor Yu, Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; (2)
Dr. Janet Stout, Director, Special Pathogens Laboratory; and
(3) Dr. David Snydman, Chief, Division of Geographic Medicine
and Infectious Diseases, and Attending Physician in Infectious
Diseases, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center.
On the second: (4) Dr. Jim Vaught, Deputy Director, Office
of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, National Cancer
Institute (NCI); (5) Dr. Janet K.A. Nicholson, Senior Advisor
for Laboratory Science, Coordinating Center for Infectious
Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and
(6) Mr. Michael Moreland, Director, Veterans Integrated
Services Network 4, Department of Veterans Affairs.
On the third: (7) Dr. Mona Melhem, Associate Chief of Staff
and Vice President, VAPHS Clinical Support Service Line; (8)
Dr. Ali Sonel, VAPHS Associate Chief of Staff (Research); (9)
Dr. Steven Graham, Director, VAPHS Geriatric Research,
Education and Clinical Centers; and (10) Ms. Cheryl Wanzie,
VAPHS Chief Technologist.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Miller was shocked that a federal health agency
official would unilaterally order the destruction of a human
tissue collection without receiving the approval of the
agency's research office and the Research Compliance Committee.
He went on to say that he could not imagine why that official
would, apparently, make false statements during the destruction
to keep the associate director for research at the Center in
the dark until the destruction was complete, and further
stunned that neither Pittsburgh nor national VA officials took
formal action to discipline the managers involved in this case.
The first panel of witnesses included Drs. Stout and Yu,
whose work was destroyed, and Dr. Snydman, who is also a
researcher in the field. Dr. Stout discussed the data set and
its value to the identification of legionnaire's disease and
research on the topic. Dr. Yu then explained the events leading
up to the destruction of the specimens, including the sudden
mass firing of the research staff. Dr. Syndman testified on the
collection and storage of the samples.
During the discussion, Chairman Miller asked about how the
samples were stored. Dr. Snydman answered that this system was
very standard and not disorganized. Dr. Stout showed a visual
representation of the system. The witnesses all agreed that
proper cataloging was critical to research and that the samples
were properly cataloged. Drs. Stout and Yu informed the
Chairman that they had never been notified or contacted with
the information that the sample storage system was considered
improper or hazardous.
During the second panel, Dr. Vaught explained the system of
sample management at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and
National Institute of Health (NIH) in general.
Similarly, Dr. Nicholson testified on the protocols and
regulations of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sample
collection and storage system.
During the discussion, Chairman Miller asked both witnesses
if the incident could have occurred at their respective
institutions. They responded that the procedures for sample
disposal are very complicated, and it would not be possible to
simply throw away samples. Dr. Vaught cautioned that while the
NIH system is very effective, it cannot be uniformly applied to
all scientific collections, such as the NASA space rock
collection, which may have unique management requirements.
Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked whether the VA should have
been performing this research in the first place, as opposed to
the CDC or NIH. Dr. Nicholson responded that there is a
Legionella lab at CDC, but as a non-expert, she couldn't say
whether or not this lab could have encompassed the work of Drs.
Stout and Yu. Similarly, Dr. Vaught could not say whether NIH
would incorporate the same research.
Rep. Broun (R-GA) asked both witnessed if they saw any
compelling reasons to destroy the samples. Dr. Vaught responded
that he did not know enough of the facts to answer, and Dr.
Nicholson agreed, adding that it is not uncommon to destroy
specimens at CDC.
The third panel included witnesses from the Veteran's
Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Mr. Moreland oversaw the
decision to close the SPL and instituted a Board of
Investigation to examine allegations of financial impropriety
against Dr. Yu. Mr. Moreland testified that the samples which
were destroyed were either unlabeled, or improperly labeled and
were considered biohazardous materials. Only Mr. Moreland
submitted written testimony, the panel did not submit written
testimonies in advance, but read prepared statements stating
that the samples were biohazards, the lab had retained property
rights over those samples, and therefore was able to follow
protocol to destroy the improperly labeled samples.
Chairman Miller asked the witnesses about the destruction
of the samples. The panel responded that the lab had not
provided the catalog which referenced the vials, and therefore
they could not identify the contents. Mr. Miller then asked the
panel to evaluate the conflicting information on the quality of
the vials destroyed. Ms. Melhem responded that she thought they
were clinical samples, not research samples because of the type
of labeling system used. Without cooperation from the lab
staff, she argued, she could not tell that they were research,
and not clinical, samples.
4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
4.4(a)_Improving the Laboratory Experience for America's High
School Students
March 8, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-9
Background
On March 8, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine how Congress could help
improve the laboratory experience for America's high school
students. The four witnesses were: (1) the Honorable Ruben
Hinojosa, Representative from the 15th District of the State of
Texas; (2) Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of
Science Education at the University of Massachusetts, Boston;
(3) Ms. Linda Froschauer, President of the National Science
Teachers' Association; and (4) Dr. Jerry Mundell, Professor of
Chemistry of Cleveland State University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird welcomed Congressman Hinojosa and praised
Mr. Hinojosa's bill, H.R. 524, which authorized NSF to make
matching grants between high schools and other institutions to
improve science labs for students. He cited the National
Academy of Sciences report, ``America's Lab Report:
Investigation in High School Science,'' as evidence of the need
to improve existing facilities and equipment, to increase the
training and preparation of teachers, and to focus laboratory
exercises on current curriculum. Mr. Baird declared that the
one of the major priorities of his subcommittee would be to
improve K-12 science education.
Ranking Member Ehlers emphasized that science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in America is a
fundamental necessity. Mr. Ehlers also stated that it was
unfortunate that America is behind many other nations in this
area. He expressed concern that educators and researchers
cannot even agree on the definition of laboratory science and
that more research was needed on how to establish a successful
laboratory. He cited Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman's research on
creating science education materials that stimulate both
teachers and students and suggested that his research should be
expanded upon.
Mr. Hinojosa discussed the Partnerships for Laboratory
Science Act, H.R. 524, and why it is important. Mr. Hinojosa
spent considerable time describing how the South Texas area had
been neglected for many years, but the area had invested in
human capital and the investments were starting to pay off in
high schools in the South Texas Independent School District.
Mr. Hinojosa drew attention to two findings of the National
Academy of Sciences regarding America's high school labs:
Llaboratory experiences for most students are
poor, and there is no definition of a high school
laboratory agreed upon by educators and researchers;
and
Lhigh schools that have high concentrations of
non-Asian minorities and schools with higher
concentrations of poor students are more likely to not
have sufficient laboratory facilities compared to other
schools.
Dr. Eisenkraft served on the NAS panel that produced the
report on high school lab experiences and he provided a summary
of the findings and conclusions of the report. He explained
that the NAS report already cited included a definition of
laboratory experiences. He stated that H.R. 524 was trying to
resolve two of the conclusions from the NAS report that were
emphasized by Mr. Hinojosa (see above). Dr. Eisenkraft declared
that there is no tape or book that could take the place of
actual lab experience but that none of this will occur until
society itself accepts this as a worthy goal.
Ms. Froschauer declared that the National Science Teachers
Association strongly supports H.R. 524 and the Partnerships for
Access to Laboratory Science (PALS) grants. Ms. Froschauer
cited a 1995 GAO report that declared that about 42 percent of
all high school labs surveyed were not well equipped for
laboratory science. She also cited a 2005 GAO report that found
that 40 percent of students listed their high school science
experience as the reason for not being adequately prepared for
their science experiences in college. Ms. Froschauer concluded
her testimony by reading several letters from actual teachers
that listed numerous shortcomings in today's high school labs.
She stated that all of the letters pointed out to the dire
necessity of H.R. 524 to become public law.
Mr. Mundell discussed the findings from a survey that he
conducted of his chemistry class students' high school
experiences. Of the students surveyed (66 total), only 33
percent agreed that the lab portion in high school stimulated
their interest in chemistry and only 21 percent agreed that
their high school chemistry lab sufficiently prepared them for
their college chemistry course. Mr. Mundell stated that today's
high school labs do not inspire high school students to
actively pursue science. He added that traditional high school
lab exercises should be replaced with exploration and
discovery. He described the Research Experience to Enhance
Program at CSU, funded by NSF, as an ideal prototype to replace
today's high school labs. He supported H.R. 524 as a means to
inspire students and to create real life chemistry experiments.
4.4(b)_National Science Foundation Reauthorization: Part I
March 20, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-13
Background
On March 20, 2007, the Honorable Brian Baird presiding, the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held the first
hearing to receive testimony from the Director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Chair of the National Science
Board (NSB) regarding pending legislation to reauthorize core
activities, amend administrative laws and set new policy
directions for NSF. The witnesses were Dr. Arden L. Bement,
Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation and Dr. Steven
C. Beering, Chairman of the National.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened by stating support new researchers is
crucial and should be increased. For this reason the Committee
is considering creating a pilot program of seed grants to young
investigators to give them opportunities for success. He also
discussed the industry's role in funding basic research. He
expressed great concern for the shrinking budget of STEM
education programs at NSF. He noted that the Research and
Science Education Subcommittee supports the Administration's
proposal to double funding for basic science research over a
10-year period.
He placed great emphasis on quality research because of the
poor economy. He questioned the witnesses on what needs to be
done to nurture young investigators and improve their funding
rates. He wanted them to distinguish between interdisciplinary
and disciplinary research. He was concerned with the NSF's role
in research by national needs as well as the NSF's priorities
in K-16 and STEM. He welcomed suggestions and ideas from the
witnesses.
Dr. Bement discussed his CAREER award which supports the
career-development of young investors. He distinguished between
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research. He noted that NSF
supports interdisciplinary research because of the opportunity
for innovation. Many methods of interdisciplinary research were
discussed such as: mail reviews, panel reviews, and the Task
Force on Transformative Research. He detailed the NSF's
attention to issues of national importance. He continuously
emphasized grants to young investigators/students to help with
the educational process.
Dr. Beering responded to Chairman Baird's question of how
to deal with young investigators by detailing a prior report
that called for $1 billion in grants over a five-year period
and $200 million to fund an expansion. He commented that
expanding research will open doors for young investigators. He
also supports the Career program mentioned previously by Dr.
Bement. In regards to the NSF funding for interdisciplinary
research, he stressed the importance of keeping the research
from becoming disadvantaged. He declared that NSF's mission is
defined in terms of national needs. He mentioned the NSF's
growing interagengy partnerships. Finally, he detailed the
NSF's priorities in K-16 science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. STEM education was one of his top objectives.
4.4(c)_National Science Foundation Reauthorization: Part II
March 29, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-19
Background
On March 29, 2007 the Honorable Brian Baird presiding, the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a second
hearing to discuss pending legislation with the various
stakeholders in the scientific and technical community.
The witnesses included (1) Dr. Catherine T. Hunt President
of American Chemical Society, (2) Dr. Phyllis M. Wise Provost,
University of Washington, (3) Dr. Margaret L. Ford President
Houston Community College System-Northeast, (4) Dr. Carlos A.
Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, City College of New
York and (5) Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative Semiconductor Research
Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened by noting the first hearing themes of
NSF's prestigious award CAREER, NSF's role in STEM education,
and the important distinction between interdisciplinary and
disciplinary research.
Dr. Hunt was questioned by Chairman Baird about the role of
NSF and in supporting young minds. She stated that funding was
much needed, and research and education are inseparable. She
stated that the educational system and STEM must find new
methods to train struggling teachers, outfit better
laboratories and promote careers in science to young minds. One
of her solutions was increased grants to capture more
researchers at early stages of their careers. Another solution
mentioned was broadening the background of NSF's various review
panels, advisory boards, and program officers. She commented
that the NSF's budget is relatively flat and described the need
for funding for STEM without depriving other organizations.
Dr. Phyllis emphasized opportunities for junior researchers
as well as the STEM enterprise system. He mentioned the IGERT
program which funds graduate students. He stressed that
research instrumentation programs need to increase. He asked
for the NSF to sponsor his program.
Dr. Ford reminded listeners that community colleges are
crucial to educating the Nation's technical workforce, which
increases the amount of students in STEM. She outlined that a
large percentage of teachers complete some of their STEM course
work at community colleges, which is a valuable component of
the educational process.
Dr. Meriles discussed his role at City College of New York
and the NSF's support and funding of the institution. He
outlined how his research nurtured young scientists through
awards, helped catalyze cutting-edge research through cross-
disciplinary teams, and effectively integrated academic and
industry activities. He discussed the significance of the
Faculty Early Career Development Program in supporting young
scholars. He also detailed the importance of scholarly research
and industry application. He believes Federal Government should
provide greater incentives through tax policies and NSF ought
to encourage internships.
Dr. Welser expanded on the need for a new computing switch
to keep the U.S. as the leaders in microelectronics technology.
According to Dr. Welser U.S. leadership in microelectronics
technology has great benefits to American businesses. He pushed
multi-disciplinary research, multi-year programs and industrial
consortia.
4.4(d)_Federal STEM Education Programs: Educators' Perspectives
May 15, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-28
Background
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to learn about educators'
experiences working with science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) education programs for K-16 students supported by
federal R&D mission agencies. The Subcommittee explored whether
such issues as the lack of coordination between the agencies,
difficulties for educators to find information about the
programs, and the absence of robust evaluation techniques
hinder the potential of the federal programs to improve STEM
education in America. Most importantly, the hearing highlighted
how the federal R&D mission agencies can best contribute to
raising the level of scientific literacy of all students.
There were five witnesses: (1) Ms. Linda Froschauer,
President, National Science Teachers Association; (2) Mr.
Michael Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science, Chicago
Public Schools; (3) Dr. George D. Nelson, Director, Science,
Technology, and Mathematics Education, Western Washington
University; (4) Mr. Van Reiner, President, Maryland Science
Center; and (5) Dr. Iris Weiss, President, Horizon Research,
Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by quoting a section out
of the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm
report that ``the scientific and technological building blocks
critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when
many other nations are gathering strength.'' Mr. Baird stated
that the discussion and witness testimony, part of the
Committee's ongoing discussion of STEM education, would examine
the role of federal R&D agencies in improving STEM.
Ranking Member Ehlers stated that he was looking forward to
feedback from witnesses that experience the end product of
legislation. He voiced concern that many of the programs
authorized by Congress and initiated by federal agencies
overlapped and needed to be reassessed. Mr. Ehlers noted his
interest in hearing about the Federal Science and Technology
Workforce and Facilities and under-used K-16 resources, as
outlined in several witnesses' testimony.
Ms. Froschauer focused on federal STEM education programs
for K-12 teachers. She stated that while NIH and NASA provided
educational opportunities at the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) Conference last year, many teachers still do
not have access to federal education programs. However, the
NSTA was working with NASA, NOAA, and the FDA to develop
personal and online programs to rectify this issue. She argued
that federal agencies' STEM programs need to be better
coordinated, ideally by an oversight entity, so that efforts
are not duplicated and new ideas can be explored.
Mr. Lach described the Chicago Math and Science Initiative,
which improved the performance of mathematics and science
education by coordinating resources through a combination of
content-rich professional development for teachers,
partnerships with local businesses, museums, labs, and
universities and enhanced after-school offerings. Partnerships
between schools and outside entities, he explained, require
constant communication and extensive flexibility. He stated
that the federal agencies had two great assets to further STEM
education: the best and brightest scientists and engineers and
top-notch scientific facilities. The human capital and
facilities of the Federal Government could be leveraged to
educate and inspire students and teachers.
Mr. Nelson suggested that the federal mission agencies
could improve STEM education by focusing on literacy and
workforce development; employing skilled and knowledgeable
engineers and scientists; developing partnerships between
industry, the federal agencies and universities; and
comprehending the structure of K-12 education while developing
effective curriculum and teacher instruction methods. He told
the Subcommittee that he would like to see federal agencies
build career pathways for students from high school through
mission related undergraduate and graduate research. Mr. Nelson
stated that agencies should form partnerships with schools to
first improve STEM education, then use that resource to further
their agency's mission. He added that there is too much
material that is poorly designed and does not further the
education mission. Mr. Nelson would also like to see federal
agencies provide incentives to retired STEM workers that
encourage them to become teachers after retiring.
Mr. Reiner indicated that informal education is a great way
to connect students and teachers with STEM education. He told
the Subcommittee that through their three levels of
interactive, hands-on exhibits, a planetarium, and an IMAX
theater, the Maryland Science Center is bringing science to
life. Mr. Reiner testified that the Science Center's role is to
spark interest in the minds of young students and perhaps lead
them to a career in science. He added that partnerships between
schools, centers, and agencies are critical, and that these
partnerships must be evaluated to make sure they are reaching
their objectives. He strongly supported increased collaboration
between federal agencies and science centers to improve STEM
education. He believed that the dialogue between the two should
be open to the public to increase public interest.
Dr. Weiss focused on program evaluation and federal
resource allocation. Dr. Weiss emphasized that federal agencies
have never had great success at evaluating their programs. She
suggested programs be critiqued during the pilot stage and
focus on desired outcomes and the impact of the program.
Furthermore, focusing on the program during the pilot stage
could increase program effectiveness without incurring major
costs. Dr. Weiss also testified that she would like to see
federal agencies evaluate whether or not teachers comprehend
the program to ensure their program is effective. Regarding the
mission agencies, Dr. Weiss stated that they should remain in
the informal science arena and play a small role in the formal
education system. She emphasized that federal agencies do not
understand the K-12 system comprehensively and would not be
able to offer a sustained effort.
4.4(e)_Federal STEM Education Programs
June 6, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-35
Background
On June 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to review the K-16 science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
activities of federal agencies and to explore current efforts
for the improvement of interagency coordination and evaluation
of programs. Witnesses for the hearing included (1) Dr. Cora
Marrett, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, National Science Foundation and Co-Chair,
Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Committee; (2) Dr. Joyce Winterton,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Education, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; (3) Mr. William Valdez,
Director, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and (4)
Dr. Bruce Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education,
National Institutes of Health.
Summary of Hearing
Hearing Chairman McNerney opened the hearing by citing the
National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report to
emphasize the seriousness of the insufficient number of
scientists and researchers graduating from America's
universities. He also mentioned the previous month's hearing on
STEM education and voiced his concern that not enough students
are being reached to pursue a degree in STEM education. Mr.
McNerney asked the witnesses to respond to the previous
hearing's witnesses' concerns regarding the lack of
coordination between agencies' guidelines for STEM education.
He also referred to the Academic Competitiveness Council's
(ACC) report that echoed those concerns.
Ranking Member Ehlers stated his belief that STEM education
is a priority for this nation. He commended the agencies that
participated in the ACC report and echoed the report's
statement that merely developing programs is not enough. Mr.
Ehlers expressed relief that the ACC report did not call for
seemingly duplicative programs such as the NSF and Department
of Education Math and Science Partnerships to be automatically
discontinued or merged. Mr. Ehlers cheered the re-establishment
of the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on
Education and Workforce Development and was looking forward to
the NSTC subcommittee implementing the ACC recommendations.
Dr. Marrett stated that NSF owed their successes to
interactions with researchers, educators, organizations, and
other agencies. She emphasized that the reconstruction of the
NSTC Subcommittee will help the NSF communicate more
effectively with other agencies. She described this council as
critical since members of the council will come from different
agencies with each member having vast knowledge of their STEM
education programs and have experience with evaluation research
and the development of performance research. Dr. Marrett added
that the reconvened subcommittee will work on educational
programs for ``K to gray.'' She also pointed out that the NSF
had created an evaluation process, in response to the ACC
report, for all of their STEM education programs to examine how
clear the objectives were.
Dr. Winterton highlighted several programs run by NASA that
encourage STEM education, including: the Smart Skies
Initiative, where students, in a simulated environment, use
math to land planes safely; NASA Explorer Schools, in which a
team of NASA scientists develop curriculum for an individual
school so that they are able to apply their math and science
education to duplicate real life practices that NASA performs;
and the Digital Learning Network, in which distance learning is
used for students to interact with NASA scientists. She also
indicated that NASA had developed a schedule for each of their
programs to determine their progress in efficiency and long-
term impact. Dr. Winterton also drew attention to growth
chambers of basil seeds that were developed by students and
will be used on STS-118.
Mr. Valdez informed the committee that DOE's STEM education
resources are waiting in the wings and ready to be deployed. He
stated that the DOE is establishing partnerships with NSF and
Department of Education and that DOE is developing a rigorous
evaluation program in response to the ACC report. He emphasized
that he had had dozens of conversations with members of this
panel and other federal agencies on how the DOE can improve
STEM literacy. All agreed, including the National Science
Teacher Association (NSTA) and the National Science Resource
Center, that DOE programs that utilize hands-on experiences at
their National Laboratories can fill a critical gap in STEM
education. He indicated that the DOE is creating business plans
for each program to increase effectiveness and transparency.
Mr. Valdez also described a joint venture with NSTA that would
have a two part certification standards for educators, which
would entail a structured laboratory research experience and
have DOE scientists partner with NSTA to develop online science
content modules.
Dr. Fuchs informed the Subcommittee that the NIH is
currently working with other agencies and outside experts to
develop programs that include instructional materials, teacher
professional development, and evaluation measures.
Additionally, he called upon the NSF, Department of Education,
and NIH to expand scientifically-based education research over
the next 25 years. Dr. Fuchs also would like federal scientists
to help develop world-class curriculum and standards for
schools. Dr. Fuchs described two specific NIH programs: the
Science Education Partnership Award that establishes a
partnership within a community to improve science education,
and the Curriculum Supplement Series in which sixteen different
curriculum supplements have been developed for K-12 to help
promote STEM education. Dr. Fuchs then explained that NIH
aligns their curriculum with each state's STEM standards.
4.4(f)_The Role of Community Colleges and Industry in Meeting
the Demands for Skilled Production Workers and Technicians in
the 21st Century Economy
June 19, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-42
Background
On June 19, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to explore the current challenges
facing industry in meeting its needs for skilled technicians
and production workers in advanced manufacturing and other
technology intensive sectors. Witnesses for the hearing
included: (1) Dr. Gerald Pumphrey, President of South Puget
Sound Community College, Olympia, Washington; (2) Dr. Stephen
Fonash, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology Education and
Utilization, Pennsylvania State University's Nano-Technician
Advance Technology Education Center; (3) Mr. Eric Mittelstadt,
CEO of the National Advisory Council for Advanced Manufacturing
(NACFAM); and (4) Ms. Monica Poindexter, Associate Director of
Corporate Diversity, for Genentech, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird cited the National Academies' report, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, to emphasize that America is not
graduating enough scientists and engineers. He added that the
manufacturing world has changed. It is no longer driven by low-
skilled workers but rather by workers with post-secondary
education in math, science, and technology. This post-secondary
education does not necessarily require a degree from a four-
year institution but can be obtained at a community college. He
highlighted the point that manufacturing jobs pay well.
Chairman Baird praised the National Science Foundation's
thirty-three tech-training centers that work with students and
community colleges to prepare the next generation of
manufacturing workers. He stated that a primary focus of the
hearing was to further the relationship between community
colleges and industry.
Ranking Member Ehlers gave credit to community colleges for
filling the gap between K-12 educational knowledge and the
knowledge needed for a manufacturing career. Mr. Ehlers was
deeply concerned that manufacturers spend more money on
remedial education for their employees than the Federal
Government spends on elementary and secondary education. Mr.
Ehlers also highlighted the Workforce Innovation and Regional
Economic Development Program and the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program that bridge the gap between skills and
industry needs. He emphasized that manufacturing jobs are no
longer dirty or dangerous as depicted by today's culture.
Dr. Pumphrey testified that community colleges function
like a State-assisted businesses. Community colleges weigh many
factors before offering a course, including: student interest;
employment demand; faculty, facility, and technology costs; and
initial startup costs. Dr. Pumphrey expressed concern that
community colleges are not able to keep up with the changing
demands of industry due to the high costs of acquiring and
maintaining sophisticated equipment, supplies and software. Dr.
Pumphrey suggested that low enrollment in manufacturing
programs can be attributed in part to a perception of a lack of
employment opportunities. He described a number of their
outreach programs in local high schools, including those
targeting toward women. Finally, Dr. Pumphrey emphasized that
much of their resources go toward remedial education to make up
for the deficient education background received at the primary
and secondary levels. These remedial education expenditures
prevent resources from being used on college-level work.
Dr. Fonash told the Committee that as technology fields
mature, they tend to leave the United States. He said that the
only way to prevent this was to be able to innovate constantly
and to have an educated workforce capable of constant
innovation. He emphasized that partnerships between research
intensive institutions, community colleges, and industry can
provide the needed education skills to keep the U.S.
competitive in a global economy. Dr. Fonash cited the example
of the Pennsylvania Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology
Partnership (PNMTP), which involves his own university, local
community colleges, and industry. In 2001, the National Science
Foundation made PNMTP an advanced education center. With
twenty-one combined institutions participating in this program
with industry, PNMTP has become a prestigious program and is
working with community colleges across the country to establish
a range of similar programs.
Mr. Mittelstadt explained that higher skill levels are
essential for today's sophisticated manufacturing technologies.
He testified that there are already shortages of skilled
workers in the manufacturing industry and that the number will
only increase. He believes that a collaborative approach with
industry and education institutions, especially community
colleges, will help end this shortage. Mr. Mittelstadt
indicated that science, technology, engineering, and mechanical
(STEM) education must improve if the U.S. is going to remain
competitive in the global economy. He told the Subcommittee
that ``the manufacturing-skills council work of NACFAM and the
American Federal of Laborers Working for America Institute'' is
stressing the importance of STEM education to remaining
globally competitive in a changing market.
Ms. Poindexter testified that Genentech, Inc. traditionally
sought to hire employees from four-year institutions, but have
realized that students from community colleges are well trained
and educated and sometimes already have workplace experience.
Ms. Poindexter highlighted Genentech's program with Solano
Community College to create a technical program for a career in
biotechnology. This program was the first of its kind and
established a new academic discipline. The program allowed
students to obtain a background in biotechnology, chemistry,
and biotechnology regulations and gain actual lab experience
that is common in a manufacturing setting. Ms. Poindexter also
explained that the company launched a similar program to train
former airplane mechanics into biotechnology technicians. She
stated that community colleges have the capability of providing
the needed skilled workers for her industry.
During the question and answer portion of the hearing,
witnesses agreed that industry is a needed partner for
community colleges when they are advertising for manufacturing
related courses. When industry participates, enrollment in
community colleges increases. Additionally, many of the
witnesses called upon the Federal Government and Members of
Congress to take an active roll in educating the public that
there are high-paying jobs in the manufacturing industry.
4.4(g)_The Contribution of the Social Sciences to the Energy
Challenge
September 25, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-55
Background
On September 25, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education of the House Committee on Science and
Technology held a hearing to examine how research in the social
sciences, including the behavioral and economic sciences,
contributes to the design, implementation and evaluation of
effective policies for energy conservation and efficiency.
Witnesses at the hearing included: (1) Dr. Robert Bordley,
Technical Fellow, Vehicle Development Research Laboratory,
General Motors Corporation; (2) Dr. Robert Cialdini, Regents'
Professor of Psychology and Marketing, Arizona State
University; (3) Dr. Jerry Ellig, Senior Research Fellow,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University; (4) Mr. John ``Skip''
Laitner, Visiting Fellow and Senior Economist, American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy; and (5) Dr. Duane Wegener,
Professor of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by emphasizing the energy
savings that aggregated individual consumer decisions could
create. He added that just informing consumers about how to
save energy is not sufficient to create action on the part of
individuals. The social sciences provide a way to affect
individual decisions and make major inroads into America's
energy problem. Ranking Member Ehlers added that consumers do
not always see the effects of their energy-related decisions,
so they do not always make the most rational decisions. He also
noted that the social sciences could also be applied to other
areas important to the Committee, such as analyzing an
individual's decision whether or not to become a teacher.
Dr. Cialdini pointed out that not only did public service
campaigns sometimes fail to work as intended, they occasionally
encouraged the very behavior they were trying to prevent. Even
small details, like the number of people depicted on a sign
intended to prevent theft of artifacts in a national park, can
have large unintended impacts. Simple research studies, such as
a study he carried out regarding the reuse of towels in a major
hotel, could help determine the most effective messages for
influencing behavior.
Dr. Wegener described some of his research on the
persistence of social attitudes and how the general public
holds positive attitudes towards energy conservation which do
not translate into action. He explained that social science
research has identified a number of factors that influence
behavior. For example, there has been research into what
affects the strength of an attitude and its resistance to
outside influences. Currently, he is researching what social
factors influence the acceptance of new technologies and how
these attitudes can be changed.
Mr. Laitner was concerned with encouraging technological
entrepreneurs and early adoption of better processes. He argued
that there were signals affecting energy consumption beyond
price signals. Discovering them was crucial to learning how to
grow energy conservation faster than energy use.
Dr. Ellig noted that institutions help create the
incentives that guide the flow of knowledge and that access to
knowledge determines in many cases what decisions will be made.
He advised making it clearer in statutes that Congress wishes
to find data on the results of its policies and he also advised
being open to all kinds of data, rather than keeping
potentially useful information from decision-makers.
Dr. Bordley described his studies of how consumers assign
themselves and products to groups. The process by which demand
can be modeled mirrors the process by which policy-makers could
learn how to create a model of public behavior regarding energy
conservation. He stated that individuals are systematically
irrational and that the Internet is shaping attitudes in a new
ways not yet understood.
When Mr. McNerney asked about the status of modeling
efforts, Dr. Bordley answered that the field had advanced
remarkably in the past five years. The issue today is less
understanding how to model behavior, but getting better data
inputs to create better models. He said that as consumer
behavior changed to reflect different energy conservation
preferences, companies would change their behavior out of self-
interest. He added that the prospect of massive losses
motivates company behavior even more than the prospect of
massive gains.
Mr. Ehlers asked what role the Federal Government should
play in shaping public behavior. Dr. Bordley argued that the
government has a role to the extent that it can create win-win
situations and shift behavior patterns to bring a benefit to
everyone involved. Dr. Wegener contended that research into
behavior was just another manner in which research sponsored by
the government could bring benefits to society at large. Later
in the hearing, Dr. Wegener and Dr. Ellig noted that while
economic incentives would change behavior as fossil fuels
became scarcer, it was important to remember the limitations of
the social sciences in affecting behavior. Value judgments
could easily creep into statements about where problems
existed.
Mr. Baird and Mr. Lipinski asked about the interactions
between the social sciences and the physical sciences on the
topic of energy conservation and whether science education was
encouraging interdisciplinary work. Dr. Wegener stated that
social science was not on the map for most physical scientists,
who seemed unaware that they could take advantage of studies on
cultural barriers to new technologies or on opposition to
nuclear power. He cited some of the benefits that a closer
collaboration could bring and suggested the challenge was going
to be encouraging a balance of interdisciplinary research and a
deep education in one critical field. Dr. Cialdini mentioned
his own efforts in raising awareness among the physical
sciences and said the issue required sustained attention. Dr.
Bordley offered his opinion that a lot of social science went
into the field of technology transfers, such as designing new
products to make consumers comfortable and marketing them to
target audiences. He thought that the physical scientists and
engineers he had worked with had not made the connection
between the two areas yet. Dr. Ellig stated that the attitudes
scientists carried with them regarding interdisciplinary
collaboration were largely formed in graduate school and could
be shaped there to encourage such collaboration. Mr. Laitner
said that the interest in interdisciplinary studies had been
growing, but the infrastructure and funding for doing so had
not yet become available.
4.4(h)_Nanotechnology Education
October 2, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-60
Background
On October 2, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to receive testimony on H.R.
2436, the Nanotechnology in Schools Act, and also to review
current nanotechnology education activities supported under the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and to explore issues
associated with educating students and the public about
nanotechnology. Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Dr.
David Ucko, Deputy Director of the Division on Research and
Learning of the Education and Human Resources Directorate,
National Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Dr. Navida Ganguly, Head
of the Science Department at Oak Ridge High School, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee; (3) Dr. Hamish Fraser, Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar
and Professor, Department of Materials Science Engineering, the
Ohio State University; (4) Dr. Ray Vandiver, Vice President of
New Project Development, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry;
(5) Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness
Alliance; and (6) Dr. Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director,
National Science Teachers Association.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird expressed in his opening statement that
because the government currently invests $1.5 billion in NNI,
the primary goal of this hearing was to elucidate how to build
a workforce capable of advancing the Nation's nanotechnology
capabilities. Ranking Member Ehlers stated that while the goal
of the bill, H.R. 2436, is commendable, he had concerns that it
provides equipment only to low-needs schools. He suggested a
better route would be to encourage companies to donate
equipment and employee time to exceptional high schools and
undergraduate programs. Ms. Hooley, the author of the
Nanotechnology in Schools Act, explained this bill would
authorize $15 million for NSF to provide nanotechnology
equipment for high schools and colleges.
Mr. Ucko cited several educational outreach programs funded
by NSF to encourage nanotechnology education, such as bridge
programs with universities and high schools, nano education
workshops, and the Nanoscale Informal Science Education
Network. He stated that these projects should generate
nanotechnology education strategies.
Ms. Ganguly, who has taught both college and high school,
said that, from her experience, getting students excited about
science must begin at the high school age. She gave examples of
experiments held in her classroom where she brought in advanced
technology, inspiring the students to see the possibilities
science presents. She sees access to nanotechnology for high
school students as a promising way to encourage students to
pursue science later in life.
Mr. Fraser was also optimistic that having hands-on and
immediate access to nanotechnology would ``capture the
imagination of students.'' Promoting attractive undergraduate
courses in nanotechnology will lead to increased numbers of
students studying science and technology and will provide for a
suitably trained workforce. He added that the equipment
provided for schools is not the equipment actually used in the
field, but education modules for teachers and students that
would be available for students from all schools, not giving
preference to high or low need institutions.
Mr. Vandiver stated that from his experience working with
the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, the general
public has an interest in nanotechnology, and this bill would
certainly help to make it more available and comprehensible for
students and the public. He encouraged the Committee to
consider museums as potential recipients of funds for
nanotechnology education, as they have historically provided
innovative and interesting ways of educating the public through
various programs.
Mr. Murdock testified that nanotechnology is the frontier
of science-based innovation, linking various disciplines within
the sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology. He said
that Russia has committed $5.1 billion to nanoscience research
and that other nations are following suit. He was supportive of
the bill because it does not impose curriculum or the use of
the nanotechnology equipment but empowers educators to
integrate it into their teaching as they see fit.
Mr. Wheeler presented a less positive view of the
legislation. He said that in light of the already formidable
challenges facing science education, the proposed high school
programs are inappropriate. He cited the National Academy of
Sciences report about American high school laboratories as
evidence that the goal should be to enhance already existing
curriculum, as opposed to adding more advanced technologies. He
said most schools have safety, budget, and training limitations
that would make nanotechnology education almost impossible. He
suggested that the Committee work on providing funds to get
labs basic equipment before providing them with advanced
materials.
Mr. Baird said that though he recognizes the difficulties
facing science education in high schools, the $15 million for
nanotechnology would only be a ``drop in the bucket'' if used
towards refurbishing labs, and that this responsibility lies
with the local school districts. He then asked, if the money is
to be used for nanotechnology, what the most effective use of
the funding will be. Mr. Fraser offered that providing schools
with simulators, in addition to visits from traveling hands-on
opportunities would be a good way of integrating nanotechnology
into schools. Mr. Ucko gave an example of a study that compared
traditional learning about viruses versus cyber learning,
showing that cyber learning was far more effective.
Mr. Ehlers brought up the fact that Congress does not have
infinite funds and that though this bill does provide exciting
opportunities for students, it is just not a top priority for
federal funding.
Mr. McNerney asked the witnesses whether high school
nanotechnology training will lead to jobs downstream. Mr.
Murdock responded that, though perhaps indirectly, access to
this technology would certainly sew the seeds of inspiration
for students to pursue this career later in life.
Mr. Neugebauer posed the question of who is providing the
nanotechnology workforce, today. Mr. Murdock responded that it
is primarily Ph.D. scientists and engineers, but that
eventually we will need technicians and undergraduate
engineers.
Mr. Baird asked the panel to provide two or three key
criteria for investments from the money provided in this bill.
Mr. Ucko responded that it should be a well-developed, well-
tested program, as opposed to simply planting machinery in
schools. Ms. Ganguly emphasized the importance of teacher and
professional development. Mr. Fraser suggested developing
modules in collaborations between high school teachers and
faculty. Mr. Vandiver said that a competitive grant process
would be favorable, producing the most promising programs. Mr.
Wheeler was unsure whether high schools were the appropriate
place for these funds.
4.4(i)_Assessment of the National Science Board's Action Plan
for STEM Education
October 10, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-63
Background
On October 10, 2007, the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony related to a
proposal from the National Science Board (NSB): ``A National
Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
System.'' This plan, which was released by the NSB on October
3, proposes a series of steps that the Board believes will
bring greater coherence to the Nation's science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education system and ensure
that students are taught by highly effective STEM teachers.
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Dr. Steven Beering,
Chairman, National Science Board; (2) Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey,
Director, Iowa Department of Education and Representing the
Council of Chief State School Officers; (3) Dr. Francis (Skip)
Fennell, President, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
and Professor of Education at McDaniel College; (4) Ms.
Chrisanne Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National School
Boards Association; (5) Dr. Robert Semper, Executive Associate
Director, The Exploratorium and Representing the Association of
Science-Technology Centers; and (6) Ms. Susan L. Traiman,
Director, Education and Workforce Policy Business Roundtable.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Beering described the process for developing the action
plan and provided a summary of the plan. He emphasized four
places where greater coordination of STEM activities is needed:
across the Federal Government, where the Board recommends the
creation of a new committee within the National Science and
Technology Council; within the Department of Education, where
the Board recommends designating a new Assistant Secretary for
STEM Education; within the National Science Foundation; and
most importantly, across all of the states at all levels (so-
called horizontal and vertical alignment) through the creation
of a non-Federal National Council for STEM Education.
Ms. Jeffrey praised the NSB report generally, and in
particular the call for better coordination of STEM activities
at the federal level. However, she expressed concern about some
aspects of the report, stating that the proposed Council runs
the risk of creating another level of bureaucracy and that the
report calls for better assessment without explaining how
states would deal with the cost and time it takes to develop
more complex assessments.
Dr. Fennell testified that the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM) supports all of the elements of the
Action Plan, including the creation of a National Council for
STEM Education. He discussed NCTM's Curriculum Focal Points and
NCTM's efforts to get the Focal Points incorporated into State
math standards.
Ms. Gayl called the Action Plan a ``step in the right
direction'' but cautioned the Committee that some of the
recommendations in the Action Plan, including the National STEM
Council, and national content guidelines, could ultimately
erode State and local control over education. She also
expressed concern that the Action Plan did not mention the need
for up-to-date laboratory equipment and modern classrooms.
Dr. Semper discussed the important role that informal
science education institutions play in K-12 STEM education, and
expressed support for the Action Plan overall, including the
idea of a National STEM Council.
Ms. Traiman described the current system of 50 different
State STEM standards as ``absurd'' but expressed concern that
NSB's recommendation for a National STEM Council ignore the
history and politics of education in the U.S. She added that
the business community in general is not supporting a federal
role in the development of voluntary national standards for now
but has no consensus opinion on the creation of a National STEM
Council.
4.4(j)_Women in Academic Science and Engineering
October 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-65
Background
On October 17, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to examine institutional and
cultural barriers to recruitment and retention of women faculty
in science and engineering (S&E) fields, best practices for
overcoming these barriers, and the role that federal research
agencies can play in disseminating and promoting best
practices. Witnesses for the hearing included (1) Dr. Donna
Shalala, President, University of Miami; (2) Dr. Kathie Olsen,
Deputy Director, National Science Foundation; (3) Dr. Freeman
Hrabowski, President, University of Maryland Baltimore County;
(4) Dr. Myron Campbell, Chair of Physics, University of
Michigan; and (5) Dr. Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government,
University of Texas at Austin.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by citing the increase in
the number of women receiving Ph.D.s but also by noting that
women still only hold 28 percent of all full-time S&E faculty
positions, and only 18 percent of full professorships. He
emphasized the importance of encouraging all talented
individuals to continue pursuing careers in S&E fields during
this critical period when the U.S. desperately needs to
increase its competitive advantage among foreign nations.
Ranking Member Ehlers cited the National Academies' 2006 Beyond
Bias and Barriers report, which states that both the culture
and structure of scientific institutions must be changed so
that women may advance in science and engineering. He cited
China as a country where women hold 50 percent of S&E jobs in
support of the idea that women in the U.S. are culturally
influenced against pursuing these careers. He stressed that
women must have mentors to inspire and guide them.
Dr. Shalala commented on the fact that women are
disadvantaged because they are ``paid less, promoted more
slowly and receive fewer honors and hold fewer leadership
positions than men.'' She recommended that federal funding
agencies counter these biases by making sure that all rules
support participation of women, providing workshops on gender
bias for department chairs, conducting research on gender bias,
and enforcing anti-discrimination laws in all institutions of
higher education.
Dr. Olsen was very enthusiastic about NSF's treatment of
women in the workplace, saying it provides an example that can
be followed by other science institutions. At NSF, all managers
and supervisors are trained in diversity management. Dr. Olsen
also spoke about the NSF ADVANCE program, which has provided
funding to 58 institutions of higher education. This program
focuses on sweeping institutional changes that create a women-
friendly environment. It has resulted in increased female
faculty hires as well as advancement towards salary parity.
When Mr. Baird asked whether mentoring should be more highly
rewarded, Dr. Olsen responded that rewarding mentoring in the
tenure process would be extremely helpful, as women often have
difficulty achieving tenure when they are required to take on
so many roles for which they are not recognized.
Dr. Hrabowski stated that the ADVANCE program has resulted
in a 48 percent increase in tenure-track S&E women faculty at
UMBC. He gave several examples of changes in practice that have
encouraged mobility in women and minorities within S&E
departments. He underlined that a primary change being made at
the university is to foster a climate where men, women, junior,
and senior faculty can speak freely without fear of criticism.
When Mr. Baird asked the panel whether ADVANCE successes could
be replicated at institutions that did not seek ADVANCE
funding, Dr. Hrabowski responded that all universities will
respond to monetary incentives.
Dr. Campbell testified that only four percent of full
professors in physics are women. He stated it is not the
woman's responsibility to fight this trend, but all science
professionals, that there is not a ``magic-bullet'' solution,
and that improving the climate is crucial to encouraging women
to advance in these fields. He also suggested that the ADVANCE
program should be expanded and that federal rules be changed to
allow small grants for child care for scientists attending
conferences and meetings.
Dr. Ritter outlined four barriers to women's advancement in
higher education: climate, work-family balance, professional
assessment/rewards, and absence of senior women. She also
advised that the Federal Government expand ADVANCE and use
Title IX enforcement to advance women in under-represented
fields. Mr. Baird questioned how this could be achieved, and
Dr. Ritter explained that presidents and provosts must hold
deans accountable, and that deans must hold chairs accountable
for having diverse pools and being willing to accept diverse
candidates.
When Mr. Ehlers asked why women are more successful in
medicine and other fields once dominated by men than they are
in S&E fields, Dr. Shalala suggested that medicine provides a
track which allows success while permitting more flexible
hours. Dr. Campbell responded that those other fields tend to
be a ``top-down,'' which makes changing the climate easier than
in academia and Dr. Hrabowski replied that women are much more
likely to receive mentoring and guidance to choose these
fields.
Mr. McNerney asked Dr. Shalala if there were any
encouraging statistics that might indicate that women's numbers
are in fact growing and that legacy effects are one potential
cause of the continued dominance of men in S&E fields. Dr.
Shalala explained that while the pools of talent are present,
with 52 percent of undergraduate science students being female,
the representation of women at the faculty level is still
extremely low. When asked by Mr. Neugebauer whether the private
sector was funneling women away from these jobs, Dr. Shalala
stated that economic incentives for women in the private sector
were not so impressive that, given the right climate, women
would choose working in the private sector over academic
science.
4.4(k)_Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation
Under the National Nanotechnology Initiative
October 31, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-69
Background
On October 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to review the need and
motivation for research on the environmental, health and safety
(EHS) aspects of nanotechnology, determine the current state of
planning and implementation of EHS research under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and explore whether changes
are needed to the current mechanisms for planning and
implementing EHS research. This hearing is one in a series to
review the administration and content of the NNI as part of the
process for developing legislation to reauthorize the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-153).
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Dr. Clayton Teague,
Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
(NNCO); (2) Mr. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST); (3) Dr.
Vicki L. Colvin, Executive Director, International Council on
Nanotechnology and Professor of Chemistry and Chemical
Engineering at Rice University; (4) Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief
Science Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars; (5) Dr. Richard
Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense; and (6) Mr.
Paul D. Ziegler, Chairman of the Nanotechnology Panel, American
Chemistry Council, and Global Director, PPG Industries, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird pointed out the unanimity of views on the
importance of EHS research for the development of
nanotechnology and the necessity of a well designed and
adequately funded EHS research component of the NNI. He
stressed the concern that the interagency planning for and
implementation of the EHS research component of NNI was not
moving with the urgency it deserved and indicated the Committee
may want to modify the existing planning and coordination
mechanisms during the reauthorization of the NNI.
Ranking Member Ehlers emphasized the importance of EHS
research and pointed out the difficulty of the problem of
quantifying the potential health and environmental risks of
nanotechnology. He indicated the need for Congress to
continually assess whether research priorities are being
established and effectively implemented, and whether research
findings of risk research are being shared with all
stakeholders, including the public.
Dr. Teague reviewed the current process for planning the
EHS research component of the NNI, asserting that the process
has been effective and that the participating agencies believe
the process is working well. He pointed out that it is a
consensus-based process involving 20 agencies, which means it
is a slow process but results in agency buy-in. He indicated
that the identification of key research areas has been
completed and that the agencies are now reviewing a detailed
compilation of EHS research projects funded by NNI agencies
during FY 2006. The final result of this ongoing work will be a
strategic plan for EHS research that will be released by early
2008.
Mr. Kvamme indicated that PCAST is in the process of
assessing the EHS research component of the NNI with the help
of a 60-member technical advisory group of academic and
industry experts and will release its report on the assessment
in January 2008. He stated that the NNI's approach for
understanding and managing potential risks of nanotechnology is
sound and appropriate and that EHS research should remain
integrated with the broader NNI research portfolio. Also, he
believes funding for EHS research is at the right scale, shows
appropriately steady growth, and should not be set at an
arbitrary level or as a fixed percentage of the total NNI
funding.
Dr. Colvin called for the rapid completion of a strategic
plan for EHS research. She praised NNCO for completion of its
document prioritizing research needs but noted that the
research needs are not grouped by how they connect to end
objectives for developing safe nanotechnology. She believes the
strategic plan should articulate shared goals across the
agencies to drive the research investments. One immediate
priority that she believes must be addressed is to develop a
common set of tools for risk research, including terminology,
methods, data structures, and materials.
Dr. Maynard stated that the NNI has been showing good
intentions to address the risk aspect of nanotechnology, but
good intentions are not enough. He called for a top-down
research strategy in place by the end of the year backed up
with necessary resources and authorities for implementation and
funded at 10 percent of the total NNI budget, plus $50 million
per year for targeted research on near-term needs. In addition,
he recommended creation of a public/private partnership funded
at $10 million per year for five years to address critical
research questions in support of government and industry
oversight and recommended establishing a targeted program of
public engagement on nanotechnology featuring two-way
communication between developer and users if the technology.
Dr. Denison made three main points: 1) too little is being
spent on EHS research (he recommends 10 percent of the NNI
total) and the allocation of spending among agencies is
incorrect (the agencies with regulatory responsibilities should
have the bulk of the resources); 2) too little is know about
what the current funding is supporting (he recommends
publishing the list of EHS research projects); and 3) progress
toward development of the EHS research strategy has been
``glacial.'' He asserts that a new mechanism is needed which
has the responsibility and controls the resources to develop
and manage the overall risk research strategy and which
receives assistance from the National Academy of Sciences in
developing and overseeing the strategy. He recommends that the
mechanism developed separates responsibility for developing and
advancing nanotechnology from responsibility for identifying
and mitigating risk.
Mr. Ziegler stated that federal coordination and support of
EHS research is essential for the responsible development of
nanotechnology and its commercial acceptance and that the
current process for planning and implementing EHS research is
too slow and is incomplete. He made recommendations for the
types of EHS information that would be important to industry.
He also recommended that the National Academy of Sciences be
used to help establish EHS research priorities and roadmaps and
that funding for EHS research be substantially increased.
4.4(l)_Status of Visas and Other Policies for Foreign Students
and Scholars
February 7, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-74
Background
On Thursday, February 7, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to review the status of visas and other policies
governing the entry of foreign students into the United States.
The witnesses and Members also examined the ongoing impediments
to implementation of the foreign student policies, as well as
the impact that such impediments may be having on the U.S.
scientific enterprise. In addition, the Subcommittee explored
recommendations for changes or improvements to existing policy.
There were four witnesses: 1) Mr. Stephen A. ``Tony''
Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Department of State; 2) Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, The National
Academies; 3) Dr. Allan E. Goodman, President and CEO,
Institute of International Education; and 4) Ms. Catheryn
Cotten, Director, International Office, Duke University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing with an emphasis on the
crucial role foreign scholars play in our own national
scientific progress and reputation. Rep. Neugebauer discussed
the importance of this issue to the medical community, and
submitted the written statement of Dr. Leighann Jenkins of the
Texas Tech University School of Medicine. Ranking Member Ehlers
focused on the bureaucratic hurdles and resulting personal
hardships faced by many foreign scholars and students in the
United States.
Mr. Edson testified about recent Department of State (DOS)
efforts to streamline visa policies and the positive influence
these changes are having. Dr. Fineberg discussed the importance
of international scientific exchanges to the U.S. science and
engineering enterprise, and testified about the role of The
National Academies' International Visitors Office in working
with DOS to facilitate open exchange of scientists. He also
made recommendations for possible changes to visa policy and
for additional actions that DOS could take to reform visa
policy, including focusing our national security resources
where the risks are highest. Dr. Goodman discussed the role of
the Institute for International Education in promoting open
exchange of students. He praised efforts at DOS to ease the
administrative burdens on foreign students over the last few
years but criticized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
for their treatment of visitors at the border. Ms. Cotton
testified about the impact of visa policies on universities and
how universities are addressing their concerns. She also made
specific recommendations to Congress, DHS and DOS about changes
to visa policies in order to improve the flow of students and
scholars without compromising security. Members asked about
aspects of visa policy and processing, including general work
permission, appeals, ``bars'' in the exchange visitor program
and timing of eligibility for H1-B visas. All of the witnesses
agreed that visa policies and practices could still be
strengthened from a security perspective while easing the flow
of students and scholars that are indispensable to the U.S.
science and engineering enterprise.
4.4(m)_Oversight of the National Science Foundation
February 26, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-77
Background
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to receive testimony from the Director of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Chair of the National
Science Board (NSB) regarding NSF's fiscal year (FY) 2009
budget request and related policy issues.
There were two witnesses: 1) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.,
Director of the National Science Foundation; and 2) Dr. Steven
C. Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by expressing support for
the overall budget but disappointment at the proposed funding
level for the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. Ranking Member
Ehlers expressed concern that the proposed budget fell short of
the levels authorized in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69)
and could discourage young scientists from choosing science
careers.
Dr. Beering and Dr. Bement testified about NSF's FY 2009
budget request, and in particular discussed how the budget
request addresses the programs authorized in the COMPETES Act.
Dr. Beering also testified about recent NSB reports on science
and math education and on international partnerships. Members
of the Committee focused many of their questions on NSF's
education programs and expressed concern about NSF's intend to
fund the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program below the authorized
level. Chairman Baird also asked Dr. Bement about NSF's
international programs, social and behavioral research
programs, and about policy changes for the major research
equipment account. Overall, Members of the Committee expressed
satisfaction with the proposed budget and with NSF's new
initiatives for FY 2009.
4.4(n)_The Transfer of National Nanotechnology Initiative
Research Outcomes for Commercial and Public Benefit
March 11, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-82
Background
On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to review the activities of the NNI in fostering
the transfer of nanotechnology research outcomes to
commercially viable products, devices, and processes. As part
of the reauthorization process for the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI), the hearing also reviewed the current federal
efforts related to support of research on nanomanufacturing.
Witnesses for the hearing included: (1) Mr. Skip Rung,
President and Executive Director, Oregon Nanoscience and
Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI); (2) Dr. Julie Chen, Co-
Director, Nanomanufacturing Center of Excellence at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell; (3) Dr. Jeffrey Welser,
Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) and
representing IBM Corporation and the Semiconductor Research
Corporation; (4) Mr. William Moffitt, CEO of Nanosphere, Inc.
and representing the NanoBusiness Alliance; and (5) Dr. Mark
Melliar-Smith, CEO of Molecular Imprints, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by pointing out the
importance of cultivating usable products and processes from
our federal investment in nanotechnology research, noting some
unique challenges nanotechnology development and
commercialization will have to address. Ranking Member Ehlers
framed the NNI reauthorization as an opportunity for
encouraging innovation and global competitiveness, and he
suggested that the conventional balance of R&D might need
adjustment to promote nanotechnology commercialization.
In his testimony, Mr. Rung provided a thorough profile of
ONAMI's activities. Dr. Chen detailed a four point approach to
fostering technology transfer, emphasizing a need for
university-industry interaction and a flexible, diversified
approach to research and process development. Dr. Wesler
offered the perspective of the nanotechnology research
industry, arguing for close cooperation among government,
academia, and industry, and explaining how the Federal
Government can contribute to goal-oriented research activities
and commercializing nanotechnology. Mr. Moffitt detailed how
Nanosphere, Inc. has incorporated nanotechnology into the
health care industry, and then identified the challenges and
potential national benefits to its commercialization in
general. Mr. Mellier-Smith explained Molecular Imprints'
progress in specific nanotechnology development projects,
lauding the contributions of several government agencies as
integral to the company's financial and technological success.
During the discussion period of the hearing, Chairman Baird
received each witness's recommendation for what the priorities
in reauthorizing NNI should be, which included funding
specifications and an emphasis on cooperation between the
varying interest groups. The witnesses stressed the importance
of basic research in nanomanufacturing and adequate funding for
geographically diverse user facilities. The witnesses were
clear that basic research funding should be broad to allow for
new discoveries and pioneering research; however, they
indicated that it would be wise to focus some funding and
planning toward commercialization. Dr. Chen and Mr. Moffitt
stressed the roles of demonstration and education in
commercialization efforts. The witnesses also emphasized the
importance of collaboration with national laboratories and
universities. In light of the State of New York's successful
efforts, they offered Rep. Lipinski several examples of
successful techniques for promoting nanotechnology. The
discussion also addressed environmental, health and safety
concerns, how and why the U.S. should maintain an
internationally competitive edge, the role of the America
COMPETES Act, and the possibility of organizing the NNI
investment as a venture capital endeavor.
4.4(o)_International Science and Technology Cooperation
April 2, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-89
Background
On Wednesday, April 2, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to examine the mechanisms by which federal
priorities are set and interagency coordination is achieved for
international science and technology cooperation, and to
explore the diplomatic benefits of such cooperation.
There were five witnesses: 1) Dr. John H. Marburger III,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; 2) Dr. Arden
L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation; 3) Dr.
Nina V. Fedoroff, Science and Technology Adviser to the
Secretary of State; 4) Mr. Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Science, Space and Health, Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs;
and 5) Mr. Michael F. O'Brien, Assistant Administrator for
External Relations, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened by citing the difficult issues of
budget and authority lines in international scientific
cooperation and discussing the importance of scientific
cooperation to U.S. diplomacy. Representatives Ehlers,
Neugebauer, Johnson and Carnahan submitted statements for the
record.
Witnesses agreed on the importance of international
cooperation to the U.S. science and engineering enterprise and
to U.S. diplomatic objectives. Dr. Marburger testified about
the mechanisms for interagency coordination, commenting on
OSTP's relationship and shared duties with the Department of
State in particular. He also discussed the many international
science organizations and meetings in which he or his staff
participate. Dr. Bement described the National Science
Foundation's broad international research and education
portfolio and specifically the programs in the Office of
International Science and Engineering. He also discussed the
leadership role that NSF plays in fostering global science and
engineering cooperation. Dr. Fedoroff spoke about the benefits
of science diplomacy for bridging political divides and
achieving U.S. national security objectives. She testified
about the role of S&T at the Department of State and at the
U.S. Agency for International Development, and specifically
about the role of her office. Mr. Miotke gave examples of the
importance of S&T to diplomacy and development and cited
several recent bilateral S&T agreements. Mr. O'Brien provided
highlights of NASA's especially cooperative international
history and the importance of cooperation to achieving NASA's
missions.
Witnesses expanded on these themes during the discussion
period. Dr. Marburger noted that an international presence
gives us access to all the frontiers of science, such as
extreme climates, and a chance to augment our own human capital
by attracting foreign specialists. Dr. Bement added that it can
give us access to the best research facilities worldwide. He
and Mr. Miotke also pointed out the benefits of international
S&T cooperation to developing countries, particularly in the
promotion of education. Drs. Marburger and Bement described a
number of partnerships and projects that U.S. agencies are
planning or currently operating. Chairman Baird closed with a
statement about the importance of funding bilateral S&T
agreements and submitted for the record an article by Dr.
Norman Neureiter about the role of S&T at the Department of
State.
4.4(p)_Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in National
Security
April 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-95
Background
On April 24, 2008, the Honorable Adam Smith presiding, the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a joint
hearing with the House Armed Services Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. The purpose
of the hearing was to provide the Subcommittees with a broad
overview as to why understanding the human terrain is critical
to the achievement of success in national security operations
and to examine the role of basic and applied research in the
social and behavioral sciences in meeting U.S. national
security needs. In addition to reviewing the state of current
research and needs for the future, the Subcommittees also
solicited testimony regarding opportunities for partnership
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in supporting this research.
There were four witnesses: 1) Dr. Andre Van Tilborg, Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology); 2) Colonel
Martin Schweitzer, Commander 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd
Airborne Division; 3) Dr. Mark Weiss, Division Director for
Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, National Science Foundation;
and 4) Dr. David Segal, Professor of Sociology and Director of
the Center for Research on Military Organization, University of
Maryland.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Smith opened the hearing with a brief statement
about the purpose of the joint hearing. Chairman Baird followed
by comparing the potential for social sciences to help save the
lives of soldiers to that of new technologies. Ranking Member
Ehlers also talked about the role of social science research in
strengthening our military and the potential for NSF and DOD to
work together to that end.
Dr. Van Tilborg spoke about DOD's research efforts that
specifically relate to unconventional warfare and terrorism. He
testified that DOD's investment in social science research is
approximately $150 million, one-third of which is focused on
the topic of the hearing. He listed the various departments and
offices that help support this research and the venues through
which social science research is coordinated. Col. Schweitzer
testified about the effectiveness of DOD's human terrain system
program in Afghanistan. He talked about his personal experience
with a human terrain team that helped stop a five-year cycle of
attacks by Taliban fighters in one province of Afghanistan
after the team figured out who the real power brokers were in
that province. Dr. Weiss testified about the range of social
and behavioral research supported by NSF that could be of
interest to the military, even though it is basic research. He
cited three research studies in particular that could inform
DOD efforts. He also discussed how NSF might provide
intellectual support to DOD's efforts to expand its support of
the social and behavioral sciences. Dr. Segal testified about
the University of Maryland Center for Research on Military
Organization, and the nature of his and his colleagues'
research. He spoke about how such research has and can continue
to contribute to national security and listed ways in which he
and his colleagues have communicated their research findings to
DOD.
Much of the discussion period focused on Col. Schweitzer's
experiences with the human terrain system program in
Afghanistan and how to improve and expand upon that program.
Rep. Lipinski turned the discussion in the direction of NSF's
appropriate role in funding social and behavioral research
relevant to national security. All of the witnesses agreed that
there is a lot of research that potentially fits well into both
NSF's and DOD's mission and that NSF need not compromise its
own mission or integrity in any way to support that research.
Ranking Member Thornberry of the Armed Services Subcommittee
asked about the level of rigor in behavioral and social science
research, to which witnesses answered that it is more difficult
to have objective metrics in these fields but that new
technologies and ways of thinking about human behavior are
allowing researchers to add levels of rigor to their studies.
All four witnesses looked very favorably on increased
partnerships between NSF and DOD in the social and behavioral
sciences to help the Nation meet its security needs.
4.4(q)_Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering Act of 2008
May 8, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-100
Background
On Thursday, May 8, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to obtain comments on a discussion draft of the
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering Act of 2008. The draft bill would provide for
federal programs to address the barriers to the advancement of
women in academic science and engineering and require the
collection of more comprehensive demographic data on the
federal science agencies' grant-making processes.
There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Lynda T. Carlson,
Director of the Division of Science Resource Statistics,
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences,
National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Linda G. Blevins, Senior
Technical Advisor in the Office of the Deputy Director for
Science Programs, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and
(3) Dr. Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor of Economics and
Director of the Center for Economic and Business Analysis,
Institute for Policy Research, University of Kansas.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers entered their
opening statements into the record and proceeded to witness
testimony. In her testimony, Dr. Carlson expressed concern that
the draft bill language implied that the National Science
Foundation (NSF) would be held accountable for other agencies'
demographic data collection, but also acknowledged that NSF
itself already collects all of the data required in the bill.
She also reminded Members that faculty cannot be required to
report gender or minority status on research grant
applications, so such data will always be incomplete. Dr.
Blevins discussed her experience participating in and advising
on workshops such as those described in the draft bill, and
emphasized the need for senior people in each discipline to
take ownership of their own workshop planning for the workshops
to be effective. Dr. Ginther testified that more data were
needed to truly understand the reasons why women leave academic
science and engineering careers at higher rates than men. Her
main recommendation to the Federal Government was to allow
university daycare facilities to be counted toward indirect
costs for federal research grants.
During the discussion period Chairman Baird pursued the
issue of data collection across agencies. He and Rep. Ehlers
both questioned witnesses about the metrics for effective
gender bias workshops. Members also asked about Dr. Ginther's
recommendation for NSF to create a productivity database.
Witnesses offered some suggestions for improving the proposed
legislation.
4.4(r)_The State of Hurricane Research and H.R. 2407, the
National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007
June 26, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-112
Background
On Thursday June 26, 2008, the Honorable Nick Lampson
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a joint
hearing to examine the Nation's hurricane research and
development priorities, and to receive testimony on H.R. 2407,
the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007,
introduced by Representative Hastings (D-FL), which establishes
a National Hurricane Research Initiative to improve hurricane
preparedness.
There were two witness panels. The first panel included: 1)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and 2) Rep. Ileana Ros-Leitinin (R-
FL). The second panel had five witnesses: 1) Dr. John L.
``Jack'' Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 2) Dr. Kelvin K.
Droegemeier, former Co-Chair, National Science Board Task Force
on Hurricane Science and Engineering; 3) Dr. Shuyi Chen,
Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, University
of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences;
4) Dr. David O. Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of
Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida; and 5)
Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, Director, International Hurricane
Research Center, Florida International University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Lampson opened the hearing with a brief statement
discussing the importance of the issue, citing the grave
effects of such natural disasters, and the need to improve our
forecasting and warning capabilities in order to save lives and
mitigate property loss. Ranking Member Inglis, Chairman Baird,
and Ranking Member Ehlers followed with opening statements
echoing Chairman Lampson's remarks.
The first witness panel included Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). They both offered statements in
support of H.R. 2407, and briefly outlined the current
hurricane research being done in Florida. Following a brief
recess, the hearing proceeded to the second panel.
Witnesses agreed on the need to implement a national
coordinated hurricane initiative. Dr. Hayes testified that NOAA
agrees with the overall goal of the bill, and supports a
committee co-chaired by NSF and NOAA to oversee and coordinate
federally-funded research efforts. He also described the
Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Project, or HFIP, that was
recently developed by NOAA and addresses many of the items
outlined in the bill language. Dr. Droegemeier highlighted the
vulnerability of the energy infrastructure in the Gulf of
Mexico and reiterated the urgency for further hurricane
research. Dr. Chen emphasized the importance of universities in
supplying the basic research and resources for developing an
integrated forecasting system. Dr. Prevatt addressed the
changes in infrastructure needed in order to mitigate the
effects of winds and storm surges associated with hurricanes.
He advocated for more research specifically addressing the
infrastructural challenges that hurricanes present in order to
minimize economic loses and reduce damage. Dr. Leatherman
concluded the opening statements by summarizing the key
research developments at the National Hurricane Center that
address the many hazards associated with hurricanes, including
storm-surge modeling, wind-engineering research and
quantitative evacuation modeling.
During the discussion period, Chairman Lampson questioned
the witnesses as to some of the challenges hindering better
hurricane forecasting. Dr. Hayes cited the need for better
observations to facilitate greater scientific understanding of
hurricanes. Also, he expressed the need for funding that
targets the transition of university research to operational
status for the public. Congressman Baird asked the witnesses to
prioritize their requested areas of funding. Dr. Hayes urged
for more operational high-performance computing while Dr.
Droegemeier emphasized the social aspect of hurricane
forecasting, citing better communication with the public in
eliciting an appropriate response. Dr. Prevatt and Dr.
Leatherman both stressed the importance of developing a strong
infrastructure and investing in research to better understand
structural interactions with wind and water surges. Dr. Ehlers
discussed with Dr. Prevatt and Dr. Leatherman the challenges
that hinder changing building codes so as to make buildings
more resistant to the hazards of hurricanes. Dr. Hayes
concluded the hearing by answering Rep. Bartlett's questions
about the dynamics of hurricanes, specifically the forces that
drive intensity changes.
4.4(s)_The Role of Non-governmental Organizations and
Universities in International Science and Technology
Cooperation
July 15, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-114
Background
On Tuesday, July 15, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science held a
hearing to examine the role of U.S. non-governmental
organizations and universities in international science and
technology cooperation, in particular relative to the role of
the Federal Government, and to explore the diplomatic benefits
of such cooperation.
There were four witnesses: 1) Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief
Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of
Science; 2) Dr. Michael Clegg, Foreign Secretary, National
Academy of Sciences; 3) Dr. William Wulf, Member of the Board
of Directors, Civilian Research and Development Foundation; and
4) Dr. James Calvin, Interim Vice President for Research, Texas
A&M University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by talking about the many
benefits of international science and technology (S&T)
cooperation and the important role of non-profit organizations
(NGO's) in facilitation S&T cooperation. Ranking Member Ehlers
echoed Chairman Baird's remarks and cited the important history
of United States S&T cooperation with the Former Soviet Union.
All of the witnesses also spoke about the importance of
international S&T cooperation to our nation. Each of the
witnesses testified out the respective role of his NGO or
university in international S&T cooperation. Dr. Leshner spoke
out the need to raise the profile of this issue and suggested
that Congress could take a closer look at how the State
Department evaluates their S&T agreements. He made the specific
suggestion that there be an associate director with a clear
international mandate at the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Dr. Clegg spoke about the many forums and
mechanisms through which the National Academies promote
international exchange and cooperation, and cited a recent
Academies report that made a number of recommendations
regarding the role of S&T at the U.S. Agency for International
Development. Dr. Wulf testified about the history of the
Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) and
described CRDF as a ``do-tank'' as opposed to a think tank. He
described the many programs at CRDF and how they complement
those of government agencies such as NSF. Dr. Calvin spoke
about the benefit of international exchange of students and
scholars to his campus, as well as about his university's major
international collaborations and its satellite campus in Qatar.
Chairman Baird asked about mechanisms for funding of
foreign researchers with U.S. dollars. Dr. Leshner answered
that such funding should be available in unique circumstances
where the foreign collaborator has no access to resources in
his/her own country. Dr. Calvin suggested that a higher
priority might be to return to funding students from developing
countries to study in the U.S. so they can help build an S&T
infrastructure in their home country that makes such
collaborations possible to start with. Dr. Wulf answered that
CRDF does fund foreign researchers as part of collaborations
with U.S. scientists and Dr. Calvin cautioned that we should
not use a single model of collaboration for all countries. Rep.
Ehlers expanded on his opening remarks. Rep. McNerney asked
about the role of multinational corporations in international
S&T cooperation and about maintaining standards for ethics and
integrity in research collaborations with countries than have
very different cultures from our own to which witnesses
answered that there have been many international discussions
about research ethics and progress is being made. Rep. Bilbray
spoke about problems with the visa system and asked about
international collaborations on water issues. The discussion
returned to specific mechanisms for funding international
collaborations, including through bilateral S&T agreements.
Witnesses agreed that there were pros and cons to money going
through both the Federal Government and NGOs. Rep. Ehlers and
witnesses clarified that resources for research include lab
equipment, access to scientific literature and other research
infrastructure as well as money. Rep. Carnahan asked about how
the Department of State is using S&T for diplomacy. Witnesses
made specific recommendations including increasing the number
of scientists in U.S. embassies. Finally, Rep. Bilbray asked
witnesses to comment on cooperative efforts in Central America.
4.4(t)_The Role of Social and Behavioral Sciences in Public
Health
September 18, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-123
Background
On Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Honorable Brian Baird
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to examine the role of the social, behavioral
and economic sciences in improving our nation's health and well
being and reducing the economic burden of health care.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett,
Professor of Psychology and Director, Interdisciplinary
Affective Science Laboratory, Boston College, with appointments
at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital;
(2) Dr. John B. Jemmott, III, Kenneth B. Clark Professor of
Communication, Annenberg School of Communication; Professor of
Communication in Psychiatry; and Director of the Center for
Health Behavior and Communication Research, Department of
Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; (3)
Dr. Donald S. Kenkel, Professor of Policy Analysis and
Management, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University; and
(4) Dr. Harold G. Koenig, Professor of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Associate Professor of Medicine, and
Director of the Center for Theology, Spirituality and Health,
Duke University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Baird opened the hearing by emphasizing the
importance of the hearing in light of the current health care
crisis, and took a moment to acknowledge the contributions of
retiring Subcommittee Staff Director, Jim Wilson. Rep. Ehlers
also recognized Dr. Wilson's contributions and added that an
understanding of human behavior and emotion can directly inform
policy-making.
Witnesses agreed on the importance of behavioral, social,
and economic science research and cited ways in which the
findings of such research could contribute to the design of
more effective health policies. Dr. Barrett explained her
research on the relationship between people's ``emotional
literacy'' and their social, academic, and professional
behavior. She explained how findings of basic social science
research can eventually lead to findings with both public
health and economic benefits for the Nation. Dr. Jemmott
detailed the process and findings of his research into the
social and psychological factors associated with HIV and risky
sexual behavior. Dr. Kenkel explained ways in which health
economics research can inform health care policies by improving
understanding of how incentives, taxes or marketing
restrictions affect certain behaviors that impact health, such
as smoking and obesity. Dr. Koenig presented his research on
the effects of religion and spirituality on health behaviors
and choices, including cigarette use, length of hospital stays,
and sexual practices.
During the discussion period, Dr. Barrett further discussed
the emotional literacy training program that was developed out
of her research, and Dr. Jemmott further explained the outcomes
of programs and interventions on chronic disease prevention.
Dr. Kenkel provided testimony on the specifics of incidents of
addictive behaviors, and the impact of incentives in such
cases. Dr. Koenig explained how his findings on religion and
health could have practical applications. The Members and
witnesses discussed how health and religion might be bound due
to lifestyle trends for religious people, the possibility of a
bias against religion in the scientific community, and whether
there is a distinction, health-wise, between involvement in a
religious community and simple spirituality. There was further
emphasis on smoking advertising and cessation programs, sexual
education programs, social science-health workforce and
laboratory development, the demographic picture of HIV
patients, and American obesity.
4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
4.5(a)_The Federal Aviation Administration's R&D Budget
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008
March 22, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-15
Background
On Thursday, March 22, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics met to
review the FY 2008 budget request for the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) research and development (R&D) programs
and to examine current and potential R&D priorities, including
support for the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen).
Four witnesses testified: (1) Ms. Victoria Cox, Vice
President for Operations Planning, Air Traffic Organization,
Federal Aviation Administration; (2) Dr. R. John Hansman, Co-
Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Director,
MIT International Center for Air Transportation; (3) Dr. Donald
Wuebbles, Chair, Workshop on the Impacts of Aviation on Climate
Change, Department Head and Professor, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign;
and (4) Mr. Steve Alterman, President, Cargo Airline
Association, Chairman, Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall noted that the hearing is timely because FAA
reauthorization is due in 2007. He spoke of his concern over
NASA's reduced funding commitment to aeronautics research. He
also noted that the impact of aviation on climate change is
receiving increasing attention. Representative Calvert seconded
concerns about NASA's research, and wondered whether FAA's
research funding is adequate.
Ms. Cox said that NextGen will enable support of a three-
fold increase in airspace demand by 2025. The Operational
Evolution Partnership, (OEP), planning document will be
published in June. Dr. Hansman reported that the airspace is
being stressed by current demand, and delays have been
increasing. He was concerned about the loss of national
capability in applied aeronautics. He was also concerned about
the FAA's capability to quickly implement new technologies. Dr.
Wuebbles chaired a workshop on the impacts of aviation on
climate change last summer. The workshop conclusion was that
further research is warranted, because of the potentially
serious impact and because there is much uncertainty. Mr.
Alterman agreed with concerns about NASA research,
implementation speed, and aviation environmental impact. He
promoted the benefits of improved operational procedures such
as Continuous Descent Arrivals.
During the question and answer period, Dr. Hansman agreed
with Ms. Cox's comment that human factors research will be
important for NextGen. Mr. Alterman endorsed ADS-B
implementation. He predicted that environmental constraints
will prove more binding than capacity constraints. Dr. Hansman
said that some research areas have been under funded, such as
aircraft icing, fire protection, terminal area safety, and
safety-critical software.
Representative Rothman was concerned that airspace usage
might some day fill the skies, degrading quality of life. He
was particularly concerned about aviation noise. Dr. Wuebbles
said that the amount of funding for research on the effects of
aviation on climate is ``essentially zero.'' Representative
Rohrabacher said that he felt aviation emissions research
should emphasize the health of the population today rather than
emphasize global climate change. Representative Calvert
wondered if the speed of replacement of older, louder and more
polluting, aircraft could be increased with some sort of
incentives. Dr. Hansman worried that NASA is under funding
innovation.
In Questions for the Record, Mr. Alterman said he expects
the FAA will have to mandate equipage for NextGen. He felt that
the FAA, not the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO),
should be in charge of NextGen implementation. Ms. Cox reported
that the FY 2007 Operating Plan will not drive any adjustments
to the FY 2008 R&D plan. The FY 2008 plan includes an
additional $10M request for NextGen research on wake vortex and
on human factors. About $18 million is being spent by the FAA
on aviation environmental research. The FAA plans to support
routine unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) access to the national
airspace system (NAS) within the 2012-2015 timeframe. Dr.
Hansman said that the REDAC would recommend increasing support
for UAS research. Dr. Weubbles encouraged the FAA to develop
stronger interactions with the academic community.
4.5(b)_The Joint Planning and Development Office and the Next
Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues
March 29, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-18
Background
On Thursday, March 29, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the status of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System initiative (also known as NGATS or
NextGen) and explore key issues related to the initiative and
the interagency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
Four witnesses testified: (1) Mr. Charles Leader, Director,
Joint Planning and Development Office, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA); (2) Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director,
Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability
Office; (3) Hon. John Douglass, President and CEO, Aerospace
Industries Association; and (4) Dr. Bruce Carmichael, Director,
Aviation Applications Program, Research Applications
Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Summary of Hearing
In his opening remarks, Chairman Udall noted delays in
NextGen developments since last year's hearing. He spoke with
concern about NASA's uncertain commitment to its aeronautics
program, and NextGen management continuity. Mr. Leader reported
that two fundamental NextGen technologies are already beginning
implementation: Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast,
(ADS-B), and System Wide Information Management, (SWIM). The
DOD, DHS and the FAA are each contributing $5 million to a SWIM
demonstration this year. He mentioned the near-term release of
three important NextGen documents: the Concept of Operations,
the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan. He
spoke of the importance of weather research.
Dr. Dillingham discussed JPDO's organizational structure,
technical planning, and research funding. He felt that the FAA
and JPDO must address the factors that have contributed to the
frequent turnover of its JPDO senior management. He urged the
JPDO to involve all stakeholders, including active traffic
controllers and technicians. Mr. Douglas noted that industry is
an essential partner in NextGen and it is important that
industry have confidence that the government is committed to
NextGen. Dr. Carmichael stated that seventy percent of delays
in today's system are attributable to weather. NextGen will
integrate the weather programs of the FAA, DOD and NOAA. Dr.
Carmichael said that NASA would be a logical weather research
partner but doesn't have much funding for it.
Representative Rothman voiced his concern that extreme
growth of aviation could erode the quality of life.
Representative Calvert spoke of his disappointment in NASA's
decreased aeronautics activity.
In the question and answer period, Chairman Udall inquired
where additional research funding could be most useful. Mr.
Leader answered that safety related issues, human factors, a
safety system that is predictive rather than forensic,
automation issues and wake vortex work could all use an
increase in resources. Dr. Dillingham spoke of the importance
of NASA aeronautics facilities. Mr. Douglas agreed, and also
spoke of the importance of systems engineering, wake vortex and
weather research. Mr. Douglas noted that weather research
benefits the Department of Defense, too.
Dr. Dillingham noted that his organization has a study
underway addressing the incorporation of unmanned aircraft
systems into the air system.
In the questions for the record, Dr. Dillingham was asked
if the JPDO should be moved out of the FAA for greater
visibility and authority. He felt it should not be, but he
suggested having the JPDO director report directly to the FAA
Administrator, and making the director an Associate
Administrator. He felt that the JPDO should not report to the
Secretary of Transportation because that could remove it too
far from program implementation. He endorsed Mr. Douglas'
suggestion that agencies cooperating with the JPDO should
designate a senior program official for JPDO management. He
also felt that the Senior Policy Committee should hold
regularly scheduled meetings.
Mr. Douglas felt that the NGATS Institute hadn't developed
industry partnership adequately, and this slowed the
development of the Concept of Operations. He noted that
research and development is key to the success of NextGen;
however, NASA is the only agency capable of conducting the
required research and development a timely manner. He reported
that the AIA believes that a business case for necessary
equipage by industry is necessary, and ``a combination of
operational and perhaps financial incentives should be
considered.''
Mr. Leader reported that the first segment of SWIM will be
complete in 2013. The deployment across the NAS of ADS-B is
planned to be completed by 2013. The FAA plans to maintain 50
percent of the current system of secondary radars at high-
density locations to serve as a back-up. The FAA anticipates
reducing, but not eliminating, both VOR and ILS equipment. Some
private sector involvement in the provision of key NextGen
capabilities is likely.
4.5(c)_NASA's Space Science Programs: Review of Fiscal Year
2008 Budget Request and Issues
May 2, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-24
Background
On Wednesday, May 2, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing
to examine the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and plans for space
science programs including heliophysics, planetary science
(including astrobiology), and astrophysics, as well as issues
related to the programs.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. S. Alan Stern, Associate
Administrator, NASA Science Mission Directorate; (2) Dr.
Lennard Fisk, Thomas M. Donahue Distinguished University
Professor of Space Science, University of Michigan and Chair,
Space Studies Board, National Research Council; (3) Dr. Garth
Illingworth, Professor, University of California Observatories/
Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz and
Chair, Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; (4) Dr.
Daniel Baker, Professor of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences
and Director, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics,
University of Colorado, Boulder; and (5) Dr. Jospeh Burns,
Irving Porter Church Professor of Engineering, Professor of
Astronomy and Vice Provost of Physical Sciences and
Engineering, Cornell University.
Summary of Hearing
Both Chairman Mark Udall (D-CO) and Ranking Member Ken
Calvert (R-CA) opened with concerns about NASA's expanding
financial needs, which likely will not be met by the
organization's shrinking budget, and with hopes of addressing
how Congress and NASA could work together to allow NASA to
reach its goals in 2008 and beyond.
In his testimony, Dr. Stern noted a list of the
improvements he has implemented in NASA since taking his
position and expressed a desire to increase the efficiency of
scientists within the agency. Dr. Fisk was primarily concerned
with the Space Science Mission Directorate, and he cited some
primary strategic goals for the SMD program. Dr. Illingworth
agreed that NASA should be given a larger budget, but only
under the condition that NASA more effectively estimate costs.
Dr. Baker explained the biggest difficulties facing the
heliophysics program, and argued that investments in more small
scale missions and restoring the Explorer mission line budget
could help address these problems. He also called for a larger
budget.
Rep. Calvert asked how mission costs could be reduced. Dr.
Stern replied that Administer Griffin's new policy, requiring a
70 percent confidence level in estimates, will greatly reduce
mission costs. He also stated they were implementing a minimum
experience level for project leaders. Mr. Calvert stressed the
immense problems that cost underestimation can cause.
Mr. Udall asked Dr. Stern if he had any suggestions for
lowering NASA costs. Dr. Stern suggested PIs involved in any
project should lessen their other professional
responsibilities, primarily focusing on the NASA project until
it is completed. He added that he felt it was important to
always simplify project efforts, making adjustments that will
keep the project on schedule.
When Mr. Udall asked the panel about appropriations
priorities for 2008, the panelists agreed that research and
analysis and small scale missions that big returns and get the
community excited about NASA were crucial to securing NASA's
success as an organization. Dr. Fisk added that not only does
R&A funding need to be increased, but that this program cannot
be adequately funded without increasing NASA's total budget.
Witnesses agreed that 25 percent of NASA's budget should be
allotted to R&A.
In response to Mr. Udall's inquiries, the panel agreed that
international collaboration could answer some of NASA's
budgeting problems by relieving some of NASA's individual load
of responsibility. However, all panelists cited ITAR as a
possible roadblock in working with other nations. Dr.
Illingworth noted that small-scale projects would be especially
productive collaborations. The witnesses expanded on this idea,
addressing cooperation with China's emerging space program.
Mr. Rohrabacher asked how astronomy impacts decisions made
on Earth. Dr. Fisk explained that we do not see 99 percent of
the universe, and knowing even a small portion more would
certainly enhance knowledge of our own world, which is governed
by the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe. Citing
the discovery of electricity, Dr. Stern argued that while
knowledge of basic science may, at first, seem to have little
application, it can cause huge changes in the economy, standard
of living, and so on. Rep. Rohrabacher expressed concern about
plans to shut down the Arecibo radio telescope, which can
forewarn us of near-Earth objects; Dr. Burns shared the
concern, as he is personally associated with the telescope.
4.5(d)_Building and Maintaining a Healthy and Strong NASA
Workforce
May 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-31
Background
On Thursday, May 17, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing
to examine National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
workforce issues and the recommendations of independent review
panels for ensuring the health and vitality of the NASA
workforce in the 21st century. This was the first in a series
of NASA workforce hearings. Later hearings will address Shuttle
transition workforce issues and specific legislative proposals.
The witnesses included: (1) Ms. Toni Dawsey, Assistant
Administrator for Human Capital Management, NASA; (2) Mr. John
G. Stewart, Fellow at the National Academy of Public
Administration, Member of NASA's Multisector Workforce Panel;
(3) Dr. David Black, Co-Chair, National Research Council's
Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National
Vision for Space Exploration; and (4) Dr. Lee Stone,
Legislative Representative, NASA Council of IFPTE Locals,
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened by emphasizing NASA's need to
attract, cultivate and retain the most technically and
creatively skilled workers, and that this cannot be
accomplished without sufficient financial resources. Ranking
Member Hall noted the importance of constant reevaluation and
strong workforce development in light of current and
anticipated challenges to the NASA program.
Ms. Dawsey testified that the NASA Workforce Strategy
stresses building and sustaining healthy centers, maximizing
human capital, and evolving a more flexible, workforce. She
said that NASA's plan is based on three goals to implement
these principles: understanding mission requirements, aligning
workforce skills with mission needs, and, finally, enabling
more efficient human resources operations. Mr. John G. Stewart
detailed the NASA's Multisector Workforce Panel's six
recommendations for improving NASA's workforce. Mr. Black
suggested an emphasis more hands-on skill training,
particularly in systems engineering and program project
management. Dr. Stone focused on budget issues, noting that
NASA's staff and relative budget are much smaller than in the
1960s and calling the current state a ``fiscal crisis.'' He
also discussed the reduction of NASA's older workforce, which
he believed is an unnecessary goal, and offered seven
recommendations from the IFPTE for improving NASA's workforce.
During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses
focused on the age demographics of the NASA workforce, NASA's
response to workforce recommendations, and possibilities for
future funding. There was an emphasis on recruiting young
talent, and though the panelists disagreed on how to handle the
older workforce, all agreed that recruiting a young workforce
was essential for the success of NASA's programs. In addition,
a specific and clear vision for future agency activity and
inspiring the Nation's youth are the key components to ensuring
a productive 21st century for NASA.
4.5(e)_NASA's Earth Science and Applications Programs: Fiscal
Year 2008 Budget Request and Issues
June 28, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-44
Background
On Thursday, June 28, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and
plans for the Earth science and applications programs, and
issues related to the programs.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Michael H. Freilich,
Director, Earth Science Division of the Science Mission
Directorate for NASA; (2) Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President of
the Universities Corporation for Atmospheric Research, (3) Dr.
Eric J. Barron, Dean of Jackson School of Geosciences at the
University of Texas, Austin; (4) Dr. Timothy W. Foresman,
President of the International Center for Remote Sensing
Education.
Summary of Hearing
First, Dr. Freilich testified that NASA's primary Earth
science goal is ``to advance Earth systems science and to use
this understanding sufficiently to address societal issues.''
Dr. Anthes stated that the highest priority is that ``NASA
commit to and begin to implement its recommended decadal
missions,'' which he identified as extremely relevant to
current warming and climate problems. Dr. Barron believes
climate change research is essential to NASA's Earth science
program, and stated that the current NASA budget could not
possibly address all of the necessary recommendations of the
Decadal Survey, advocating an increase in the NASA budget.
Lastly, Dr. Foresman's testimony focused primarily on the Earth
Science Application Program's failure to gain ground on
technological applications of Earth-monitoring, such as Google
Earth and World Wind, and encouraged NASA to be at the
forefront of these kinds of technologies.
When asked by Chairman Udall (D-CO) whether they saw an
appropriate balance in the Earth Science budget, both Dr.
Anthes and Dr. Barron agreed that though there is balance in
the appropriation of funds within the budget, that budget is
extremely limited. Dr. Barron, at several instances, reinforced
that a major problem facing NASA's Earth science program is an
inconsistency of measurements. He explained that if NASA is
under-funded, and certain data is taken sporadically, as
opposed to in a continuous fashion, it is likely that the
previous data will be useless, and therefore a further waste of
NASA's funds. Dr. Freilich agreed with this concern, saying,
``it is essential for us to redeem the Nation's previous
investment in these time series by continuing them where
necessary.''
Congressman Lampson asked a long line of questions,
initially dealing with the NASA-NOAA joint projects, which,
according to the panel, are facing funding difficulties within
both organizations. He was also curious as to why the follow-on
for the QuikSCAT satellite, which monitors hurricanes, was
postponed until 2013. Dr. Barron responded that the Decadal
Survey was aware of the budgetary restraints of NASA and had to
prioritize, putting important projects such as the follow-on
aside for even higher priority projects.
Chairman Udall asked whether the land cover data record
would be consistent or if there would be a gap before the
launch of the LDCM. Dr. Freilich responded that though there
would be a gap and NASA was attempting to minimize that gap to
no more than 6-12 months.
All panelists were supportive of some kind of international
collaboration on Earth Science research and applications, and
Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) asked whether international
collaboration on projects would be hindered by ITAR. Dr.
Freilich offered that the scope of the problem necessitated
international cooperation, and that the challenges of ITAR were
hinder some, but surmountable, listing several examples of
successful NASA collaborations with foreign nations. Dr. Anthes
warned that we cannot rely entirely on international
partnerships, stating ``It would be like having a military that
relied on international partnerships.''
Dr. Freilich explained that the Earth Science Applied
Science division is working with U.S. Group on Earth
Observations to use the information gathered by NASA for
societal benefit. Dr. Foresman elaborated with insights into
applications of the program, especially web applications and
visualization tools that would help to monitor the number of
trees in an area, to prevent deforestation, and even to help
with humanitarian issues, such as the genocide in Darfur. He
believes that monitoring systems similar to those developed by
Google could be unsurpassed in their ability to quicken the
U.S. response to such issues.
Chairman Udall closed the hearing with inquiry on how NASA
plans to implement the suggestions from the Decadal Survey, the
ongoing NPOESS Nunn McCurdy changes, and international
collaborations. He was also curious as to the timeline for
these projects. Dr. Freilich responded that though the 2008
budget has already been developed, NASA plans to address the
input of all three in the 2009 budget.
4.5(f)_NASA's Space Shuttle and International Space Station
Programs: Status and Issues
July 24, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-48
Background
On Tuesday, July 24, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and
plans for the Space Shuttle and International Space Station
(ISS) programs, the status of the programs, and issues related
to the programs.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. William Gerstenmaier,
Associate Administrator for the Space Operations Mission
Directorate at NASA; (2) Mr. Tommy Holloway, Chairman of the
ISS Independent Safety Task Force; (3) Dr. G. Paul Neitzel,
Professor of Fluid Mechanics at the Georgia Institute of
Technology; (4) Ms. Christina Chaplain, Director of Acquisition
and Sourcing Management for the Government Accountability
Office.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall raised concerns about the budget cuts for
NASA during this critical time for the International Space
Station (ISS) and Space Shuttle program. He also expressed
concern regarding NASA's lack of a well defined research plan
for the ISS. Ranking Member Feeney echoed Chairman Udall's
concerns about funding, discussed future alternatives to the
Space Shuttle, and stressed how important space exploration is
to the United States and the world.
Mr. Gerstenmaier provided testimony on the activities
aboard the ISS and how they directly support the future of
space exploration. In his testimony Mr. Holloway reported on
the observations and recommendations of the International Space
Station Independent Safety Task Force. Dr. Neitzel discussed
the concerns of the external research community regarding the
ISS and Shuttle programs in his testimony. Ms. Chaplain's
testimony focused on the challenges faced by NASA in completing
and sustaining the International Space Station and retiring the
Space Shuttle, and she focused on delays in the Shuttle launch
schedule and the replacement of the Shuttle.
Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney had questions
about the logistical support for the ISS and the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. The panelists
agreed that logistical support is an issue and that depending
entirely on COTS would be a mistake. Ranking Member Feeney also
focused on the possibility of debris hitting the ISS, which Mr.
Gerstenmaier confirmed as a possible hazard and discussed the
different methods utilized to avoid debris.
Rep. Nick Lampson focused on the status of the Alpha
Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). Mr. Gerstenmaier expanded on the
inability to fly AMS to the ISS saying that due to the Columbia
accident and the reconstituted Shuttle flight manifest, NASA
had to delete the AMS from the ISS. Dr. Neitzel commented on
the potential fallout with international partners due to not
using the device on the ISS. Rep. Rohrabacher asked questions
regarding the research done on the ISS and how the station is
being utilized. The discussions focused on research being
limited due to a limited budget and using the ISS and
international partners as a way to increase the pool of money
available. Dr. Neitzel mentioned that there is very little
funding currently available for research and that the timeline
would be prohibitive, but with additional funding it could be
possible to revitalize some of the research that was originally
planned to be done on the ISS.
Rep. Lampson then focused questions on a variety of issues
regarding the schedule of the Shuttle launches. Mr.
Gerstenmaier felt that the United Space Alliance worker strike
would not affect the Shuttle launch schedule and that in
general there were sufficient contingency plans to prevent
changes in the schedule. The panel was in agreement that with
the proper funding from Congress it was still possible to add
an additional Shuttle flight, but that as time passed it became
increasingly difficult. Ranking Member Feeney had questions on
whether it was technically feasible to have additional space
Shuttle flights and Mr. Gerstenmaier assured him that the
problem was with the budget; the Space Shuttle was not entirely
necessary for future flights. Rep. Lampson asked about plans
for Shuttle contingency flights and the witness panel agreed
that the two contingency flights should be considered as part
of the baseline schedule.
Ranking Member Feeney's final question was with regards to
how NASA can make the transition of employee and workforce
skills as seamless as possible leading into future missions.
The witness panel was in agreement that all of the skills from
personnel involved in the ISS were valuable skills that would
be essential to future missions. Their main concern was in the
ability to retain these people and their skill sets.
Chairman Udall's final questions focused on the Status of
the Hubble Servicing Mission. Mr. Gerstenmaier felt that the
teams were well prepared for the mission thanks to their
experience on the ISS. He did not foresee any threats to
delaying the launch date for this particular mission as it was
more likely that Shuttle missions would be pushed back.
4.5(g)_NASA's Astronaut Health Care System_Results of an
Independent Review
September 6, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-52
Background
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the results of two reports on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) astronaut medical
and behavioral health care system. The first, the report of the
NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review Committee, provided an
independent assessment of NASA's medical and behavioral health
care system. The second, a Johnson Space Center internal review
considered opportunities for lessons learned in light of the
incident involving NASA astronaut Lisa Nowak. The hearing
explored the findings and recommendations of these reports and
any actions NASA planed to take in response to them.
The first panel had four witnesses: (1) Col. Richard E.
Bachmann, Jr., Chair of the NASA Astronaut Health Care System
Review Committee and the Commander and Dean of the U.S. Air
Force School of Aerospace Medicine; (2) Dr. Richard S.
Williams, Chief Health and Medical Officer of NASA; (3) Dr.
Ellen Ochoa, Director of Flight Crew Operations at NASA Johnson
Space Center; (4) Mr. Bryan O'Connor, Chief of Safety and
Mission Assurance at NASA. The second panel had one witness:
Dr. Michael Griffin, Administrator for NASA.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall emphasized that it is critically important
that NASA provides astronauts with the best possible medical
and behavioral care and quoted some of the concerns that arose
from an independent review panel. Ranking Member Feeney echoed
Chairman Udall's concerns and also expressed concerns regarding
flight surgeons and astronauts being hesitant to report major
crew medical or behavioral problems. Full Committee Chairman
Gordon and Full Committee Ranking Member Hall both expressed
similar concerns and thanked the Subcommittee for holding the
hearing.
Col. Bachmann provided testimony regarding the findings of
the NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review Committee. Dr.
Williams' testimony provided insight into the NASA Astronaut
Medical and Behavioral Health Care Program and their plans
regarding the NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review
Committee and the internal review at Johnson Space Center. In
her testimony, Dr. Ochoa went into detail about her experience
in preparing for space missions and how seriously all
astronauts and flight surgeons take their preparation. Mr.
O'Connor testified on the subject of space flight crew safety.
Chairman Udall asked Col. Bachmann about the contrast
between the review committee's findings and Dr. William's
testimony. Col. Bachmann elaborated on the reasoning behind
their findings, but could only speculate at the reason for a
difference in their testimonies.
Ranking Member Feeney asked about alcohol being a problem
leading up to a mission. Mr. O'Connor confirmed that if a
member of the crew was impaired it would be a problem, but that
it was highly unlikely for that occur. Ranking Member Feeney
also had a question regarding the differences seen between the
two different studies. Mr. O'Connor accredited this to the
different ways that the studies were performed.
Ranking Member Hall had a string of questions and
discussions with Mr. O'Connor regarding the scope of Mr.
O'Connor's investigation, the lack of anonymity of the survey,
Mr. O'Connor's belief that there has ever been any alcohol
abuse, and about the policies in place at NASA to ensure
employee openness.
Rep. Lampson established that Col. Bachmann's committee
could not determine how extensive any alcohol problems were.
Rep. Lampson and Rep. Bonner asked questions regarding how open
the astronauts were in their safety recommendations. Col.
Bachmann and Dr. Ochoa felt that the survey was representative
of how the astronauts felt and that there were sufficient
programs in place to allow astronauts to provide feedback.
In the second panel, Dr. Michael Griffin testified about
the importance of holding NASA's workforce to the highest
personal conduct standards, about steps being taken to provide
for the behavioral health of astronauts, and about the alcohol
abuse allegations.
Chairman Udall's questioning was largely a discussion with
Dr. Griffin about recommendations based on previous surveys and
the plans for future surveys. Dr. Griffin made it clear that a
major priority for him is to have an atmosphere where NASA
astronauts and flight doctors are comfortable bringing up
concerns.
Ranking Member Feeney asked about how some of the problems
related to safety might be cultural problems. Dr. Griffin
agreed that this could be a problem and that they are working
to fix all of those issues.
Ranking Member Hall asked questions regarding how authentic
the reports were from the various anonymous surveys. Dr.
Griffin agreed that there wasn't much more that he could do
other than to encourage employees to come forth with concerns
or issues. Full Committee Chairman Gordon and Dr. Griffin
concluded the hearing with a brief discussion regarding the
charter of the NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review
Committee.
4.5(h)_Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)_Status of the Survey Program
and Review of NASA's Report to Congress
November 8, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-72
Background
On Thursday, November 8, 2007, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the status of NASA's Near-Earth Object
survey program, review the findings and recommendations of
NASA's report to Congress, Near-Earth Object Survey and
Deflection Analysis of Alternatives, and to assess NASA's plans
for complying with the requirements of Section 321 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005.
The first panel had one witness: the Honorable Luis G.
Fortuno, Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico. The second panel
had six witnesses: (1) Dr. James Green, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA; (2) Dr. Scott Pace, Program Analysis and
Evaluation, NASA; (3) Dr. Donald K.Yeomans, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory; (4) Dr. Donald B. Campbell, Cornell University; (5)
Dr. J. Anthony Tyson, University of California, Davis; (6) Mr.
Russell ``Rusty'' Schweickart, B612 Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall was troubled by one NASA witness's statement
that NASA would, at Congress's request, implement a more
aggressive NEO program, because Congress has already made an
unambiguous request of NASA to do this. Ranking Member Feeney
explained that NASA cannot currently afford to run the NEO
program on the scale that has been requested by Congress. He
found it concerning that Arecibo's NSF funding is dwindling, as
this observation device is an important tool of the NEO
program.
Rep. Fortuno's testimony endorsed continuing efforts at the
Arecibo facility, stating that he introduced H.R. 3737 to
insure that NASA and NSF collaborate to continue funding.
Ranking Member Feeney asked Rep. Fortuno the economic impact on
Puerto Rico if Arecibo is closed and Rep. Fortuno estimated $50
million for the area.
Dr. Green explained that the number of NEO's detected by
NASA is already approaching the 90 percent discovery goal,
referring to large NEOs, not those in the 140 meter range. He
said that in NASA's report to Congress, the agency supported
continuing the program, looking for potential dual use ground-
based telescopes as well as partnering with other agencies.
Rep. Lampson questioned whether international space agencies
were concerned with NEO's, and Dr. Green responded that despite
the fact that they are not currently carrying out detection
programs, they certainly discuss it.
Dr. Pace stressed that NASA cannot initiate a new program
beyond Spaceguard due to budget constraints. He stated that to
reach the 90 percent goal would require new data management
infrastructure and a dedicated facility. NASA has outlined a
NEO survey program that could be implemented by 2020, but he
warned that the proposed budget for this project would need
more rigorous analysis. He said that without augmentation, the
NEO Spaceguard survey program is unable to satisfy the
requirements of the Authorization Act.
Dr. Yeomans indicated that the largest efforts of the NEO's
program should be directed at the more abundant large
asteroids. He said detecting all asteroids of this size is not
a realistic expectation of the survey program, in its current
form. He was optimistic that a number of existing technologies
can deflect an Earth-threatening asteroid if given enough time.
When asked by Mr. Lampson whether the 2020 deadline for 90
percent detection of NEOs 140 meters and larger was realistic,
Dr. Yeomans responded that 2030 would be a more likely, but
still acceptable, date.
Dr. Campbell made clear that radar measurements are the
best means to survey the characteristics of NEOs. If Cornell
cannot find funds to keep the Arecibo Observatory open, he
explained, it will likely be closed after 2011, and replacing
this facility would cost several hundred million dollars.
Dr. Tyson said having a survey system would change the
probabilistic worry of near-Earth object collisions to an
actionable situation. He stated that the investment is
comparatively small in light of the potential benefits. He
suggests the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Project as an
answer to this dilemma, which would be capable of providing
orbits for 82 percent of hazardous objects larger than 140
meters after 10 years of operation.
Mr. Schweickart argued that NASA had completely ignored
Congress's direction to recommend a search program and
supporting budget, and that the President had signed this
request into law. He suggested that NASA again be directed to
comply with this law, that NASA investigate deflection of more
frequent and smaller NEO's, and that NASA's report was flawed
in its failure to understand that a primary deflection and a
potential secondary deflection are necessary to remove NEO's
from a path towards Earth. Mr. Schweickart also posited that
NASA should submit a new report to Congress, execute a
demonstration asteroid deflection mission, and take over duties
of technological developments to be used for protecting the
Earth from NEO impacts.
When asked by Congressman Rohrabacher which agency should
be responsible for deflection efforts in the event of a
hazardous object being on an orbit towards Earth, Mr. Tyson
suggested Congress should hold hearings to get a number of
opinions before making that decision.
Rep. Rohrabacher and Mr. Schweickart agreed that NEOs are
an issue of public safety which cannot be ignored. Mr.
Schweickart and Ranking Member Feeney also concluded that NASA
ignored the more complex issue of dealing with smaller
asteroids, which are statistically much more likely to need to
be deflected, in favor of positing the use of nuclear weapons
to deflect larger asteroids, which only pose a problem once
every 100,000 years. All of the witnesses supported the idea of
multiple forms of detection and were opposed to the closing of
Arecibo. They suggested NASA form partnerships with NSF and
other agencies to fund these detection operations.
4.5(i)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
February 13, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-75
Background
On Thursday, March 13, 2008, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2009 budget request and
plans for science programs including Earth science,
heliophysics, planetary science (including astrobiology), and
astrophysics, as well as issues related to the programs.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. S. Allen Stern,
Associate Administrator, NASA Science Mission Directorate, (2)
Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Chair, Space Studies Board, National
Research Council, (3) Dr. Berrien Moore III, Executive
Director, Climate Central; Chair, Committee on Earth Studies,
National Research Council, (4) Dr. Steven W. Squyres, Professor
of Astronomy, Cornell University, (5) Dr. Jack O. Burns,
Professor, Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy,
University of Colorado.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened the hearing with concerns about the
FY09 budget for NASA, which keeps program expectations high
while reducing funding. The Chairman noted that while NASA's
budget is only set to increase by one percent through fiscal
year 2011. He also expressed discomfort with NASA taking funds
from one program to fund another.
Ranking Member Feeney expressed similar anxieties, but in a
slightly more positive tone, stating that the budget makes ``a
good effort at remedying a number of deficiencies that have
been highlighted in recent years.'' Yet he remained unconvinced
that NASA could continue to prove U.S. dominance in space
research and exploration without a budget that expresses ``a
willingness to pay the costs of achieving it.''
Dr. Stern, defending the budget, claimed that it sets
specific program priorities, controls costs in those projects
it targets, rebalances the agency towards a mix of small and
large missions, and focuses efforts on finishing incomplete
projects before beginning a second project in parallel. Dr.
Fisk challenged the assertion that funding was adequate, yet
commended the agency for ``doing extremely well with what it
has,'' while there is so much more it ``could be doing.'' Dr.
Moore critiqued the budget, saying that it ``begins to
address'' imbalances in the agency, but that much more will
need to be done ``for many budget cycles to come.'' He also
echoed that the program is doing great things with limited
resources, and pleaded that Congress increase funding over the
Presidential recommendation to help the agency accomplish
``what is expected of it.'' Dr. Squyres urged that cuts to the
Mars program be undone and restored to their levels under the
FY08 Congressional Appropriations Act. Dr. Burns expressed
misgivings that cuts to the NASA budget will be occurring
during a period of great potential discovery.
During the question and answer session, Chairman Udall and
Ranking Member Feeney's questions centered on rising costs and
further scheduling delays anticipated with a slimmer budget.
Dr. Stern responded that cost-control measures and
prioritization would focus agency energies on targeted programs
before beginning new ones. The issue of ITAR restrictions on
international collaboration was brought up by Ranking Member
Feeney, and Dr. Burns and Dr. Squyers both expressed that the
legislation may have unintended consequences in space R&D
projects. Dr. Stern, in response to Rep. Rohrabacher's concerns
about collisions with near-Earth objects, clarified that
Arecibo is not crucial to detecting these objects. Ranking
Member Feeney brought up the newly restructured NPOESS project
and its status, which Dr. Stern confirmed was improving, and
Dr. Moore characterized as, after clearing many hurdles,
finally seeing ``the light at the end of the tunnel.'' Ranking
Member Feeney expressed concerns about the future of NASA's
workforce. The panel emphasized the importance of exposing
university students to aspects of space research while
developing creative ways to inspire younger students to pursue
space careers.
4.5(j)_NASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues
April 3, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-90
Background
On Thursday, April 3, 2008, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to review the status of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's Exploration initiative and examine
issues related to its implementation.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Richard Gilbrech,
Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2)
Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, Government Accountability Office; (3) Dr. Noel
Hinners, Independent Aerospace Consultant; (4) Dr. Kathryn
Thornton, Professor of Department of Science, Technology and
Society & Associate Dean of the School of Engineering & Applied
Science, University of Virginia.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened the hearing by stating the goal of
NASA's Exploration Initiative as the ``human and robotic
exploration of the solar system.'' He claimed the program has
``suffered from chronic under funding.'' Chairman Udall focused
on not just finding new money for NASA but making sure it is
effectively spent so that the initiative is both ``sustainable
and worth the money.'' He argued for better NASA accountability
and reporting before Congress and emphasized the need for
international collaboration to avoid the ``temptation to rerun
a space race that we already won.''
Ranking Member Feeney characterized NASA as at the juncture
of a ``once-in-a-generation transformation'' since the Columbia
disaster. He encouraged NASA and the Committee to stick to the
doable road map in front of them, as outlined in the
President's Vision for Space Exploration. He expressed concern
at the loss of skilled workers between the retirement of the
Shuttle and the beginning of the Constellation Program. Echoing
Chairman Udall's recommendation, and suggested a close working
relationship with international partners to maximize benefits
to the U.S.
Dr. Gilbrech urged support for the Congressional budget
request and stated that ``real progress'' is being made on the
Constellation Program. He noted the technical challenges of
starting a new rocket program, and remarked that the GAO said
last year that NASA is ``making sound investment decisions''
for Constellation.
Ms. Chaplain recommended NASA set technical requirements
for their designs before they can define cost approximations
and schedule timelines. She also pointed out the necessity of
NASA having adequate flexibility to respond to technical
challenges as they arise.
Dr. Hinners suggested that NASA clarify its exploration
priorities to reduce misunderstandings regarding the purpose of
the Moon base. He also criticized the pay-as-you-go system as
costing more in the end and stated that it is ``not at all
clear that NASA can implement an effective lunar exploration
program'' with the current budget for exploration.
Finally, Dr. Thornton encouraged NASA moving beyond low-
Earth orbit by using a ``stepping stone'' approach to reaching
Mars. By establishing temporary outposts between Earth and
Mars, each landing would ``advance the science and technology
needed for the next, more ambitious objective.'' She emphasized
that program requirements should first be set before budgets
and schedules can be finalized.
The panel responded to a variety of questions from the
Members during the question and answer session, including: the
risks involved with CEV/CLV development, the potential to
accelerate Constellation with increased funding, the necessity
for stability in Congressional funding, the importance of
putting humans in space and the ramifications of not allowing
funding for research for Mars-only technology. The panel
responded that the technical challenge to CEV/CLV development
lies in the integration of all of the Orion components, that
Constellation development cannot be appreciably accelerated
with greater funding but the date could be made more firm, and
that humans in space not only inspire future scientists but
also allow for operations robots could not perform. All
panelists emphasized the need for stability in Congressional
funding of NASA to make the program effective. There was a
mixed response on the Mars-restrictions in the budget, as Dr.
Hinners argued that Moon-based technology will have
``relatively little applicability'' to a Mars mission and Dr.
Gilbreth countered that technology used on the Moon will
``eventually some day pay off'' for a mission to Mars.
4.5(k)_Remote Sensing Data: Applications and Benefits
April 7, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-91
Background
On Monday, April 7, 2008 at Centennial Hall, Colorado
Springs, Colorado, the Honorable Mark Udall presiding, the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing to examine
the opportunities and challenges of using remote sensing data
to benefit public and private sector activities including urban
planning, natural resource management, national defense, and
homeland security among other application areas.
The witnesses were divided into two panels. The first panel
consisted of: (1) Jack Byers, Deputy Director and Deputy State
Engineer, Colorado Division of Water Resources; (2) Simon
Montagu, Customer Resource and Support Director, Denver
Regional Council of Governments; (3) Manuel Navarro, Fire
Chief, City of Colorado Springs; and (4) Frank Sapio, Director,
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service. The second panel consisted of: (1)
Kevin Little, Director, Business Development, Intermap
Technologies, Inc.; (2) Matthew O'Connell, President and Chief
Executive Officer, GeoEye, Inc.; and (3) Jill Smith, President
and Chief Executive Officer, DigitalGlobe, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened by noting that remote sensing
technology is often not given the attention it deserves, and
that its application fields encompass homeland security,
natural resource management and city planning, among others.
His chief concern was improving the delivery of this data to
local and federal authorities. Subcommittee Ranking Member
Feeney suggested that he would like to hear more about how
problems specific to his home State of Florida, such as
population growth, wildfires, and land-use impacts could be
alleviated with remote sensing data. Echoing comments made by
the Chairman, Mr. Feeney noted the wide range of applicable
fields where remote sensing plays and important role.
The first panel of witnesses presented the role remote
sensing data plays with local governments and agencies. Mr.
Byers touted remote sensing for its utility in efficient water
management and explained how this technology is being used to
classify vegetation, monitor water consumption, and resolve
water rights disputes. Representing an urban planning group,
Mr. Montagu focused more specifically on city-growth issues and
how remote sensing enables effective long-range planning. He
urged the Subcommittee to make this data more readily available
and to continue to purchase important remote sensing data. Mr.
Navarro emphasized the importance of this data for fire
response services, but lamented that his department lacked the
staff to fully utilize the data. Addressing forestry management
concerns, Mr. Sapio highlighted the accurate, timely and cost
effective results of remote sensing, and detailed how broad-,
mid- and fine-scale resolutions assist in assessing forest
health, potential fire fuel sources, and monitoring the risks
from insects and disease.
Responding to Mr. Udall's question regarding the exact
benefit of this technology, the panel noted its consistent and
objective quality and its ability to provide a great deal of
information at low cost. Ranking Member Feeney addressed two
important issues: the potential ``gap'' in LANDSAT data before
the 2011 data continuity mission, and the security and privacy
restrictions of widely disseminating this data. The panel
responded that covering the gap could be done, albeit at high
cost. Regarding privacy, they suggested a delicate balance must
be achieved between transparency and security. Despite some
misgivings that the data could be misused by terrorist
organizations, the general consensus was that the security
concern is ``critically important'' and that a review and
tracking process is in place to monitor data users. Responding
to Mr. Udall's question about the federal role in remote
sensing, the witnesses pointed out the superior staff, budget
and technical capabilities of the Federal Government, and
insisted that federal leadership regarding data collection and
distribution are key to maintaining the effectiveness of remote
sensing data.
The second panel of witnesses represented the commercial
applications of remote sensing data in the private sector. Mr.
Little contended that the most important aspect of this
technology is that it is highly application-specific. Mr.
O'Connell characterized the industry as strong and emphasized
that the commercial sector provides lower cost data than large,
government-funded satellite projects. Ms. Smith listed the
variety of applications remote sensing data has found on both
federal and local levels, and emphasized that the government
should not impede or compete with the private sector.
In the question and answer period, the accessibility and
cost-effectiveness of commercial data were reiterated as their
key advantage. Regarding Mr. Feeney's question about foreign
competition, Mr. O'Connell pointed out that the industry is
looking for a reliable commercial partnership with Federal and
local governments, not a subsidy. When Mr. Udall brought up
legislative regulations, the panel universally confirmed that
good policies are in place and just need to continue to be
enforced. All the panelists agreed that federal contracts
remain an important part of the revenue stream for remote
sensing data.
4.5(l)_NASA's International Space Station Program: Status and
Issues
April 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-96
Background
On Thursday, April 24, 2008, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to examine the status of the International Space
Station (ISS) and issues related to its operation and
utilization, including the planned and potential uses of the
ISS to meet both NASA and non-NASA research needs.
The witnesses before the Subcommittee were assembled in two
panels. The first consisted of: (1) Dr. Edward Knipling,
Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture (2) Dr. Louis Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space
Technologies, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of
Colorado (3) Mr. Thomas B. Pickens III CEO, SPACEHAB, Inc (4)
Dr. Cheryl Nickerson, Associate Professor, Center for
Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute,
Arizona State University. The second panel was composed of: (1)
Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space
Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (2) Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition
and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office (3)
Dr. Jeffrey Sutton Director, National Space Biomedical Research
Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened the hearing by noting that
International Space Station (ISS) development has been a time-
consuming and frustrating process. His primary concern was
ensuring that massive U.S. investment in the Station pays off
in both commercial and research dividends. He also argued that
the research community has suffered heavily due to budget cuts,
and its restoration is a primary concern for NASA and the
Nation. Continued access to the ISS after Shuttle retirement
remains a critical component of long-term ISS success. Ranking
Member Hall praised the achievement of the ISS but expressed
concerns about NASA's commitment to the two contingency
flights, the safety of the Russian Soyuz vessel, and NASA's
plans to maximize the research potential of the ISS.
The first panel presented to the Subcommittee the research
achievements of ISS investments and their commercial
applications. Dr. Knipling addressed how the study of cellular
mechanics on the ISS can lead to improvements in agriculture,
environment, and human health. Arguing that designating the ISS
as a national laboratory is not enough, Dr. Stodieck offered
three suggestions to the Subcommittee on how to improve the
operations on board the ISS: a Congressionally-established
independent organization to manage R&D on the ISS, increased
funding for non-NASA agencies to use the ISS, and regular and
frequent transportation to the Station. Dr. Nickerson commented
on how studies of Salmonella on the ISS could have direct
applications to improve human health on Earth, including new
vaccines for Salmonella. Finally, Mr. Pickens pointed out the
commercial benefits of microgravity studies which could have a
wide array of medical applications, from treating diabetes and
Parkinson's to Alzheimer's and cystic fibrosis.
During the question and answer period, the panel deemed
consistency, or increases, in funding as the most important
condition for continued productivity of the ISS. Ranking Member
Hall brought up the possible competition between government or
university research and commercial research projects, but the
panel insisted that the two work together in relative harmony.
Responding to Mr. Lampson's questions, the panel encouraged the
Subcommittee to extend the commission of the ISS into 2020,
when investments in research projects will be making
significant returns. The panel also soothed Mr. Rohrabacher's
concerns that the ISS is properly outfitted with appropriate
equipment to produce the promised results.
The second panel detailed achievements of the ISS and how
NASA can improve its productivity. Mr. Gerstenmaier highlighted
the important role that ISS physics research plays in learning
more about physical processes on Earth. Ms. Chaplain touted the
program's achievements under pressure, but recommended that
NASA remain flexible to minimize scheduling impacts and think
out contingency plans to increase efficiency. Dr. Sutton noted
the ISS's importance in biomedical research on the long-term
effects of humans living in space.
Chairman Udall began the questioning of the second panel
with concerns about the status of the two contingency flights
to fly spare parts to the ISS. Mr. Gerstenmaier responded that
the lifespan of certain parts can be difficult to project, and
that both flights would be dedicated to launching ``critical
spares,'' allowing greater flexibility to the scheduled
development of commercial flights to the ISS. He also addressed
Mr. Hall's concerns about Soyuz safety, saying that Russia and
the U.S. are both concerned about its safety features and are
collaborating on the issue. Mr. Gerstenamaier demanded that an
amendment to the INKSA legislation be ``mandatory'' for the
summer if contract placement with Russian manufacturers is to
be made in a timely manner. He also rejected Mr. Lampson's hope
that the AMS could be flown to the ISS because spare parts have
a higher priority. Responding to questions from Mr. Udall and
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Gerstenmaier emphasized how mutual
Russian-American interest in transporting American crews to the
ISS requires that INKSA be amended to streamline the period
after Shuttle retirement.
4.5(m)_NASA's Aeronautics R&D Program: Status and Issues
May 1, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-99
Background
On Thursday, May 1, 2008, the Honorable Mark Udall
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing to review NASA's current Aeronautics R&D Program. The
Members and witnesses examined what needs to be done to make it
as relevant as possible to the Nation's needs, and the R&D
challenges related to safety and environmental impacts.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate
Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Mr. Carl J.
Meade, Co-Chair, Committee for the Assessment of NASA's
Aeronautics Research Program, National Research Council,
National Academies; (3) Mr. Preston A. Henne, Senior Vice
President, Programs, Engineering and Test, Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation; (4) Dr. Ilan Kroo, Professor, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Udall opened the hearing by emphasizing the
importance of aviation to the Nation and lamented a lack of
resources for NASA's aeronautics R&D program in recent years.
He commented on the growing challenges facing the future of
aviation and how NASA's aeronautics research can address those
concerns. He also recognized the usefulness of the National
Academies' Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics in forming a
productive aeronautics R&D agenda for the future. Ranking
Member Feeney discussed the historical achievements of
aeronautics research conducted by the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) and NASA and the proper role of
the Federal Government and NASA in carrying out aeronautics
research. He emphasized the critical importance of R&D in
support of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) and of developing safer, more efficient, and more
environmentally friendly aircraft.
Dr. Shin explained how NASA's aeronautics program
implements the national aeronautics R&D policy by conducting
fundamental research and how it supports the development of the
NextGen system through a holistic approach that addresses all
aspects of the system. Evaluating NASA's entire aeronautics
program in light of the 51 key technical challenges contained
in the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, Mr. Meade expressed
a mixed position. He pointed out that while NASA's ARMD staff
was competent the directorate had not responded appropriately
to the Decadal survey recommendations and lacked sufficient
funding to pursue all objectives. Mr. Henne described the
increase in foreign competition as a result of foreign nations'
investments in aeronautics research and stressed the need for
the U.S. Federal Government to invest in aeronautics R&D in
order to maintain its leadership in the field. Dr. Kroo
discussed the technical and environmental challenges facing the
aviation industry, the need for continuing fundamental long-
term research and new technology development, integrating the
most promising technologies at the system level, and
transitioning new technologies to practical use.
During the question and answer period, the panel noted that
the most important aeronautics R&D priorities were technologies
to reduce environmental impact, improve safety, and increase
fuel efficiencies. Mr. Feeney, the Ranking Member, brought up
the issue of restricting foreign access to valuable NASA
aeronautics research, but the panel found that in today's
global environment with international suppliers, the dividing
line would be hard to define. Responding to Mr. Wu's question
concerning the availability of wind tunnels in the United
States, the panel explained that some wind tunnel testing must
still be conducted in Europe and as a result the data produced
could be available to others. Mr. Henne and Dr. Kroo emphasized
that NASA's aeronautics R&D must incorporate more than basic
research in order to meet the Nation's needs.
Dr. Shin addressed Mr. Feeney's concern that NASA's
aeronautics R&D is too concerned with only meeting its own
needs, and Mr. Meade responded to his questions on regulating
unmanned aerial vehicles. Mr. Meade and Dr. Shin answered Rep.
Rothman's inquiries into NASA's work to reduce aircraft noise
and pollution and Europe's current capability in those areas.
Answering Chairman Udall's question on NASA and the FAA's new
aviation safety database activity, Dr. Shin spoke about the
close collaboration between the airlines, the FAA, and NASA in
sharing safety data in support of the project.
4.6--SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
4.6(a)_The National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Role in Supporting Economic Competitiveness in the 21st
Century: The Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
February 15, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-6
Background
On Thursday, February 15, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to consider the Administration's fiscal year 2008 (FY
2008) budget request for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). An Administration witness reviewed the
President's priorities for NIST, and four additional witnesses
commented on the budget request and the future direction of
NIST.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. William Jeffrey, Director,
NIST; (2) Dr. R. Stanley Williams, Senior HP Fellow in Quantum
Science Research, Hewlett-Packard Corporation; (3) Mr. Michael
Borrus, General Partner, X/Seed Capital; (4) Mr. Peter Murray,
Vice President, Welch Allyn, Inc.; and (5) Mr. Michael Ryan,
President and CEO, TUG Technologies Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing covered the following issues: the alignment of
priorities in the Administration's budget request with the goal
of improving U.S. competitiveness; the processes used to
determine the FY 2008 budget priorities; how the President's
proposed doubling of the NIST budget should be reflected in
NIST activities and priorities; the impact decreasing the
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) by 56
percent would have on the services the program provides to
small- and mid-sized manufacturers; and whether the President's
proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
is in-line with the goal of increasing U.S. competitiveness.
Chairman Wu praised NIST for the vital work the agency's
researchers perform to enable standards development and advance
measurement science. Chairman Wu also stated that though he was
pleased the Administration requested an increase for NIST's
Scientific and Technical Research Services (S&TRS), he was
distressed that MEP and ATP were once again neglected or
ignored by the President's budget. He also expressed concern
that NIST's plan to re-compete the MEP centers would
dramatically interfere with the services they provide. Ranking
Member Phil Gingrey noted that NIST's activities touch myriad
sectors in the economy, and that their research enabled the
development of cutting-edge technologies. Dr. Gingrey also
expressed concern about the cut in funding for MEP.
Dr. Jeffrey highlighted the average benefit-to-cost ratio
of 44:1 of NIST research and user-facilities as evidence of the
agency's considerable contributions to U.S. economic
competitiveness. He noted that NIST worked with industry and
others to identify critical measurement barriers to innovation
and improve the transfer of knowledge from the NIST labs to
industry and academia. Dr. Jeffrey stated that though the views
of Congress and the Administration differed on MEP and ATP,
NIST would carry out the programs effectively regardless of the
final appropriation. He justified the decision to re-compete
the MEP centers on the basis of the need to find savings within
the program to avoid making across the board cuts to all
centers in the face of uncertain budgets. Dr. Jeffrey also
stated that the Administration did believe ATP was an
effectively run program, but that ATP's activities were an
inappropriate role for the Federal Government.
Dr. Williams, testifying on behalf of the Alliance for
Science and Technology Research in America (ASTRA), gave his
strong support for the doubling of NIST's budget, noting that
NIST's activities promoted economic growth and improvements in
the quality of life for Americans without bias for particular
enterprises or technologies. However, he expressed his concern
that NIST researchers currently faced too many demands without
the adequate funding to effectively and efficiently perform all
of them. He was similarly concerned that researchers at NIST
often competed for funding from other government agencies,
reducing the amount of time and effort spent on purely
industrial problems. Dr. Williams stressed that NIST must
continue to attract and hire world-class researchers. He also
testified that nanotechnology should be a key focus for NIST.
Mr. Borrus testified that ATP performed a vital function in
enabling commercialization. He explained that today's capital
markets are risk-adverse and tend to invest money later in
technology development when the product is closer to
profitability. He stressed that the National Academies reviewed
ATP and concluded that program was well-run and met the goal of
giving a measurable return on investment.
Mr. Peter Murray recounted his company's experience with
MEP and noted that with the MEP assistance, Welch Allyn grew to
add more employees, expand operations, save money by embracing
lean manufacturing principles, and create a more skilled
workforce. He stated that he believes MEP is unique compared to
private-sector consultancy companies because MEP focuses on
their clients' success and not on selling future services. Mr.
Murray also stated that he believes that most MEP offices run
efficiently and that a re-competition would not identify any
cost savings.
Mr. Ryan also shared his company's experience with MEP,
noting that MEP is a strong contributor to the Nation's
economy. He expressed his concern that the Administration's
proposed 56 percent budget reduction for the program would
seriously impact the expertise MEP can provide and the benefits
the clients can gain.
4.6(b)_The Department of Homeland Security's R&D Budget
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008
March 8, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-8
Background
On Thursday, March 8, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to consider the President's fiscal year 2008 (FY 2008)
budget request for the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
research and development activities. The Members and witnesses
discussed budget priorities within the Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO).
The witnesses were: (1) The Honorable Jay M. Cohen, Under
Secretary for Science and Technology at DHS; (2) Mr. Vayl
Oxford, Director of the DNDO; (3) Dr. Gerald L. Epstein, senior
fellow for science and security in the Homeland Security
Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS); (4) Mr. Jonah J. Czerwinski, senior fellow with the
Global Leadership Initiative at IBM, also a Senior Advisor for
Homeland Security Projects at the Center for the Study of the
Presidency (CSP); and (5) Ms. Marilyn Ward, Executive Director
of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC).
Summary of Hearing
The hearing reviewed the Administration's budget request
for DHS S&T and DNDO of $799.1 million and $569.1 million,
respectively, focusing on the following issues and concerns:
the use of risk assessments by DHS to prioritize R&D funding;
the appropriate balance between short- and long-term research
and the criteria used to determine this balance; and the degree
to which DHS R&D priorities align with the needs of their
customers, including DHS agencies, other federal partners, and
State and local governments. Chairman Wu opened by
acknowledging the difficulties DHS has encountered in setting
up R&D programs. He expressed concern over the lack of a
strategic plan based on risk assessment, which he argued should
be the basis for research priorities within DHS. He encouraged
DHS to carry out a detailed risk assessment to ensure that
Congressional funding is properly allocated. Ranking Member
Phil Gingrey expressed his belief that the Nation's scientific
enterprise is a critical component of national security and
praised the efforts of the S&T Directorate and the DNDO. He
also noted that prioritizing funding is a difficult task and
that he would be interested in addressing this topic during the
hearing.
Under Secretary Cohen assessed his first six months on the
job, stating that he has two thirds of the staff he hopes to
have in place by the end of year. He stated that the six
technical divisions are on track, and that DHS S&T has
established a Division of Human Factors Research to focus on
the psychology of terrorism and human interactions with
security technologies and systems. The Under Secretary noted
that he owed Congress two planning documents: a risk informed
and customer focused plan for the DHS S&T Directorate; and a
broader, government-wide strategic plan for DHS S&T's role in
addressing security risks. When asked, Under Secretary Cohen
testified that the BioWatch program was successful and he noted
that S&T was working on BioWatch III, which incorporates
digital technologies to enable real time monitoring of risks,
such as anthrax and botulism. When asked about the Secure
Borders Initiative and responding to the needs of Customs and
Border Patrol agents in the Southwest, Under Secretary Cohen
stated that he is working closely with Customs and Border
Patrol to meet their needs. The Under Secretary was also asked
how DHS will spread funding through the University Centers for
Excellence program, which was cut significantly since FY 2006.
He noted his concern for this trend and stated that he hoped
the Administration would soon value the products of research
and request funding accordingly.
Mr. Oxford stressed the importance of securing the Nation's
ports as quickly as possible, but noted that the long-term
plans for DNDO included an exploratory research program, a
dedicated Academic Research Initiative, and several upcoming
advanced technology demonstrations.
Dr. Epstein noted the challenge of determining the urgency
of security threats and prioritizing R&D funding commensurate
with that threat assessment. He also stated the importance of
the potential importance of the Homeland Security Science and
Technology Fellows program to Homeland Security specific
problems.
Mr. Czerwinski stated that the DNDO budget included funding
for long-term R&D commitments showing progress in the area of
nuclear detection. He advised that special attention be paid to
the methodology and makeup of the Global Nuclear Detection
Architecture to better illustrate the connection between risk
assessment and the DNDO's budget.
Ms. Ward highlighted some interactions between NPSTC and
DHS, such as providing DHS with comments on the SAFECOM Program
and examining technical and regulatory implications of radio
spectrum utilization and management. She noted the importance
of broadband to new and innovative technology for public safety
officials and asked that the Subcommittee consider the creation
of a Public Safety Broadband Trust.
4.6(c)_Small Business Innovation Research Reauthorization on
the 25th Program Anniversary
April 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-23
Background
On Thursday, April 26, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
examine the performance of the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs on their 25th and 15th anniversaries, respectively,
and to discuss any changes to the program. The SBIR program
sets aside a portion of federal agency extramural research
budgets for research projects at small businesses. The STTR
program also sets aside a portion of extramural funding to fund
cooperative research projects between small businesses and
research institutions.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Bruce J. Held, Director of the
Force Development and Technology at the RAND Arroyo Center,
RAND Corporation; (2) Mr. Jon Baron, Executive Director of the
Coalition for Evidence-Based program Policy at the Council for
Excellence in Government, (3) Mr. Robert N. Schmidt, Founder
and Chairman of Cleveland Medical Devices and Orbital Research
Inc.; (4) Dr. Gary McGarrity, Executive Vice President of
Scientific and Clinical Affairs, VIRxSYS Corporation; and (5)
Mr. Anthony R. Ignagni, President and CEO of Synapse Biomedical
Inc.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on several important issues for the
future of the SBIR and STTR programs, including: the degree to
which the current programs are meeting their objectives; the
adequacy of the award levels; strategies to maximize small
businesses participation and increase participation by women
and minority owned small businesses; the programs'
effectiveness in promoting product commercialization; covering
administrative costs; and the appropriate role for venture
capital-backed small businesses. Chairman Wu opened the hearing
by discussing the benefits of the SBIR/STTR programs such as
the stimulation of high-tech innovation and strengthening U.S.
competitiveness. He then invited witnesses to address topics
such as the size of the awards, broadening the participation of
small business, creating funding within the program for
administrative costs, and determining the extent of
participation by venture capitalists. Both Chairman Wu and
Ranking Member Gingrey emphasized the role that these programs
have in moving ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace,
particularly innovative work on health care issues such as
diabetes and Alzheimer's research.
Mr. Held stated that the Department of Defense (DOD) SBIR
program could benefit from changes that would make the program
more effective in generating technology and products that are
utilized by the Armed Forces. He suggested that more
flexibility in the solicitation and funding process would
enhance the program. He called for increases in the minimum
awards for Phase I and Phase II and advised a set-aside for
administrative expenses.
Mr. Baron opened with examples of SBIR successes in the
computer and biomedical fields and said that the program had
led to multiple scientific breakthroughs and commercial
successes. He cited GAO and DOD data that suggests that the
projects which fail to meet commercial success are often in
firms lacking entrepreneurial capabilities, and recommended
that SBIR consider methods to build up entrepreneurial skills.
In response to a question by Chairman Wu regarding using a
portion of funding for administrative costs, Mr. Baron as well
as Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Held, cautioned that an administrative
set-aside could draw funds away from program goals and create
disincentives for good management.
Mr. Schmidt expressed concern that the U.S. was falling
behind in the creation of technological products and jobs. He
described some benefits of SBIR and STTR such as helping
universities to strengthen commercialization and job creation
at small high-tech firms. He cautioned against proposals that
would give SBIR funds to large companies or blur its research
focus and recommended a gradual doubling of the programs.
Dr. McGarrity explained that biotechnology research takes a
lot of time and a large initial expenditure. He criticized the
Small Business Administration (SBA) decision to exclude some
venture capital (VC) backed businesses from SBIR and stated
that his firm had to abandon promising research in cystic
fibrosis and laid off employees as a result of the ruling. He
stated that his company is willing to compete with VC backed
companies for SBIR funds on the basis of scientific and
technical merit, and believes that science suffers from the
exclusion of firms that have a commercialization track-record.
In response to a question by Mr. Wu about the impact of the SBA
ruling, Dr. McGarrity argued that the SBA rule led to
ineligibility of businesses based not on the number of
employees of their own business, but on the number of employees
in their VC backing firms.
Mr. Ignati recommended that the minimum award for Phase I
and Phase II be increased from their 1992 amounts and that the
agencies administering the SBIR program be granted more
flexibility making administrative decisions. He also
recommended that companies be allowed to apply for Phase II
grants without having first received a Phase I grant. He then
expressed his concern that the SBIR program is not able to
increase participation of innovative high-tech firms as a
result of the SBA ruling excluding VC backed firms. He
recommended that all VC backed firms be allowed to participate
in SBIR.
4.6(d)_Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges to
Access and Implementation
May 10, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-27
Background
On Thursday, May 10, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine options for construction technologies and
materials available for transportation infrastructure that
contribute to stormwater management and the control of non-
point source water pollution. Federal and local government
officials and industry representatives discussed these
technologies and addressed barriers to their widespread
implementation.
The witnesses were: (1) Ms. Gloria Shepherd, Associate
Administrator for Planning, Environment, and Realty at the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation; (2) Mr. Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); (3) Mr. Sam Adams, Commissioner of
Public Utilities for the City of Portland, Oregon; (4) Mr. Dan
Huffman, Managing Director for National Resources for the
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA); and (5) Mr.
Hal Kassoff, Senior Vice President for Sustainable Development
at Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing addressed three major issues: future research
needs for the development, testing, and evaluation of green
transportation infrastructure technologies; the need for
guidelines for builders and communities for the implementation
of these technologies; and the role of the Federal Government
in developing and promoting these technologies. Chairman Wu
stated that local governments and the private sector have been
collaborating to develop green transportation infrastructure to
reduce non-point source water pollution to protect ecosystems
at a low cost. He added that he hoped that the hearing would
address how these technologies could be integrated into the
national transportation infrastructure. Ranking Member Phil
Gingrey stated that roads allow for the American economy to
function and for Americans to travel. He acknowledged, though,
that these same roads have a significant impact on the
environment. He expressed his belief that green transportation
could be a positive solution for all stakeholders, but
cautioned that he did not think the technologies were fully
developed.
Ms. Shepherd stated that FHWA is striving to improve
environmental quality while managing the Nation's highways. She
mentioned that an important role for FHWA is to coordinate with
the federal, State, and local levels to provide data, training,
and technical assistance. She also noted that states have
learned that preventing environmental degradation can save
money. She testified that FHWA has taken an active role in the
Green Infrastructure Planning Workshops to help address
stormwater runoff management, recycling, and conservation and
ecosystem management. Ms. Shepherd stated that the lack of a
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis hinders the implementation
of green transportation technologies on a wide scale.
Mr. Grumbles stated that the EPA works in conjunction with
FHWA and other for-profit and nonprofit groups to advance green
transportation as a sustainable way to improve the environment.
He provided the example that the EPA Region 3, in collaboration
with FHWA, is developing green transportation technologies,
such as porous pavements, that simulate natural processes to
treat stormwater runoff. Mr. Grumbles testified that the EPA
has entered into memorandums of agreement with the National
Resource Defense Council, Low Impact Development Center, and
others to further green infrastructure initiatives such as rain
gardens, green roofs, and permeable concrete. He also stated
that the EPA was striving to reduce barriers that prevent green
infrastructure from being implemented.
Commissioner Adams focused his testimony on green
infrastructure success stories in the City of Portland and the
barriers Portland and other cities face in implementing green
transportation technology on a wider basis. He told the
Subcommittee that the City of Portland built infrastructure to
mimic natural cycles to reduce discharges into the Williamette
River and to avoid treating the runoff at a wastewater
treatment plant. These methods saved money and brought
environmental gains. Commissioner Adams emphasized that the EPA
has not aligned the needed regulations and guidelines for green
transportation projects, thus preventing other cities from
implementing similar projects due to a high amount of
uncertainty and risk.
Mr. Huffman testified that pervious concrete has been in
use for over twenty-five years and is now considered a Best
Management Practice (BMP) by the EPA. He explained that this
concrete has no sand, allowing for air voids to comprise 15 to
30 percent of the concrete. Mr. Huffman stated that this
technology can be used to recharge groundwater, to prevent
aquifer depletion, and to provide water to the roots of nearby
plants, and that the concrete can last 20 to 30 years. He
testified that the NRMCA is developing guidelines for pervious
concrete and helping to create a program for pervious concrete
certification.
Mr. Kassoff testified that highways that meet
transportation goals while preserving the environment are a
feasible goal for transportation officials. He stated that
citizens demand these types of projects and that sustainable
highways can save money over the long-term. He noted that 90
percent of highway improvements today are made on existing
infrastructure, allowing communities to improve their highways
while sparing the development of new land. Mr. Kassoff also
stated that there were multiple barriers to sustainable
highways, including motor vehicles that leave a carbon
footprint, particularly air pollution, and land use choices
that lead to urban sprawl.
4.6(e)_SBIR and STTR_How Are the Programs Managed Today?
June 26, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-43
Background
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. This
was the second of two hearings on the SBIR program
reauthorization, the purpose of this was to examine trends in
agency programs since the last reauthorization of SBIR and STTR
and agency enhancements to meet statutory program goals and
support agency missions.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Michael J. Caccuitto,
SBIR/STTR Program Coordinator, Office of Small Business
Programs, Department of Defense; (2) Ms. Jo Anne Goodnight,
SBIR/STTR Program Coordinator, Office of Extramural Research of
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
Services; (3) Mr. Larry S. James, SBIR and STTR Program Manager
and Acting Director, Small Business Research Division,
Department of Energy; (4) Mr. Doug A. Comstock, Director,
Innovative Partnership Program Office, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; and (5) Dr. Kesh S. Narayanan, Director,
Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships in the
Directorate for Engineering, National Science Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on the following issues: program
trends; outreach to encourage new applicants and reaching out
to a diverse pool of applicants; program data and tracking; and
the role of procurement in enabling commercialization. Chairman
Wu opened the hearing by discussing the large growth of the
SBIR and STTR programs, which are now the largest Government
programs supporting research and development at small
companies. He emphasized the programs' duties to promote
efficiency in operations and maximum public benefit. In Ranking
Member Phil Gingrey's opening statement, he explained that
every department and agency with an R&D budget exceeding $100
million must provide 2.5 percent of this budget for research at
small companies, resulting in more than $2 billion in funds
across the agencies. The goal of these programs, he said, is to
stimulate competitiveness and innovation. He was optimistic
about past achievements of the programs and the prospect of
future success.
Mr. Caccuitto said that the SBIR and STTR programs at the
Department of Defense are crucial in seeding innovation for
defense technologies. Each ``constituent'' military department
and defense agency has its own program, with centralized
oversight and decentralized management, with the total DOD
SBIR/STTR budget across all military departments at over $1.26
billion. DOD funds about one in seven SBIR Phase I proposals
and one in five STTR proposals.
Ms. Goodnight emphasized that program flexibility is the
key to fulfilling SBIR and STTR goals at NIH. She noted that
the programs have not grown at the rate of other NIH programs
due to firms losing eligibility, going out of business, or
perceived lack of participation incentives. She discussed NIH's
development of PODS for data tracking that help to monitor
achievements of awardees. In response to a question by Ranking
Member Gingrey about the effect of the 2003 SBA ruling on
venture capital backed companies' participation in the program,
Ms. Goodnight stated that the nature of biotechnology research
requires venture capital to fund expensive trials. She
described some cases where important research was halted as a
result of the ruling.
Mr. James said that, like at the DOD, the Department of
Energy has a balance of centralized and decentralized
management for their SBIR and STTR programs. He explained that
the Department hosts State-sponsored events to reach out to
small businesses. These small businesses have excellent science
skills but lack business skills; thus, DOE provides these
professionals with assistance in designing business plans. He
stated that in the past 24 years the DOE has invested almost
$1.5 billion, 60 percent of the companies have had sales of
more that $1.6 billion.
Mr. Comstock noted that the SBIR and STTR programs were
recently moved from NASA's four mission directorates to an
agency-wide mission support office that reports to the
Administrator's Office in response to the Innovative
Partnerships Program of 2005. This more integrated approach
helps to illuminate technology gaps and future technologies
which will be infused into NASA, helping to reach mission
goals. He cited phase three authority to enter into sole source
contracts as a benefit for NASA's programs. He stressed that
NASA's outreach efforts have been successful in providing a
fresh applicant pool. In response to a question by Chairman Wu
on whether the agencies have adequate funding for
administration, Mr. Comstock, as well as Mr. James and Ms.
Goodnight, stated that administrative funding is not adequate
to allow the optimal level of commercialization assistance.
Mr. Narayanan stated that SBIR plays a critical role in
moving discovery to innovation at NSF. He explained that in
addition to the SBIR/STTR grants, NSF has pioneered a Phase II
supplement for funding, providing greater incentive for third-
parties to invest in the awardees' projects. He stated that
follow up of 400 NSF SBIR grantees has shown a significant
impact; however, limited funds prevent program managers from
providing hands-on mentoring.
4.6(f)_The Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517, Amendments to the Patent
and Trademark Act of 1980)_The Next 25 Years
July 17, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-46
Background
On Tuesday, July 17, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
investigate the private and academic sectors' perspectives on
the current implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act, and to provide
recommendations on improving implementation over the next
twenty-five years. It also covered the impact of the Act on
industry-academic relations and the effects of globalization on
the current statutory scheme.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Arundeep S. Pradhan, Director
of Technology and Research Collaborations, Oregon Health &
Science University; (2) Dr. Susan B. Butts, Senior Director,
External Science and Technology Programs, Dow Chemical Company;
(3) Mr. Wayne C. Johnson, Vice President, Worldwide University
Relations, Hewlett-Packard Company; (4) Dr. Mark A. Lemley,
Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, and Director, Stanford
Program in Law, Science and Technology; and (5) Dr. Mark G.
Allen, Professor, School of Electrical and Computing
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Co-Founder and
Chief Technology Officer, CardioMEMS, Inc.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on several issues, including the impact
of the Bayh-Dole legislation on commercializing federally
funded research and shaping university-industry relations, and
the influence of Bayh-Dole on basic university research.
Chairman Wu began by describing the significance of the passage
of the Act at a time of declining competitiveness and the
importance of promoting university-based research and
subsequent technology transfer to industry. He asked witnesses
to discuss the impact of the Act on technology transfer,
differences in interpretations of the Act, increases in
collaboration with foreign companies or universities due, and
changes in the academic research process due to the Act. He
asked witnesses also to discuss whether the Act had created any
barriers to innovation. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey stated that
he believed that the Act had been the most successful
technology-transfer program ever implemented, but he was
concerned that private parties were having more difficulty in
reaching agreements with universities. He hoped that a solution
could be found to preserve American competitiveness.
Mr. Pradhan praised the Act for stimulating the economy and
creating new technologies and products. He described other
benefits derived from Bayh-Dole including State-funded
initiatives that leverage federal funding and the fostering of
university-industry partnerships. Mr. Pradhan stated that Bayh-
Dole provides a simple structure that works as intended and
cautioned against substantially altering the legislation. He
advocated a review of the Act to strengthen it and provide more
effective oversight. In response to Ranking Member Gingrey's
question on the benefits received by the public from taxpayer-
funded patents, Mr. Pradhan and Mr. Johnson both pointed to the
reinvestment in further research and the creation of jobs and
tax revenue.
Dr. Butts noted that the Bayh-Dole Act has created
intellectual property (IP) precedents that discourage industry-
academic collaboration and encourages industry collaborations
with foreign universities that provide greater IP rights. She
argued that while Bayh-Dole is fundamentally sound, the varied
implementation strategies by universities can lead to
questionable IP practices, such as staking IP claims from
privately funded research. In response to Mr. Wu's question
regarding the university approach to patenting, Dr. Butts
suggested more coordination between the issuance of
intellectual property licenses and the creation of sponsored
research agreements.
Mr. Johnson explained that most products contain dozens of
patents that give value by working in concert; no one patent is
more important. He recommended that the Act be left untouched,
but that innovation be encouraged as a separate process from
invention. He commented on the difficulties of working with
American universities as a result of Bayh-Dole, noting that the
emphasis placed on IP and the relative ease of working overseas
could harm domestic research endeavors.
Dr. Lemley described the increase in university patents
because of the Act. He contended that this encouraged
universities to commercialize their research, but it also
removed the incentive to engage in more long-term research. He
claimed that the solution to this problem was with the
universities, not in the Act. Different situations require
different forms of intellectual property protection.
Dr. Allen stressed the importance of clear intellectual
property rights and flexible licensing rules. He explained that
a particular innovation can be applied to create numerous new
products if there exists a clear beneficiary from the effort
and a flexible system within which innovators can operate.
4.6(g)_The United States Fire Administration Reauthorization:
Addressing the Priorities of the Nation's Fire Service
October 2, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-59
Background
On Tuesday, October 2, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
discuss the fire service community's priorities for the U.S.
Fire Administration (USFA). Members and witnesses discussed
USFA's current activities, challenges facing the Nation's fire
service, and the fire service community's priorities for USFA's
reauthorization. The hearing also examined the agency's role in
the Department of Homeland Security's overall disaster and
response mission.
The witnesses were: (1) Chief Gregory B. Cade, the U.S.
Fire Administrator, Director of USFA; (2) Dr. Sivaraj Shyam
Sunder, Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory
(BRFL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST); (3) Chief Steven P. Westermann, President and Chief
Fire Officer, International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC);
(4) Captain Robert Livingston, Captain in the Salem, Oregon
Fire Department and representative to the Oregon State Council
of Firefighters of the International Association of
Firefighters (IAFF); (5) Chief Gordon Henderson, Deputy Chief
of Operations, Rome-Floyd County Fire Department, Georgia, Past
President of the Georgia State Firefighters' Association of the
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC); and (6) Dr. John R.
Hall, Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and Research,
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on several important topics, including:
the current status of core USFA activities (National Fire
Academy training, educational programs, and fire data
collection); the major priorities of the fire service for the
USFA reauthorization; the status and budget of USFA's research
activities; bringing the needs and expertise of the fire
service to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and
USFA's support of State and local fire service agencies.
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by stating that while U.S. fire
safety has improved markedly since 1973 when USFA was created,
too many citizens and first responders still die or suffer
injuries in fires every year. Additionally, the U.S. suffers a
far higher fire casualty rate than do European countries and
other industrialized nations. He recognized USFA's crucial
education, training, policy development activities, and safety
standards efforts, as well as their research and standards
efforts. He stated that he was very interested in hearing the
fire service community's priorities for reauthorization.
Ranking Member Phil Gingrey stated that the USFA activities
over the last 30 years have helped reduce fire-related deaths
by approximately 25 percent. He also noted that fires cause
considerable economic impact each year, a trend that is going
upward. Lastly, he noted that USFA and the fire service
community needed to carefully consider its goals for updating
the National Fire Incident Reporting System.
Administrator Cade stressed the importance of training
local first responders and developing their expertise. He
argued that the fire service should continue to take the lead
on educating emergency responder on incident command that meets
the standards of the National Incident Management System. He
also noted that the USFA has been working with the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to design training
for structural firefighters to fight fire in the wildland urban
interface (WUI). He advocated for updating NFIRS, noting that
it currently can take twelve to eighteen months for data to
reach the system. Administrator Cade also stated that USFA
would continue to take a leadership role in working to reduce
the number of firefighter line-of-duty deaths.
Dr. Sunder described NIST's research on fire and fire
safety, which included: determining the fire-resistant
properties of modern furnishings, building materials, and
designs; performance measures and tools to develop new
firefighting technologies; and science-based approaches for
limiting the growth and spread of fire. He stated that NIST was
also working on mitigating the risk of fires spreading to
developed areas in the WUI. Dr. Sunder said that NIST's Fire
Research Grant Program has been the primary federal source for
fire research at universities for the past 30 years, and that
NIST works with USFA to develop fire-related research
priorities. Currently, a NIST employee spends one day a week at
the USFA headquarters in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Chief Westermann stated that USFA plays a major role in
preparing the fire service for an all-hazards mission, citing
the over 84,000 emergency response personnel who have received
training either at the National Fire Academy or through off-
campus and distance learning programs. He urged Congress to
fund USFA at its authorized levels and reiterated the
importance of updating NFRIS. He urged the Committee to
consider establishing a position at the National Operations
Center for the fire service. Chief Westermann commended USFA's
work and leadership on pressing issues like the WUI and
educating the public about fire sprinklers.
Captain Livingston emphasized that the fire service is now
providing more emergency response services, elevating the
importance of training for Hazmat and WMD response, as well as
emergency medical services. He expressed confidence that USFA
understood the evolving role of the fire service but worried
that this was not well appreciated beyond USFA in the Federal
Government. Therefore, he advocated for USFA to bolster its
efforts to educate DHS and other federal agencies about the
fire service. He stated that national voluntary consensus
standards could help reduce line-of-duty deaths. Captain
Livingston urged an authorization that met the needs of a
modern fire service.
Chief Henderson noted that NVFC represents over one million
volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel. He
explained that the most beneficial activity of USFA for
volunteer firefighters is their Volunteer Incentive Program,
which consolidates training courses for those unable to take
time-off for the longer training sessions. He was pleased to
see that the draft reauthorization authorized USFA to engage in
activities in the WUI, Hazmat, and EMS. Chief Henderson also
stressed the importance of NFIRS.
Dr. Hall stated that USFA funded important research
projects and also that the agency has been an important
collaborator on a number of NFPA research projects. He
explained NFPA's role as a primary source for codes and
standards for fire safety and the fire service, and he
testified that the standards making process benefited from USFA
and NIST expertise. He stated that in 2006, USFA partnered with
NFPA to perform the Second Fire Service Needs Assessment, which
he hoped would guide policy-makers. Dr. Hall also stated that
NFIRS was critically important to policy-makers in defining the
national fire problem; thus, he cautioned that any update to
gather a greater quantity of data more quickly should make sure
that the sampling is still reliable and useful for analysis.
4.6(h)_The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Part III: How
Do Companies Choose Where to Build R&D Facilities?
October 4, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-62
Background
On Thursday, October 4, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to consider the factors companies use to locate their
research & development (R&D) and science, technology, and
engineering intensive facilities. This hearing--the third in a
series of hearings examining the impact of globalization on
innovation--explored the trends in, and factors for site
selections for science, technology, and engineering intensive
facilities and the policies needed to ensure that the U.S.
remains attractive for these investments.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Martin Kenney, Professor of
Human and Community Development at the University of
California, Davis, and Senior Project Director at the Berkeley
Roundtable on the International Economy, University of
California, Berkeley; (2) Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, President of
the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF);
(3) Mr. Steve Morris, executive director of the Open Technology
Business Center (OTBC); (4) Mr. Mark M. Sweeney, Senior
Principal in McCallum Sweeney Consulting, a site selection
consulting firm; and (5) Dr. Jerry Thursby, Ernest Scheller,
Jr. Chair in Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and
Commercialization at Georgia Institute of Technology.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing covered several important areas, including: the
trends in site selection for R&D facilities; factors considered
when citing R&D facilities; and strategies local governments
can employ to increase their attractiveness to companies
looking to locate R&D facilities. Chairman Wu explained in his
opening statement that in order to understand the R&D
challenges in the United States, the country must understand
who it is competing against for attracting facilities. He
stated that the purpose of this hearing was to uncover how
companies determine where to locate their R&D facilities, and
to discuss ways to encourage them to locate these facilities in
the U.S. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey stated that despite the
U.S.'s leadership in R&D, companies are continuously emerging
overseas. He noted that many of these countries are modeling
their economic activities after the U.S. and investing in human
capitol. He argued that in order for the U.S. to preserve its
leadership roll in innovation and technology, the Nation must
improve STEM education, facilitate domestic investment in R&D,
and collaborate on R&D policy.
Mr. Kenney testified that R&D offshoring in high labor cost
nations is not new, but the rapid expansion of these facilities
in China and India is a recent phenomenon. He stated his view
that this is due to product localization, government pressure,
and proximity to key customers, as well as cost considerations.
The growth of the Indian and Chinese R&D workforce is also a
driving factor to R&D firms. He was optimistic, however, that
the conceptualization of products will continue to remain in
the U.S. He explained that many foreign nations have tax and
other incentives to encourage R&D firms to locate there. He
suggested that in order for the U.S. to continue to strengthen
its R&D position, it must address the issue of the cost of
graduate education, consider creating a National Institute of
Information Sciences, and reestablish a balance between patent
protection and increasing a stock of usable knowledge.
Dr. Atkinson noted that over 60 percent of U.S. companies
are investing R&D in China, 50 percent in India, and 20 percent
in Eastern Europe, with outsourcing increasing at rates higher
than in-sourcing. He argued that cost is the primary motivation
for these moves, with access to market and talent being
important, but secondary. He advised that the U.S. increase its
R&D tax credit, encourage students to be well-trained in the
sciences, grant visas for those with strong R&D skills, and
renegotiate foreign trade policy to discourage unfair foreign
practices, such as requiring the establishment of facilities to
gain market access.
Mr. Morris argued that the U.S. cannot lead in every
possible area of R&D, stressing that it was important for the
country to prioritize its investments based on its strengths.
He emphasized improving the K-12 education system. He also said
that the U.S. has an ``entrepreneurial flair'' and can build on
it by providing incentives to raise ``seed level money'' for
entrepreneurial endeavors.
Mr. Sweeney said that in his experiences with assisting
companies in choosing site locations the determining factors
proved to be different from project to project. He said
companies examine physical factors, such as sites, buildings,
and infrastructure; operating factors, which influence the
decision and location over the project life; and living
factors, such as medical availability, housing markets, and
community. He testified that incentives are generally not a
strong motivation until the end of evaluation, after
considering all of the prior factors. He said a big project,
like the space program, could excite the public and encourage
R&D in the U.S., and he also emphasized that lowering costs is
crucial for attracting R&D investment in the U.S.
Dr. Thursby reported on a survey of U.S. and Western Europe
R&D intensive firms, stating that 62 percent of respondents
said they did not anticipate a change in distribution of R&D
investments in the next three years but that some responded
that decreases would be more likely in U.S. and Western Europe,
while increases would take place in India and China. He stated
that growth potential within countries and output markets are
an important consideration in determining where to locate,
followed by the quality of R&D personnel. However, on average,
most respondents said tax brackets and regulatory restrictions
were not a major consideration. Universities, Dr. Thursby
noted, were extremely important in determining where R&D is
located. He also noted that in China R&D often follows
manufacturing, but that he did not see the same trend in India.
4.6(i)_The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Part IV:
Implications for the Science and Engineering Workforce
November 6, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-71
Background
On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology & Innovation held a
hearing to consider the implications of the globalization of
R&D and innovation for the American science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce. This hearing--the
fourth in a series of hearings examining the impact of
globalization on innovation--explored the impact of high-
technology offshoring on American STEM workers and students.
Witnesses discussed the new opportunities and challenges for
workers created by globalization, how offshoring is affecting
the STEM workforce pipeline, and how incumbent workers are
responding to globalization.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum, Vice
President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; (2) Dr. Harold
Salzman, senior research associate at the Urban Institute and
author of a recent study on the STEM workforce pipeline and
offshoring; (3) Dr. Charles McMillion, President and chief
economist at MBG Information Services; (4) Mr. Paul J. Kostek,
Vice President for career activities of the IEEE-USA; and (5)
Mr. Henry Becker, President of Qimonda North America.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing addressed several key issues including: how the
globalization of R&D will affect the supply and demand of STEM
workers in America; the types of jobs that will face increased
competition from low-cost labor force countries; and whether a
lack of supply of skilled workers in the U.S. forces companies
to locate high-tech jobs elsewhere. Chairman Wu stated that
careers in science and engineering have a more uncertain future
than in previous decades, creating job insecurity for many STEM
workers. He said it was crucial to understand which jobs were
subject to offshoring so that individuals and policy-makers
could make informed decisions. Learning more about the skills
employers expected from science and engineering workers could
help students prepare for the workforce of tomorrow. Ranking
Member Phil Gingrey noted that the U.S. has created a strong
tradition of innovation in part by attracting and retaining
some of the best minds in the world and that globalization,
driving science, and engineering jobs overseas threatens this
advantage. He said that scientists and engineers are growing
concerned with their future career prospects, even though
science and technology continues to move the economy. He urged
new policies that would encourage foreign companies to move
technology jobs to the U.S.
Dr. Teitelbaum testified that there was uncertainty about
the numbers of jobs being offshored, making the future of R&D
offshoring difficult to predict. He also said that there was
not yet enough evidence to conclude that there was a shortage
of scientists and engineers in the U.S. He reported that a
large number of college freshmen were interested in science and
engineering careers, but half changed their minds before
graduation. Dr. Teitelbaum also stated that increased funding
meant more doctoral and post-doctoral research opportunities,
but not necessarily more permanent jobs. He suggested that a
well-designed series of incentives would better match up
students and careers.
Dr. Salzman explained that globalization was not simply
driven by cost considerations, but was also an overall strategy
by research intensive firms working to establish themselves in
growing markets and provide a broader array of products. He
also testified that the results of his analysis showed that the
offshoring of STEM jobs was not driven by a lack of a skilled
STEM workforce in the U.S. Dr. Salzman emphasized that as firms
globalize, more jobs would be subject to offshoring, especially
as firms decompose and commoditize these jobs. Because of the
new forces driving the global economy, he cautioned that it was
incorrect to assume the U.S. could hold any particular job type
indefinitely, and thus efforts to produce more scientists and
engineers in traditional disciplines may be misdirected.
Dr. McMillion noted that the demand for science and
engineering jobs was fueled in part by an economy structured
around debt and global trade, two areas where the U.S. is no
longer at an advantage. He explained that as manufacturing and
trades moved abroad, the research and development system
creating many science and technology jobs deteriorated. At the
same time, he noted, competing countries were modernizing their
research and development systems. When asked about technology
transfer, Dr. McMillion explained that there are some laws
available to protect American companies from being forced to
make excessive technology transfers in its overseas deals, but
that more laws protecting these companies would give them a
better bargaining position.
Mr. Kostek stated that the engineering profession
internally felt as though the challenges of globalization were
greater than previous economic downturns. He argued that rather
than focusing solely on increasing the number of students
entering the field, more attention should be paid to retraining
displaced engineers and utilizing their experience towards more
competitive endeavors. He noted that if the retirement age goes
up, there would a large pool of engineers to draw from with
substantial job experience but not necessarily jobs for those
people.
Mr. Becker claimed that the U.S. was not creating enough
skilled workers to support industries like the production of
semiconductors and other high-end technological components. He
argued that companies in countries that pursued research and
development as a strategic interest had a competitive advantage
and that the U.S. should emphasize attracting the most talented
students for science and technology-related careers.
4.6(j)_Next Generation Border and Maritime Security
Technologies: H.R. 3916
November 15, 2007
Hearing Volume No. 110-73
Background
On Thursday, November 15, 2007, the Honorable Bart Gordon
Presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to discuss H.R. 3916. H.R. 3916 would authorize
specific border security technology programs, and instruct the
Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology (DHS
S&T) Directorate to improve processes for setting research
priorities and securing the needs of technology end-users.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Robert Hooks, Director of
Transition for the Department of Homeland Security's Science
and Technology Directorate; (2) Mr. Ervin Kapos, Director of
Operations Analysis for the Department of Homeland Security's
Science and Technology Directorate and Executive Director of
the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee
(HSSTAC); (3) Dr. Brian Jackson, Associate Director of the
Homeland Security Research Program at the RAND Corporation.;
and (4) Chief Jeff Self, Division Chief of the U.S. Border
Patrol.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Bart Gordon opened the hearing by listing some of
the threats that cross the Nation's border every day. He
stressed the difficulty of the jobs performed by Customs and
Border Patrol agents and mentioned the role of technology in
providing eyes and ears for agents. He expressed concern that
the research DHS S&T is currently performing lacks a long-term
plan, and short-term priorities are not always responsive to
the needs of end-users. However, he was optimistic that H.R.
3916 would begin to address some of these issues. Ranking
Member Phil Gingrey offered support for H.R. 3916, and said
that he felt that new border security technologies would be an
integral part of an overall effort to secure the Nation's
borders and discourage illegal immigration. Ranking Member
Ralph Hall noted that terrorists adapt to new security
measures, and constantly seek new methods to penetrate American
borders. He said that H.R. 3916 would focus the Nation's border
security research, protecting the Nation against unanticipated
threats.
Dr. Hooks focused on some of the DHS S&T Directorate's
successes in the area of border security technology R&D. He
explained that the Directorate was recently reorganized to
prioritize capability gaps and is pursuing more advanced border
security technologies via a variety of project initiatives. He
also stated that new research proposals attempt to account for
training and implementation costs, allowing policy-makers to
make more informed decisions on which technologies to
implement. Dr. Hooks testified that the Division was also
partnering with the Department of Defense to develop new
technologies, and he spoke about specific technologies being
developed to identify tunnels and the need for continued
research in this area. He also mentioned the budget oversight
process designed to ensure that research funding was being
allocated to the top priorities.
Mr. Kapos discussed the Homeland Security Science and
Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) and its role in advising
the Department of Homeland Security on R&D priorities.
Currently, the Committee's resources are tasked with the study
of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as a threat within the
United States, a change from the Committee's former structure
which made recommendations for priorities across disciplines.
In response to Chairman David Wu's concern that the HSSTAC was
not fulfilling its mission of establishing long-term research
priorities for DHS S&T, and that it was narrowly focused on
counter-measures for IEDs, Mr. Kapos explained that the HSSTAC
was configured to handle one problem at a time. He confirmed
that the directive to study IEDs in the domestic context came
directly from senior management at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Dr. Jackson explained that terrorists will alter the
practices, techniques, and technologies they use when
confronted with a new security procedure, significantly
degrading the protective value of new methods. He noted that
often cheap, jury-rigged solutions can evade expensive and
complicated technology which was not designed to be flexible.
Dr. Jackson advised devoting more effort to testing new
security technology and creating a diverse research portfolio
to avoid excessive reliance on one technology.
Chief Self outlined the mission and goals of the U.S.
Border Patrol. He noted that the needs of the Border Patrol
include constant surveillance with quick response capabilities.
The U.S. border encompasses a variety of different environments
and geographic regions, each with its own unique challenges.
Self emphasized the need for technologies that would work in
the three major environments the Border Patrol deals with:
urban, rural, and remote. He advocated continued testing and
adoption of monitoring technologies to ease the burden on the
Border Patrol's already challenging duties.
4.6(k)_The Department of Homeland Security's R&D Budget
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009
March 6, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-81
Background
On Thursday, March 6, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the spending priorities in the President's
fiscal year 2009 (FY 2009) budget request for research,
development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) at the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). Agency witnesses discussed budget
priorities within the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate
and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and how the
Department's RDT&E efforts are developing technologies to
promote the DHS mission.
The witnesses were: (1) The Honorable Jay M. Cohen, Under
Secretary for Science and Technology at the Department of
Homeland Security; (2) Mr. Vayl Oxford, Director of the DNDO;
and (3) Mr. George Ryan, the Director for the Testing,
Evaluation, and Standards Division of DHS S&T.
Summary of Hearing
Members focused on three main concerns at the hearing:
whether the DHS R&D priorities reflect the needs of their
stakeholders at all levels of government; how DHS uses testing
and evaluation to effectively develop and deploy technology;
and the balance between short-term and basic research. Chairman
Wu expressed concern that the budget priorities were developed
without the guidance of a comprehensive risk framework, and
that DHS S&T and DNDO failed to seek adequate input from State
and local technology users, or involve them heavily in product
development and testing. However, he praised the DHS S&T
Directorate for increasing the funding for basic, long-term
research to 20 percent. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey stated that
to increase security against an adaptive enemy, defenses and
R&D should be broad to minimize the possibility that they can
be easily sidestepped. He also expressed concern that the DHS
R&D agencies did not adequately engage in RDT&E activities, but
he was encouraged that they appeared to be addressing this
deficiency.
Under Secretary Cohen highlighted improvements DHS S&T has
made since it was created. Under his leadership: the structure
of the agency was reorganized into disciplines that enabled
basic and applied research, as well as product transition;
staffing reached 93 percent of its Full Time Equivalent
positions; and the process for allocating funds and soliciting
input from the user community had improved. He also identified
the Integrated Product Teams and the Technology Oversight Group
as funding prioritization mechanisms, as well as recently
sought assistance from the National Academies on risk-based
planning and decision-making. Under Secretary Cohen, however,
recognized that DHS S&T needed to improve outreach to State and
local emergency responders.
Mr. Oxford testified on the fruitful partnerships between
DNDO and the National Laboratories and DNDO's Academic Research
Initiative that sponsors university research in the nuclear and
radiological sciences. He pointed out that these efforts focus
the research community on the highest radiological threats and
that they are a mechanism to reverse the decline in student
interest in nuclear-related fields. The DNDO research agenda is
shaped by gaps identified in the Global Nuclear Detection and
Reporting Architecture. Ranking Member Gingrey questioned Mr.
Oxford on the increase in funding for the acquisition of
advanced spectroscopic portal monitors, while funding for R&D
to counter a mobile adversary likely to avoid current detection
measures was flat. In response, Mr. Oxford stated that the
increase in funding was needed to address weaknesses in the
current system, but that R&D funding was supporting the
development of other technology.
Mr. Ryan testified that the DHS S&T Testing, Evaluation,
and Standards (TE&S) Division was working with the Under
Secretary for Management and other DHS components to create a
tests and evaluation master plan (TEMP) to be used by DHS
agencies as part of their acquisition process for new
technology. The TEMP is an integrated and agreed-upon plan to
ensure that products will reliably meet user requirements. He
also testified that the TE&S Division is developing an
accredited and recognized testing capability with the goal of
testing all products in an accredited and recognized facility.
4.6(l)_NIST's FY 2009 Budget Request: What Are the Right
Technology Investments to Promote U.S. Innovation and
Competitiveness?
March 11, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-83
Background
On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to consider the President's fiscal year 2009 (FY 2009)
budget request for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). An Administration witness reviewed the
proposed budget and technology experts provided comments and
analysis.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. James Turner, Acting Director,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); (2) Dr.
James Serum, Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology (VCAT); (3) Dr. Mary Good, Founding Dean, George W.
Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Arkansas, Little Rock; (4) Dr. Peter Fiske, Vice
President for Research and Development, PAX Scientific, Inc.;
and (5) Mr. Michael Coast, President, Michigan Technology
Center, Chairman of the Board, American Small Manufactures
Coalition.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing covered the details of the Administration's
$638 million budget request for NIST and focused on several
broad issues, including: NIST's 3-year Programmatic Planning
document; whether NIST's FY 2009 budget proposal aligns with
the goal of increasing U.S. competitiveness; NIST's engagement
with stakeholders in developing the FY 2009 budget priorities;
the impact of the proposed cut of the Manufacturing Extension
Program (MEP) budget; and the impact on U.S. competitiveness of
eliminating programs like the Technology Innovation Program
(TIP). Chairman Wu opened the hearing by praising the America
COMPETES Act, which included the first comprehensive
authorization of NIST in 15 years, but he expressed concern
that NIST's three-year strategic plan required by that
authorization fell far short of the comprehensive and detailed
planning document Congress had requested. He also noted that
NIST was the only science agency included in the COMPETES Act
to request funding for FY 2009 that was below the level of the
previous year's request. He was disappointed to see that the
Administration was again proposing to eliminate MEP and TIP.
Ranking Member Phil Gingrey praised the Administration's FY
2009 budget request for the NIST laboratories, but he was also
critical of the decision to cut funding for MEP.
Dr. Turner thanked the Science and Technology Committee for
its leadership in the COMPETES Act. He also thanked the VCAT
for their most recent recommendation for NIST to implement an
internal Nanotechnology Council to coordinate the agency's
investments in nanotechnology research. He stated that the $638
million budget included $4 million for MEP, and the budget
request for NIST's core programs was an increase of 22 percent
over the FY 2008 appropriations. He acknowledged that MEP was a
well-run program, but stated that it was not as high a priority
as the other activities included in the budget. The focus of
the budget, he claimed, was on high-impact technology research
and well-targeted standards and measurement problems. He
discussed several of the budget's research initiatives,
including biometrics, disaster-resilient structures, and
quantum computing.
Dr. Serum provided the VCAT's perspective on NIST's current
and future strategic investments, its three-year programmatic
plan, and the effectiveness of multi-disciplinary research at
NIST. He praised NIST's research efforts and their world-class
measurement capabilities and he stated that the VCAT supports
many of the new initiatives NIST proposed in the budget
request. However, regarding NIST's efforts in nanomaterial
environmental, health, and safety research, Dr. Serum stated
that the VCAT cautioned the agency to partner appropriately
with toxicology experts, rather than try to develop in-house
capabilities in this area. Dr. Serum also stated that NIST had
improved its planning process and that he believed the three-
year programmatic document reflected the goals of the
organization, its core competencies, current research
priorities, and an identification of future measurement needs.
Dr. Good testified that NIST is an important organization
that performs high quality work. She noted that without NIST,
the country would be at a serious economic disadvantage. Dr.
Good was also disappointed about the lack of funding for MEP in
the President's budget request. She argued that MEP not only
provided a way for NIST to assist small businesses, but that
MEP and TIP also provided conduits for NIST to learn about
measurement and technology challenges in new fields like
biotechnology. Dr. Good agreed that NIST's three-year
programmatic planning document did not adequately address the
agencies planned activities over the next three or four years,
and asserted that the plan should also have mentioned the
Malcolm-Baldrige Quality Award.
Dr. Fiske discussed his experiences as a recipient of
funding from the Advanced Technology Program (now TIP) and an
owner of a high-tech start-up business. He stressed that
venture capital is generally not available to fund early-stage
development of new technology, as investors regard these
investments as too risky. He argued that TIP is uniquely
important among federal sources for R&D funding because the
focus is solely on those technologies that will create a large
economic impact and that it funds technology in its earliest
stages of commercialization. Dr. Fiske also stated that TIP was
efficiently run, which is essential for the fast-paced world of
technology development.
Mr. Coast highlighted MEP's success, citing that MEP
clients credit the program with helping them realize a
collective yearly savings of more than $1.1 billion, and
helping these small- and mid-sized manufacturers to add or
retain $6.8 billion in sales and 52,000 jobs. He argued that
MEP's services were crucial in a global economy where small-
and mid-sized American manufactures needed to maintain a 20
percent reduction in costs with 20 percent top-line growth to
remain competitive. He praised the efforts of the COMPETES Act
to expand MEP centers and argued that the President's FY 2009
budget request would effectively eliminate MEP.
4.6(m)_Aviation Security Research and Development at the
Department of Homeland Security
April 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-97
Background
On Thursday, April 24, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the aviation security-related research,
development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The witnesses discussed
how the Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) and other DHS
components support the needs of the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the aviation industry, and the traveling
public.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Susan Hallowell, Director of
the TSL; (2) Mr. Adam Tsao, Chief of Staff, Office of
Operational Process and Technology Directorate of TSA; (3) Dr.
Jimmie Oxley, Professor of Chemistry, University of Rhode
Island, and Co-Director of the DHS Center of Excellence for
Explosives Detections, Mitigation, and Response; and (4) Dr.
Colin Drury, Chair of the Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Buffalo.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing focused on three main issues: the adequacy and
flexibility of the TSL R&D portfolio to meet current TSA needs
and to adapt to future threats; the reliability of evaluation
standards at TSL to meet the operational needs of TSA; and the
consideration of human factor engineering and human-technology
interface in the development of new technology at TSL. Chairman
Wu began by noting that GAO had recommended improving security
technologies after a recent study showed airport security gaps.
He stated the important contributions of TSL in developing
these technologies, but also stressed that technology must be
compatible with the human users to successfully meet security
needs. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey stated that he was
interested to hear how the Nation's substantial investment in
transportation security R&D was coordinated through the
government, and how it included appropriate university research
and private sector companies.
Dr. Hallowell provided a brief history of TSL, and stated
that TSL now performs R&D at the request of the DHS Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate and on an as-required basis for
TSA. TSL also engages in testing and evaluation activities in
three general categories: certification, qualification, and
laboratory assessment testing.
Mr. Tsao testified that TSA has a strong and close
relationship with DHS S&T and TSL, and that TSA relies on them
heavily for basic and applied R&D. TSA maintains responsibility
for testing and evaluation, and operational integration and
deployment of new security technology. He also testified that
TSA is engaged at a high level in the DHS S&T capstone
Integrated Product Team process used to identify technology
needs and prioritize R&D projects.
Dr. Oxley noted that the U.S. engaged in minimal
explosives-related R&D. She testified that R&D in all areas
related to detection was crucial, as well as performing a
methodical study to identify likely explosive precursors from
readily available materials.
Dr. Drury explained that human factors engineers use data
on the performance of humans in complex systems to design
systems that make better use of the distinct capabilities of
both humans and automated machines--for instance, relying on
machines to perform searches, but having humans evaluate an
alarm. He stated that TSA and TSL do engage human factors
engineers when developing new technology but that they could be
doing more in this area.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed Federal Aviation Administration research
and safety regulations on flammable liquids, screening the
workforce, the security R&D budget and priorities, the frequent
traveler program, and the process for creating and implementing
new technologies.
4.6(n)_Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Transportation
Infrastructure
June 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-110
Background
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
review ongoing federal, State, academic, and industry research
and development activities related to reducing life cycle
energy consumption, reducing fuel use and promoting
sustainability for surface transportation infrastructure. The
hearing also addressed technical, regulatory, social, and
financial challenges to implementing new measures and to
integrating new materials and technologies into existing
transportation networks.
The witnesses were: (1) Mr. Paul Brubaker, Administrator,
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S.
Department of Transportation; (2) Mr. Randell Iwasaki, Chief
Deputy Director, California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans); (3) Dr. Robert Bertini, P.E., Director, Oregon
Transportation Research and Education Consortium; (4) Mr.
Gerald Voigt, P.E., President and CEO, American Concrete
Pavement Association; and (5) Dr. Christopher Poe, P.E.,
Assistant Agency Director, and Director, Center on Tolling
Research, Texas Transportation Institute (TTI).
Summary of Hearing
The hearing addressed the following issues: needed R&D
efforts to address energy and environment related challenges in
the transportation sector; the role of the Federal Government,
State agencies, academia, and industry in promoting technology
transfer and how these entities should help policy-makers
balance environmental impact with safety, cost, and efficiency;
and standards development activities needed for materials and
intelligent transportation systems. Chairman Wu opened the
hearing by noting the need for fuel savings and curbing carbon
emissions and wondered why policy-makers have failed to
implement existing sustainable technologies, pointing to his
home city of Portland, Oregon for what smart infrastructure can
achieve. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey highlighted congestion and
expense as two main problems with existing transportation
infrastructure.
Mr. Brubaker highlighted RITA's contributions to nationwide
R&D, listing several innovative possibilities. He stressed the
importance of reducing fuel consumption by keeping traffic
moving and detailed both opportunities for investment and the
challenges facing sustainable transportation infrastructure. He
focused on recycling materials such as fly ash and tire fibers
for use in pavements and rubberized asphalt respectively, for
both the environmentally friendly reason of not dumping huge
amounts of these materials in landfills and because they often
lead to lower costs for production and the extension of the
life of the products. Mr. Brubaker mentioned research into
nanotechnology, which could cut out the need for producing the
high-cost steel rebar and extend the life of bridges.
Mr. Iwasaki argued that government works the best when
goals are explicit and finite, and he outlined a few of
California's accomplishments where this was the case. Some
worthy projects include reducing congestion levels, carbon
reduction and climate change, and recycling fly ash and tires.
He talked about California's past accomplishments which serve
as a model for other states, including using low-sulfur diesel
and LED traffic lights. He also identified new projects that
Caltrans is studying currently, including finding the shortest
timed route for commuters as opposed to the shortest distance
route.
Dr. Bertini explained how one determines the potential
environmental impact of a given technology, future research
needs, and the possible financing systems to promote
sustainability. He also detailed what specific goals deserve
immediate attention, such as congestion management strategies.
He provided suggestions for how Federal, State, and local
governments can respond to the various challenges, such as
human resources in a multi-disciplinary field, that are facing
innovative transportation technologies.
Mr. Voigt provided details on the use of concrete in
infrastructure, promoting its energy efficiency,
sustainability, and cost savings attributes, including future
repair costs, fuel usage, and lower energy streetlights. He
noted that a new sustainable technology initiative within the
transportation industry's long-range road map is a top
priority; however, he indicated a few key challenges, notably,
a lack of a clear and universally accepted way to measure the
sustainability of roadways and the fact that current
specifications have not been replaced with specifications that
require more sustainable practices. He also noted that new
roads are often built without their life cycle cost in mind.
Dr. Poe explained how TTI is studying new technologies for
green infrastructure, as well as the issue of traffic
congestion and its affects on the environment. He noted that
there were monetary and communication challenges to decreasing
congestion and stop-and-go driving, and suggested that a
collaborative approach would be best for solving these sorts of
issues.
During the discussion period, each witness provided his
perspective on key research priorities for the next
transportation bill. They also offered Chairman Wu their ideas
for the most important action the Federal Government could take
to increase adoption of new transportation technologies. The
rest of the discussion covered specific funding levels, life
cycle costing, the importance of research, workforce training,
and traffic information technology.
4.6(o)_The Low-level Plutonium Spill at NIST-Boulder:
Contamination of Lab and Personnel
July 15, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-115
Background
On Tuesday, July 15, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
discuss an environmental, health, and safety (EH&S) incident at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST's)
Boulder, CO facility. On June 9, 2008 researchers working there
spilled a 0.25 gram sample. The spill contaminated the lab and
a number of personnel working in the vicinity. Contamination
spread to other areas of the building, and a small amount of
the material was washed away in the lab sink. The Subcommittee
held the hearing to examine the causes of the incident and the
subsequent response to the situation by NIST employees, and to
discuss improvements to environmental, health, and safety
(EH&S) practices at NIST.
The witnesses at the hearing were: (1) Dr. James Turner,
Acting Director of NIST; (2) Dr. Charles Miller, Director of
the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC); (3) Dr. Kenneth Rogers, one of five independent
investigators appointed by NIST to review the June 9, 2008
plutonium spill, and former Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; and (4) Mr. Elmo Collins, Regional
Administrator of the Region IV Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by stating that the
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee was NIST's strongest
supporter in Congress, highlighting the agency's excellent
scientific and technical work and advocating for increased
funding for the agency. He then expressed disappointment that
recent events had cast doubts on NIST's dedication to EH&S
practices. Referring to the plutonium spill, and a recent
accident involving a laser at the NIST Gaithersburg facility,
Chairman Wu stated that the hearing's purpose was not to assign
blame but to assess the conditions that contributed to the June
9th accident and examine the EH&S practices and culture at
NIST. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey echoed the Chairman's
disappointment about NIST's EH&S practices. He stated that the
accident could have been avoided if proper procedures and
protocols had been followed. Representative Mark Udall
expressed concern that NIST had been slow to inform all of the
Boulder personnel and local and State officials about the
accident.
Dr. Turner began by emphasizing that the most recent
medical tests for the affected personnel did not reveal that
these individuals were at an increased risk for cancer due to
their exposure to plutonium. He also emphasized that he and all
of NIST deeply regretted what had happened. He described NIST's
investigation of the June 9th accident and acknowledged that
several of the researchers working with the plutonium sample
had not received the proper training and were not adequately
supervised. He also acknowledged that the immediate aftermath
of the spill was not properly handled. Dr. Turner described the
steps taken NIST-wide immediately after the accident to ensure
researchers were adhering to EH&S policies, but he also
acknowledged that NIST needed to improve its management and
oversight of EH&S in its labs. To that end, he announced that
the Department of Commerce would establish a blue ribbon panel
to examine the EH&S policy, procedures, and culture at NIST.
Dr. Turner also assured the Subcommittee that no action would
be taken against any personnel until the situation had been
fully and thoroughly evaluated.
Dr. Miller outlined the NRC application and amendment
process for nuclear material and he described NIST's obligation
under their license amendment permitting the use of plutonium.
These obligations include a radiation safety officer who must
ensure license requirements are met and that all individuals
working with, or in the vicinity of the source, are properly
trained. Mr. Collins discussed the oversight and investigatory
actions taken by the NRC. NIST informed the NRC 24 hours after
the accident, and on June 12th, the NRC sent health physics
inspectors to Boulder, and they issued a confirmatory action
letter on July 2. In response to questions about the NRC's
typical inspection frequency, Dr. Miller noted that based on
the type of work NIST was engaged in under their license, they
were on a five-year inspection frequency. He also stated he was
encouraged by the seriousness with which NIST was investigating
and evaluating the incident and that he was hopeful this would
encourage a broader evaluation of safe work practices.
Dr. Rogers discussed several of the findings from the
independent review of the June 9th accident. He noted that the
support for safety was not uniform across NIST and that some at
NIST viewed spending on safety as competing for scarce
resources; policies and procedures existed at NIST that could
have prevented the accident but they were not enforced; the
Boulder safety office was not adequately funded or equipped
with equipment and personnel; and that there were numerous
instances of communication breakdowns among key personnel that
could have added more oversight to the use of the plutonium.
His recommendations included: re-doing the cost-benefit
analysis for the use of certain types of nuclear materials;
resuming work with radioactive material only after ensuring all
involved are trained; better oversight by radiation safety
officers; and undertaking a systematic analysis of all hazards
across NIST labs.
4.6(p)_The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program:
Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation
July 24, 2008
Hearing Volume No. 110-117
Background
On Thursday, July 24, 2008, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
review the activities of the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program (NWIRP) and to examine the role of R&D in
saving lives and reducing property losses from windstorms. The
witnesses also discussed advances in wind hazard mitigation and
methods of transferring the results of research into practice
for code developers, builders, and property owners. Lastly, the
witnesses provided testimony on the priorities for a NWRIP
reauthorization, and any changes needed to increase the
effectiveness of the program.
The witnesses were: (1) Dr. Sharon Hays, Associate
Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP); (2) Dr. Marc Levitan, Director, Hurricane Center at
Louisiana State University (LSU) and an Associate Professor,
LSU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; and (3)
Ms. Leslie Chapman-Henderson, President and CEO of the Federal
Alliance for Safe Home, Inc. (FLASH).
Summary of Hearing
The hearing examined NWIRP, a multi-agency R&D program,
involving four federal agencies- the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Atmospheric and
Oceanic Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation
(NSF), and the Federal Emergency Management Administration
(FMEA). The hearing focused on the following issues: the lack
of funding that has gone toward wind-hazard mitigation R&D
relative to the escalating costs of windstorms; the
effectiveness of the current federal hazard mitigation R&D
portfolio, which emphasizes research for short-term weather
prediction, in decreasing the losses from hazards; strategies
for increasing the adoption of mitigation measures; and ideas
and strategies to improve the program in a reauthorization
bill. Chairman Wu opened by emphasizing the tragic effects of
windstorms, expressing disappointment in the lack of attention
and funding President Bush's Administration has shown NWIRP. He
stated that looking forward to a reauthorization, the program
might need restructuring. Ranking Member Phil Gingrey noted the
Nation's increasing vulnerability to tornadoes and hurricanes,
including in his home State of Georgia, and stressed the
importance of funding for R&D to save lives and to mitigate
damage. He noted that promoting the adoption of research into
practical mitigation measures remains the biggest challenge for
NWIRP.
Dr. Hays discussed how the NWIRP agencies receive input
from stakeholders outside the government and noted that a
biannual report from the Windstorm Working group would be
issued soon. She stated that the Administration's disaster
related R&D strategy was all-hazards, and she noted that this
idea was also central to the 2003 RAND report on federal
support for disaster related R&D. Dr. Hays also explained that
planning for this type of R&D is through the President's
Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Disaster
Reduction.
Dr. Levitan commented on the vulnerabilities of and the
strategies for protecting the built environment, identifying a
few key areas where increased R&D efforts and technology
transfer would be useful. He stated that NWIRP holds great
opportunity for decreasing windstorm impacts, however due to
lack of funding and focus, these benefits have not been
realized. Dr. Levitan stated that the importance of
understanding patterns of the wind storms is necessary for
dealing with natural disasters. Computational engineering,
performance-based design, and retrofit technologies are all
crucial areas for advancement. He argued that NIST should
become the lead agency for the program, and he also noted the
significant challenge posed by technology transfer in terms of
both funding and education and outreach. Major opportunities
for rapid improvements include incorporating current research
results into building codes and standards and developing design
guides and software tools.
Ms. Chapman-Henderson discussed her desire to establish
disaster safety as a public value in America. She emphasized
strengthening existing buildings and building codes, as well as
research and innovation. She also argued that the cycle of
build-destroy-rebuild cannot be broken unless programs like
NWIRP create and promote the adoption of mitigation measures
before a violent windstorm strikes. Ms. Chapman-Henderson noted
the great challenge of transforming research results into
usable knowledge for the public and the building community. An
emphasis on hazard reduction stands to reduce the cost of
natural disasters significantly.
Appendix
----------
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2008
The President's FY 2008 budget proposes $143 billion in federal
research and development (R&D) funding, a 1.4 percent increase over the
FY 2007 level. The budget proposes increases for research programs
within the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), as well as human
space exploration, but proposes decreases in much of the remaining non-
defense federal research and development portfolio. The Committee, like
the Congress, is very concerned about our country's budget deficit and
its impact on our economic strength. However, the Committee also urges
the Budget Committee to recognize the contributions and benefits that
research and development and science and technology investments have
for our country's economic competitiveness, energy security, education
standards, job growth, and environmental health.
The President's FY 2008 budget would provide $11.4 billion for
research within programs that are part of the ACI--the National Science
Foundation, Department of Energy Office of Science, and National
Institutes of Standards and Technology lab research and construction
accounts. However, the Committee notes with concern that outside of the
ACI programs, research and development for many agencies and programs
would be cut compared to the FY 2007 level. For example, according to
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the FY
2008 budget would reduce R&D funding for Department of Energy Applied
programs (excluding Office of Science) by $133 million or 9.2 percent;
the Department of Homeland Security by $15 million or 1.6 percent; the
Environmental Protection Agency by $20 million or 3.5 percent; and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by $57 million or 9.5
percent. In addition, proposed funding for most agencies and programs
(including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of
Energy) is well below levels authorized in legislation passed by the
Congress and signed into law by the President.
This year, the Committee plans to move legislation to refocus our
country's science and technology priorities by:
Enacting key recommendations of the National Academy
of Sciences Rising Above the Gathering Storm report on U.S.
competitiveness;
Promoting a clean, affordable, reliable, and diverse
energy supply based on the best and most efficient
technologies;
Ensuring that NASA priorities are balanced and
adequately leverage expertise in aeronautics, science, and
human space flight and exploration programs;
Evaluating the Department of Homeland Security's
research and development programs to ensure they are based on
rigorous risk analysis of threats to our nation; and
Moving beyond the basic questions of climate science
and seeking to address specific regional and economic sector
vulnerabilities.
The following is a more detailed analysis of the Committee's budget
priorities, by subcommittee and agency.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over all Department of Energy
civilian national laboratories, civilian energy research, development
and demonstration programs, and activities related to the commercial
application of energy technologies.
The Committee recognizes that there are many worthy programs at the
Department of Energy and believes that the country will best be able to
meet its energy goals by balancing long-term basic energy research with
short-term research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application of energy technologies and by not presuming technology
``winners'' and ``losers.''
Office of Science
Basic energy research plays an important role in enhancing the
Nation's competitiveness, and the Committee believes the FY 2008 budget
request for the DOE Office of Science of $4.4 billion is a step forward
in responding to near-term needs in this field. The request represents
an increase of approximately $600 million, or 16 percent over the
appropriated FY 2007 level. However, it is important to note that the
request falls $189 million short of the amount. authorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58).
The Office of Science has maintained a long-standing role as
steward of large world class scientific user facilities. However the
Committee is concerned that construction and operation of facilities
comes at the expense of actual funding for research in these
facilities. This can be especially detrimental in the case of
construction overruns or miscalculated operational costs of very large
facilities, some of which carry multi-billion dollar price tags. The
Committee notes with pleasure that the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)
at Oak Ridge National Lab will open on time and within the scope of the
budget. As the Department moves forward with plans for additional large
scientific facilities, it is important to demonstrate that lessons have
been learned from successes such as the SNS. However it is equally
important to closely examine cases such as the Superconducting Super
Collider, which ultimately failed to be completed because of multi-
billion dollar cost overruns and lack of political support. Early and
comprehensive consultation with contractors and component manufacturers
might have provided more realistic cost estimates. The Committee will
find it difficult to support construction of such large facilities if
demonstrable measures are not taken to assure due diligence in the
areas of cost estimates and design.
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program receives a 15 percent increase over the FY 2007
appropriated level, with a large portion of overall funding supporting
the startup of three bioenergy research centers for investigating
cellulosic biomass as an energy feedstock. The Committee notes that the
Department's original plan included only two centers and roughly a
third of the funding. As the Department moves forward, it should ensure
that each center maintains distinct research capabilities, and not
duplicate research being done by industry or within other Department of
Energy programs or labs.
In addition, the Committee is pleased to see the request provide
$340 million for the Advanced Scientific and Computing Research (ASCR),
an increase of 45 percent over the FY 2007 level. This would allow for
the continued upgrading of the Leadership Class Facility (LCF) to peta-
scale operations, making it the world's largest civilian high-
performance computing system. Awareness of the role computational
sciences can play in advancing U.S. industrial and scientific
competitiveness is increasing rapidly, and the Committee urges the
Department to continue awarding substantial amounts of run-time to
private industry and universities to enhance that role.
Applied Energy Programs
The Committee is pleased to see the Administration's increased
attention to a number of R&D programs within the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). However, increases in some
renewable and efficiency R&D programs are mostly offset by considerable
reductions to other important R&D programs, as well as programs to
deploy existing and new technologies, including the Weatherization
Assistance Program, Industrial Technologies Program, and Federal Energy
Management Program.
For example, as in the FY 2007 budget request, the Administration
would eliminate R&D in geothermal power, despite the fact that untapped
geothermal sources could address a significant portion of our country's
energy demand and do so in a reliable and clean manner. A comprehensive
study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, released in January
2007, found that enough geothermal resources exist to supply 10 percent
of the United States' future electricity requirements with minimal
environmental impact and likely at competitive prices. Further,
geothermal energy technologies are not fully mature and could benefit
from further technology development and demonstrations.
If the country continues moving toward greater use of biofuels, the
Committee believes it will be important to increase investment in
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems programs at DOE. Under the President's
budget, these programs would receive funding at a level almost double
compared to FY 2007. However, the FY 2008 request for Vehicle
Technologies R&D, which includes funding to spur the development of
technologies for plug-in hybrid vehicles, would be reduced by $6.4
million or four percent. The Committee finds that an overall cut in
this program is unwise given that the responsibility for decreasing the
Nation's dependence on oil from unstable or hostile regimes rests
largely in programs to improve advanced vehicle technologies.
Nuclear Energy receives $568 million for research and development,
with a large portion of that dedicated to the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP). For the Nuclear office, this represents an increase
of $220 million, or 64 percent over the FY 2007 request, and $347
million (157 percent) above the FY 2006 Congressionally appropriated
amount.
The Administration unveiled the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) in 2006 as a plan to develop advanced, proliferation-resistant
nuclear fuel cycle technologies that would maximize the energy
extracted from nuclear fuels and minimize nuclear waste. The Committee
notes, however, that GNEP has not had widespread support in Congress.
In FY 2007, the Administration requested approximately $250 million,
but approximately $80 million was appropriated. Nonetheless, the
Administration's FY 2008 request for GNEP is $395 million.
Chief among the Committee's concerns about GNEP is the cost of
implementing the program (up to $40 billion) and deploying a fleet of
the required technologies on a commercial scale (more than $200
billion). The Committee is also concerned with what appears to be a
premature selection of technologies before the completion of a full
system-wide analysis of the technologies required. DOE has a poor track
record for carrying out large scale construction and operation of such
projects without major cost and schedule overruns, and the Department
has not responded in a way to allay these concerns with regard to GNEP.
For these reasons and others, the Committee remains skeptical whether
the very substantial increases for GNEP are warranted at this time.
Given our country's abundant domestic coal resources, the Committee
believes that clean coal technologies should be part of the debate
about providing a clean, reliable, efficient, and affordable energy
supply. The Committee supports increases for the Fossil Energy office
to investigate and develop clean coal and carbon capture and
sequestration technologies, including the Clean Coal Power Initiative
and the FutureGen project. However, given the continued high price of
oil and natural gas, the Committee is disappointed that the FY 2008
budget once again proposes to eliminate all oil and gas R&D, including
$50 million authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)
for unconventional on-shore and off-shore natural gas exploration
technologies that would go largely to small, independent oil and gas
producers.
The FY 2008 budget proposes $8.4 million to fund the Office of Loan
Guarantees, which will administer the Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program (LGP), also established in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58). The request assumes a loan volume of $9 billion for
large electric power generation projects, such as advanced nuclear and
coal gasification with carbon sequestration programs that promote
biofuels and clean transportation fuels, and new technologies in
electricity transmission and renewable power systems. The Committee
supports the LGP as a tool to help commercialize technologies that will
result in significant reductions in carbon emissions. However, given
the Department's poor track record with loan guarantees, in order to
minimize liability for the Federal Government (and consequently,
taxpayers), the Committee strongly urges DOE to act in a timely manner
to develop regulations for the program that have been fully vetted in a
public, merit-based prioritization process.
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E)
Finally, the Committee believes that many R&D programs within DOE
are often not well-suited to respond to the rapidly changing world of
energy technology development, and greater collaboration with U.S.
industry and academia could reap unprecedented benefits in this field.
Therefore, the Committee intends to move legislation that establishes
within the Department a new research and technology development agency
known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.
The 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences, entitled Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, recommended establishing ARPA-E to
coordinate high-risk, high-payoff energy technology research and
development that private industry is not likely to pursue on its own.
ARPA-E would be modeled on the successful DARPA program within the
Department of Defense. Given the scale of the energy challenges facing
our nation, ARPA-E would only be effective if funded at levels that
allow for potentially transformational energy research.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The President's FY 2008 budget request for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is $3.96 billion, 2.7 percent below
the FY 2007 appropriated funding. The President's budget requests for
NOAA routinely exclude funding for a wide array of Congressionally-
mandated projects, and some of this funding is redirected to
Presidential priorities. However, in FY 2008, much of this funding is
simply cut from the NOAA budget resulting in a lower funding request
for NOAA.
National Weather Service (NWS)
The National Weather Service (NWS) is the only line office that
receives an increase in the President's FY 2008 request for NOAA. The
FY 2008 request for NWS is 6.5 percent higher than the 2006 enacted
levels. The increase for the Tsunami Warning Network ($17.2 million)
includes funds to repair one of the weather data buoys that add to the
enhanced real-time hurricane observations and storm monitoring as well
as complete the 39 DART buoy network system.
The completion of the Tsunami detection network expands NWS's
operational capabilities. However, the Committee is concerned that this
is the only area where the Administration proposes to make an
investment in improved forecasting to protect life and property.
Further, the Committee is concerned that this increase may not be
sufficient to fully cover all operational and maintenance requirements
for current weather forecasting equipment, especially if the country
experiences a year with high frequency of severe weather events and
hurricanes that result in damage or loss to weather monitoring and
forecasting equipment. The Committee believes that this level of
funding will not enable NWS to move new monitoring and forecasting
equipment from research to fully operational mode.
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
The President's FY 2008 budget request would increase the overall
budget for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service (NESDIS) by three percent ($26 million). The budget for NESDIS
is dominated by the procurement, acquisitions, and construction (PAC)
accounts for the polar and geostationary satellite systems. The
Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account for NESDIS contains
the programmatic funding for management, processing, analyzing, and
archiving data received from all of NOAA's weather monitoring
equipment--ground-based and space-based. This account also supports a
number of regional climate centers. The Committee notes with concern
that the FY 2008 request for these accounts is $20 million below the FY
2007 enacted levels.
The FY 2008 request also eliminates $4 million in funding for NOAA-
NASA Partnerships to facilitate the transfer of research to operations.
The Data Centers and Information Services accounts are reduced by $18
million from the FY 2007 enacted levels. While funding for these
programs is small relative to the procurement of satellite systems,
funding for data analyses, processing, management, and archiving is
essential to obtain value from the large investments made in the
satellites that gather and transmit data to support weather forecasting
and climate prediction.
NOAA operates two satellite systems that collect data for weather
forecasting. The polar satellites orbit the Earth and provide
information for medium to long-range weather forecasts. The
geostationary satellites gather data above a fixed position on the
Earth's surface and provide information for short-range warnings and
current weather conditions. Both of these systems are scheduled for
replacement, and both new satellite series must be launched by 2014.
Based on investigation by the Committee and others, the polar
satellite program has been found to have experienced serious problems
including equipment damage, cost overruns, technical difficulties in
development of new sensors, and poor management. The planned request
for the last satellite in the current polar series POES in FY 2008 was
$62 million. However, the actual FY 2008 request is $43 million above
the original estimate. According to the Administration, the extra funds
would cover rebuilding costs and storage costs for the N-Prime
satellite damaged at the factory in 2003, support for testing of a
European satellite, installation of NOAA instrumentation on a European
satellite, and to restore N-Prime funding that was re-directed to POES-
N due to an unplanned delay in the launch of the POES-N satellite.
The Committee is very concerned that the procurement program for
the new series of polar satellites, the National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), is now projected
to cost in excess of $4 billion above the original estimated cost, and
that the FY 2008 budget request does not reflect the increased cost of
this program. This satellite series was also supposed to provide
continuity for a number of measurements required for the Nation's Earth
sciences program. However, the Committee is concerned that neither the
NOAA budget nor the NASA budget includes any funding to restore
capabilities of the instrumentation eliminated from the NPOESS program
in the restructuring of this program. As reported to the Committee,
most recently in February of this year, climate change is occurring,
and it may have a significant impact on weather and climate patterns
across the Nation. At a time when our country needs additional
information to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of climate change,
we have no identified funding to sustain the basic monitoring system
that now provides this critical information.
The current series of Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES-N, O and P) are nearing completion. GOES-N was
launched in May 2006, and the FY 2008 request of $80.4 million will
support the continued development, procurement and launch of the
remaining GOES satellites scheduled for April 2007 and October 2008.
The Committee learned in 2006 that the estimate for the new GOES series
of satellites--GOES-R--was projected to be $5 billion higher than the
original estimate. NOAA is now restructuring and designing this program
to achieve cost reductions, but the cost savings again will be achieved
by reducing the number of satellites in the series as well as reducing
the capabilities of the satellites. The Committee continues to have
serious concerns about the development of these new satellite series
both in terms of meeting our need for continuity of weather and climate
data and in terms of the present and future impacts on the NOAA budget.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research contains over half
of the research programs at NOAA. The President's FY 2008 budget
reduces funding for this research by nearly $11 million (three percent)
below the FY 2007 enacted levels. The President's FY 2008 budget
increases funding for Climate Research by $23 million (13.5 percent);
most of this increase is accomplished by redirection of funds from
Congressionally-mandated projects.
The Presidential-appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released
a report in 2004 (An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century) recommending
doubling the federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next
five years. However, no Presidential budget proposal since the report
was issued has included substantial increases in ocean research funding
at NOAA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The FY 2008 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is $7.2 billion, $800 million less than the FY 2007
appropriation. The FY 2008 budget proposal for EPA's Science and
Technology programs is $781 million. This includes $754 million in the
Science and Technology program account plus a transfer of $26 million
from the Superfund account to support Superfund-related research.
However, starting with the FY 2007 budget request, the Administration
instituted an accounting change and transferred the cost of operations
and maintenance of all S&T facilities from the Environmental Program
and Management account to the S&T account. When this transfer is
accounted for, the actual FY 2008 S&T program request is reduced by $65
million to $716 million, an $81 million reduction below FY 2007 enacted
funding levels.
The Committee notes that EPA's Science Advisory Board reviews EPA's
Science and Technology budget request each year, and since FY 2005, the
Board's reports have indicated concerns about the erosion of EPA's
budget for S&T. The Board's review of the FY 2007 budget proposal
stated: ``The erosion of research and development remains a serious
impediment to the Agency's ability to meet its mission of protecting
human health and the environment through science-based initiatives.
This fall-off in the development of scientific knowledge will
increasingly have international competitiveness dimensions as we lag
our competitors in developing new technologies using new approaches. It
is the opinion of the Board that EPA's research and development
resources are grossly inadequate to address the scientific complexities
of the Nation's environmental protection needs'' (EPA-SAB-ADV-06-003).
The Committee agrees that our country must have a more robust
investment in environmental research and development if we are to
maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
National Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-biomedical
research conducted at colleges and universities, including 86 percent
of funding for computer sciences, 77 percent of funding for
mathematical sciences, 54 percent of funding for environmental
sciences, 46 percent of funding for engineering, 40 percent of funding
for the physical sciences, and 52 percent of funding for social and
behavioral sciences. In addition, since its founding in 1950, NSF has
maintained effective programs for improving science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels. NSF's
funding of basic research across nearly all fields of science and
engineering and its education programs to prepare the next generation
of scientists and engineers, as well as to increase the scientific and
technical literacy of all Americans, provide the underpinnings for
assuring future U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.
NSF continues to receive high marks for the effective management of
its programs. The agency received its ninth consecutive ``clean''
opinion from an independent audit of its financial statements, with no
material weaknesses reported. In addition, NSF is among a handful of
agencies that have maintained ``Green'' successful ratings in four or
more of the President's Management Agenda initiatives, and all NSF
programs evaluated to date by the Office of Management and Budget's
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) are among the 15 percent
government-wide that have received the highest rating.
Because of NSF's key roles in science and engineering research and
education, there have been many calls to double the NSF budget. The
President's American Competitiveness Agenda announced last year also
proposes to double the NSF budget over ten years. The President's FY
2008 budget request would provide the second installment for achieving
the Administration's goal by providing $6.4 billion for NSF, which is
$409 million, or 6.8 percent above the FY 2007 request, and $513
million, or 8.7 percent above the FY 2007 continuing resolution.
However, funding proposed in FY 2008 would still fall far below the
level authorized by the National Science Foundation Authorization Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-368).
While the Committee welcomes the Administration's proposal to
increase NSF funding, the proposal falls short by failing to include
growth for the NSF K-12 STEM education programs. In fact, from FY 2004
through FY 2007, funding for the NSF K-12 STEM education programs has
fallen by 47 percent. Under the FY 2008 request, K-12 STEM education
funding would remain flat. The Committee believes resources devoted to
this area are inadequate in light of the importance of ensuring a well
educated STEM workforce.
Since 1950, NSF has been tasked with strengthening STEM education
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 educational materials
and assessments, create better teacher training techniques, and move
promising ideas from research to practice. To take advantage of the
expertise and experience of NSF in STEM education, the Committee
intends to move legislation this year to implement several initiatives
developed during the previous Congress that will modify and enlarge
existing NSF programs focused on teacher training and in-service
teacher professional development. These provisions arose from the
recommendations of a recent report of the National Academy of Sciences,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
The NAS report, prepared by a panel of distinguished scientists,
engineers and educators from academia and industry, recommended a
series of action items that the panel found to be keys for ensuring the
Nation's economic competitiveness in the 21st century. The first and
highest priority action item of the report is to increase substantially
the number of STEM teachers who are well grounded in their subjects and
skilled in pedagogical techniques for teaching science and math. This
is the centerpiece provision of H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million
Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act, which the Committee will take
up early this year and which is one of several legislative measures to
advance competitiveness and innovation that are expected to be
considered by the full House of Representatives.
The Committee recommends that the NSF Education and Human Resources
Directorate receive additional funding to expand and revise the NSF
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, which will support efforts by
colleges and universities to improve the education of STEM teachers and
will provide scholarships for science, math, or engineering students
who enter the program, take courses needed to become certified as
teachers, and agree to teach for two years for each year of scholarship
support.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA's FY 2008 budget request is $17.3 billion, approximately $690
million less than the amount stipulated for FY 2008 in the FY 2005
five-year budget plan that accompanied the President's Vision for Space
Exploration (VSE). That shortfall replicates the practice in each of
the previous two years--in FY 2006 the Administration's request was
$546 million less than pledged in the President's VSE five-year budget
plan; in FY 2007, the request was $1.02 billion less. The Committee is
very concerned about the cumulative effects of these budgetary
shortfalls, which, coupled with the Office of Management and Budget
under-budgeting for the costs of Space Shuttle and the International
Space Station (ISS) in that same five-year budget plan, create strains
and stresses that are visible in all of the Agency's programs.
The Committee notes with concern that the FY 2008 budget request
for the Exploration Initiative does not adequately account for what
will be needed in FY 2008 to keep the Constellation program--which
funds development of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Ares
Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV)--on track to be operational in 2014. The FY
2007 budget request shifted almost $7 billion to the Constellation
program relative to the previous year's five-year budget plan, but the
result of that action has been a ``hollowing out'' of much of the rest
of the Exploration Initiative, including cuts to exploration-related
technology R&D and to ISS research funding. And, in spite of the $7
billion infusion into Constellation, the operational date for the CEV
remains at 2014. Moreover, all of NASA's human space flight programs
have been given funding ``challenges'' in the budget request which will
force the Agency to make additional cuts to pay for needed replacement
spacecraft for its TDRSS data relay satellite system and for crew-cargo
support of the ISS.
The Committee also continues to be concerned about proposed funding
for Aeronautics programs. In the FY 2008 budget request, Aeronautics
remains at a level that is less than a third of the funding provided in
1994--and significantly lower than the FY 2001 budget level. As a
result, many aviation experts are worried about NASA's ability to
continue supporting critical interagency research goals in air traffic
management and aviation safety. NASA is a major participant in the
interagency initiative to develop the next generation air traffic
management system, and its R&D will be critically important to that
effort. The interagency initiative assumes NASA will be given the
resources necessary to carry out its R&D tasks.
In addition, the reductions in NASA's aeronautics budget have led
to a situation where all but a small fraction of NASA's aeronautics
funding is dedicated to in-house activities, with little money
available to support R&D conducted in partnership with universities and
industry. The Committee notes that this is likely to result in a
diminution of new and innovative research concepts from academia as
well as a reduction in the relevance of NASA's research to the needs of
the aviation industry.
The Committee also is aware that NASA's science programs are facing
significant stresses. Roughly $4 billion was removed from the five-year
budget plan for NASA's science programs over the last two years,
resulting in significant disruptions. The FY 2008 budget request and
its five-year run-out for the Earth Sciences program contain
insufficient funds to undertake the missions recommended in the
recently released National Academy of Sciences decadal strategy for
Earth science research and applications. Even currently planned
missions continue to suffer delays. The Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM) mission, originally scheduled for a 2007 launch, will
now not fly before 2013. A similar situation can be seen in NASA's
astrophysics program, which is projected to face a decline in funding
of $300 million between FY 2008 and 2011. Finally, funding for NASA's
education programs is projected to decline over the next five years
from the FY 2007 request level.
The Committee believes that NASA's space and aeronautics programs
represent some of the Nation's most rigorous R&D initiatives. As such,
they can inspire our young people, advance our understanding of the
universe as well as our home planet Earth, and they can generate
technological advances that will benefit both our quality of life and
our economic competitiveness. That will only be possible with a
balanced NASA program of science, aeronautics, and human space flight
and exploration. If NASA is to be successful in carrying out the tasks
it has been given by the White House and Congress, it is going to need
resources commensurate with those tasks. Thus, the Committee believes
that NASA should receive funding in FY 2008 closer to the level
authorized in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) than to
the level contained in the President's FY 2008 budget request.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The FY 2008 budget request for the Federal Aviation
Administration's R&D programs contains a modest increase, with the
projection of additional increases over the next five years. The
Committee believes that the need for such R&D expenditures is clear,
given the important role FAA R&D will play in promoting aviation safety
and increased air transportation capacity and efficiency, as well as
enabling informed international agreements on noise, emissions, and
other environmental issues. For example, the FAA is the lead agency in
the interagency effort to develop the next generation air traffic
management system, and the success of that initiative will be dependent
on the FAA receiving the resources needed to develop and implement the
components of the next generation system. The Committee believes that
FAA's R&D programs should receive no less than the President's FY 2008
budget request, and consideration should be given to augmenting the
request if additional funds are available.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the
Nation's oldest federal laboratory, with a mission to use measurement
science, standards, and technology to enhance economic competitiveness
and public safety. NIST's wide range of high-quality programs in
support of U.S. industry puts it in an excellent position to play a key
role in advancing American innovation and competitiveness.
The Committee notes that Congress has long been a supporter of the
NIST lab programs, whose budget has increased by 130 percent in the
past 15 years. Congress also has recognized the value of NIST's
extramural programs by providing funding to maintain the existing
national network of Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) centers
and a viable Advanced Technology Program (ATP).
The Administration's FY 2008 budget request proposes a four percent
cut for NIST, compared to the FY 2007 appropriations level. The
Committee feels this is the wrong decision for an agency with such a
direct impact on the public welfare and economic competitiveness. While
the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) proposes
doubling the NIST lab accounts, it does so at the expense of the ATP
and MEP. The President proposes to cut the MEP by 56 percent and to
eliminate the ATP altogether.
The Committee believes that the public's investment in NIST has
paid significant dividends to the Nation, and that overall NIST funding
should be put on a path to double over the next ten years. However,
what is needed is a balanced approach, which includes funding for the
ATP, MEP, NIST labs, and construction, particularly at the Boulder, CO
campus. The Committee believes that the Administration's repeated
efforts to eliminate the ATP and dramatically reduce funding for the
MEP are misguided. Both programs are proven public/private partnerships
that have delivered significant returns on investment. For example, a
recent survey of just a quarter of MEP clients reported over $1.3
billion in cost savings directly attributed to the program's assistance
as well as the creation of $6.3 billion in new or retained sales and
more than 53,000 jobs. Congress has expressed its strong support for
these programs on multiple occasions, and the Committee will continue
to support them.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Committee oversees surface transportation research and
development (R&D) activities at the Department of Transportation (DOT).
These activities are managed by several administrations within DOT,
including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). The Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) is responsible for coordinating research
portfolios across the Department. The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) is also a component of RITA.
While the Administration requested a.$4.3 million increase over the
FY 2007 appropriated funding level of $7.7 million for RITA, the
Committee is concerned that the requested increase will not support the
emerging research priorities identified by the recently released
Transportation Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan.
Less than 10 percent of the total requested funding for RITA will go
towards supporting R&D, and less than half of the requested funding
will support coordination of DOT research activities. Five million
dollars, an amount totaling more than the requested increase, is
proposed for a nationwide global positioning system (GPS) system that
will be developed on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which is
part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the Committee
understands the need for technological expertise in developing
important global positioning capabilities, important priorities
identified in the strategic plan are left unfunded in this request. The
Committee has not seen any justification for requiring RITA to perform
this R&D, which may be more appropriately housed in the U.S. Coast
Guard. The Committee believes more emphasis should be given to research
coordination that supports energy efficiency, congestion reduction, and
safety as emphasized in the RITA strategic plan.
In addition to those research priorities identified by RITA, the
Committee urges that current research into intelligent transportation
systems, materials technology, and other fields be leveraged to support
enhanced mobility and energy efficiency. FTA's Research and University
Research Centers account supports research and development related to
public transit, training programs, and university research. The
Committee is pleased that FTA's multi-year research program plan
includes improving the accessibility of transit and improving safety
and security while considering the needs of the mobility-impaired
population. The Committee is concerned that FTA will be limited in its
ability to carry out needed research under the proposed FY 2008 budget,
however, which is cut by six percent compared to FY 2007. The Committee
recommends that funding for Research and University Research Centers be
increased to the level authorized in SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59).
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Committee oversees the R&D activities of the Department of
Homeland Security, which are primarily housed in the Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO). The Committee is pleased that the Administration requested a 17
percent increase in funding for DNDO, but is concerned that the
requested funding for the S&T Directorate is cut by over $90 million
(9.4 percent) from FY 2007. The requested cut to R&D activities within
the S&T Directorate severely hampers the Department's ability to
prevent or mitigate the effects of natural and manmade disasters
through the use of advanced technology.
The Committee remains concerned that DHS lacks balance between
long- and short-term research and between its various R&D missions.
While the Committee is pleased that the proportion of requested funding
designated for basic research has more than doubled from approximately
five percent in FY 2007 to approximately 13 percent in FY 2008, the
Department's R&D portfolio (including both S&T and DNDO) remains
strongly weighted towards end-stage technology development with little
focus on basic research. Moreover, the proposed cuts to the University
Centers of Excellence program will further reduce the Department's
investment in basic research. This funding also will be further diluted
by the Administration's proposal to create additional Centers. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that funding for emergent and
prototypical technologies also remains low. Emphasizing short-term
research makes the Department significantly less agile and responsive,
and locks the country into a single technological response to emerging
and future threats.
In addition, DHS is not properly balancing its research portfolio
among R&D divisions. The Department's highest priorities in the FY 2008
budget request are nuclear detection and biological research. Although
these may be important areas for research, the Committee has yet to see
any formal risk assessment justifying this prioritization. The
Committee is concerned that DHS is not making the necessary investments
in explosives detection, cyber security, infrastructure protection, and
border security technologies. A formal risk assessment and strategic
plan is essential to ensure that the Department's resources are able to
address both short- and long-term risks to the Nation, and DHS is
overdue in submitting a report that will make certain that priorities
are coordinated with a risk assessment. In addition, homeland security-
related research is supported by a number of agencies, including the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) and others.
The Committee is concerned that DHS has not leveraged these resources
to their maximum benefit.
Finally, While the Department has a plan to improve responsiveness
to customers, the Committee is concerned that research supported by S&T
and DNDO ignores the needs of State and local government officials.
Recent technologies developed and tested by the Department, including
the counter-MANPADS system and nuclear material detection technology,
have been unattractive to State and local users because of their high
purchase and maintenance costs. The Committee strongly recommends a
formal structure for processing the requests of and comments from State
and local governments to ensure that technology coming out of DHS meets
their performance and cost needs.
The United States Fire Administration (USFA)
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), 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 FY 2008 budget request for USFA
is $43.3 million, a 7.5 percent decrease over the FY 2007 enacted
level. This is well below the level authorized ($68.8 million) in the
United States Fire Administration Reauthorization and Firefighting
Research Coordination Law (P.L. 108-169).
The Assistance to Firefighters Grants program provides direct
assistance to local fire departments for training, purchase of
equipment, and other purposes. The FY 2008 budget request is $300
million for the fire grant program. This is a $362 million cut from the
FY 2007 enacted level (a reduction of 55 percent), and $700 million
less than is authorized P.L. 108-375, which included the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program reauthorization. In addition, the
Administration has requested no funds for the Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program, which awards grants to
fire departments for the purpose of hiring new firefighters. SAFER
(P.L. 108-360) is authorized at $1.13 billion in FY 2008 and received
an appropriation of $109 million in FY 2007. The Committee believes
that both these important programs should receive higher funding, and
that the Administration does riot recognize the effectiveness and
importance of these programs.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is an
interagency program that Congress created in 1977 and reauthorized in
2004 in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Reauthorization Act (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.
Funding for this program is authorized through FY 2009 at the
following levels: FEMA, $23 million; NIST $13.3 million; NSF $41.52
million; and USGS $87.4 million. The complete NEHRP budget request for
FY 2008 is not yet available; however, past Administration requests for
this program have been lower than the amounts authorized. The Committee
believes that, given the potential for catastrophic damage from
earthquakes in this country, the NEHRP program should be adequately
funded.
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP)
The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (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 the impact of wind hazards
on lives and property through atmospheric research, code development,
and creation of risk assessment tools. The participating agencies
include NSF, NIST, FEMA, and NOAA.
Funding explicitly designated for NWIRP is not included in any of
the participating agencies' budget requests for FY 2008, 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.
List of Signatures
Representative Bart Gordon
Representative Brian Baird
Representative Nick Lampson
Representative Daniel Lipinski
Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Representative Charlie Melancon
Representative Jerry McNerney
Representative Mike Ross
Representative Baron P. Hill
Representative Charles A. Wilson
Representative Mark Udall
Representative Brad Miller
Representative Michael M. Honda
Representative Russ Carnahan
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Representative Ben Chandler
Representative Jim Matheson
Representative David Wu
Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Representative Darlene Hooley
Representative Steven R. Rothman
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
Representative Paul E. Kanjorski
Representative Jerry F. Costello
Minority Views and Estimates
Committee on Science and Technology
Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08)
We are mindful that the Nation is in tight budget times, and we
applaud the President for putting forward a budget that reduces the
deficit and keeps America on track to balance the budget by 2012. We
are pleased to see that the President understands the importance of
research and development to our nation's security and competitiveness
and has responded by increasing federal research and development
spending in the FY08 budget request by $3.5 billion, a three percent
increase over the FY07 estimate. Within this overall budget, the
President has substantially increased physical science and engineering
research as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
Department of Energy (DOE)
We are pleased to see that the Department of Energy's Office of
Science received a seven percent increase over the FY07 request. This
increase is consistent with the President's ACI, and will help America
develop technologies to foster energy independence. Likewise, we are
pleased that the budget continues to support the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) as a way to reduce the volume and toxicity of
nuclear waste, and significantly increase the energy extracted from
existing supplies of uranium. The Committee conducted three hearings on
GNEP during the Republican-controlled 109th Congress, and we continue
to believe that DOE could improve public and Congressional support for
GNEP by conducting a comprehensive systems analysis of the advanced
fuel cycle and its associated research facility needs.
We would like to note that the DOE Office of Science is making
progress to balance its budget between core research and facilities and
we understand the hard decisions that have to be made in maintaining
this delicate balance. The DOE Office of Science.plays an important
part in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative and we
support the 19.8 percent increase over the FY 2006 appropriated level.
We would particularly like to echo the disappointment that the
majority has for the Administration's recommendation that the Petroleum
Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies research and development
programs be terminated as well as its recommendation that the Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research
Fund be repealed. In light of the fact that our country relies on
fossil fuels for about 85 percent of the energy it consumes, it makes
sense to continue funding R&D programs that will help us become more
dependent on domestic sources of oil and gas rather than on foreign
sources.
We would also like to highlight our agreement with the majority in
their belief that clean coal technologies play an important role in our
energy portfolio. We would like to reiterate coal's importance as a
domestically abundant, low-cost fuel source, and are fully supportive
of the increases in DOE's Office of Fossil Energy for coal related
activities.
We would once again be supportive of a study on the establishment
of an ARPA-E as was included in H.R. 6203 from the 109th Congress. A
study would allow us to evaluate the program and inform the process of
moving forward on the program.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
As made clear in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155),
the Committee, sought to enable NASA to thrive as a multi-mission
agency with robust activities in human exploration of space, space
science, Earth science and aeronautics. For FY08, the Act authorized
$18.7 billion for NASA to achieve these and other space-related
programs. The Act also authorized the Administration's plan to return
humans to the Moon, while at the same time completing the International
Space Station, retiring the aging Space Shuttle in 2010, and developing
new crew and cargo systems by 2014 to launch Americans beyond low-Earth
orbit.
The current budget request seeks $17.309 billion for NASA in FY08;
substantially less than amounts authorized. Compared to the FY07 budget
request, NASA is slated to receive a 3.1 percent increase, but the
Committee notes that the FY07 appropriation was $545.3 million below
the request.
The Committee is concerned that NASA's current request, together
with reductions in FY07 appropriations, may jeopardize NASA's ability
to successfully accomplish its portfolio of missions, and is especially
threatening to our manned space flight capabilities.
Much of the $545 million FY07 reduction comes from the Exploration
Systems account that funds the development of the new Orion crew
exploration vehicle and Ares launch systems. At a minimum, NASA
anticipates a four year gap between the time the Shuttle is retired and
first flight of the new Orion crew vehicle. Left unaddressed, the FY07
reduction may extend this gap, making our nation reliant on other
countries to fly Americans into space. We find these delays
unacceptable.
The Committee recognizes that many other countries are making rapid
advances is space technology and that it is strategically important for
the United States to remain a leader in continued, safe manned access
to space. The funding shortfalls in Exploration Systems programs will
need to be restored over the coming years to ensure the successful
development of the Orion crew exploration vehicle and Ares launch
vehicle, as well as manage a smooth transition of NASA's industrial
base and skilled workforce.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
FAA faces huge challenges researching, developing and deploying a
next generation air traffic management system that will provide three
times current capacity by 2025. Much of this work will be coordinated
with the Joint Planning and Development Office, a collaborative effort
with other federal departments and agencies.
While we support the Administration's FY08 request, we believe
significantly greater R&D funding should be provided in future years to
ensure successful and timely deployment of this vitally important
system. Otherwise, our nation's airways will become gridlocked.
The request for FAA's Office Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation (AST) is $12.8 million, an increase of $1.2
million over FY07 funding. The Committee continues to monitor licensing
and regulation activities, and implementation of the Commercial Space
Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-492) to ensure AST does not
over-burden the emerging commercial space industry.
Department of Commerce--Technology Administration/National Institute of
Standards and Technology (TA/NIST)
We strongly support the President's request of $501 million for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) laboratory
accounts, a $68 million (16 percent) increase over the FY07 enacted
level. We also support the President's request of $94 million for
NIST's construction account, which is $35 million (59 percent) more
than the FY07 request. This funding is central to NIST's contribution
to the President's ACI and will support NIST's consistently high-
quality, cutting-edge research in a wide range of scientific and
technical fields critical to U.S. industry.
However, we are disappointed with the President's request of only
$46 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
This would cut the program by 56 percent from the $106 million
appropriated in FY07, 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.
Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
The majority's views and estimates for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) compares the FY08 request to the FY07
enacted level. The FY07 Continuing Resolution provided a total
appropriation ($3.9 billion) for NOAA, but did not specify how NOAA
should distribute that money in FY07. NOAA will submit a detailed
spending plan to Congress, but until that plan is complete, we believe
it is premature to assess how specific offices or programs at NOAA will
fare under the FY07 enacted levels. Thus, we use the FY07 request as
the basis for our comparison.
We support the FY08 budget request for NOAA of $3.8 billion, a $131
million (four percent) increase over the FY07 request. Given the
current budget climate we believe this is a reasonable request for
NOAA. However, we remain very concerned about cost overruns and
technical challenges in NOAA's two weather satellite programs, the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
(GOES). Both programs will face major decision points and technical
milestones in FY07 and FY08 and we intend to follow closely the
progress made on these vital systems.
We strongly support the President's request of $903 million for the
National Weather Service, a $21 million (two percent) increase over the
FY07 request. This includes $2 million for research on hurricane
intensity, a new research initiative for FY08 that will improve and
provide better hurricane predictions information for at-risk
communities.
We support NOAA's request for $30 million for satellite data
product processing and distribution, and $28 million for satellite
product development, readiness and application. Our nation's multi-
billion dollar investment in building and launching satellites pays off
when the data from those satellites results in improved weather
forecasts. 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.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
In keeping with the plan outlined in the ACI to double funding for
research at NSF over the next 10 years, the FY08 budget request for NSF
is $6.4 billion, an increase of 6.8 percent, or $409 million over the
FY07 request. We are pleased to see the increases spread across all of
the research fields NSF supports. We also recognize that while the $751
million request for NSF education programs is a significant improvement
(4.8 percent above the FY07 request), it is still nearly nine percent
below the FY04 appropriated level, and the K-12 education funding
within Education and Human Resources (EHR) is flat. Due to NSF's well-
established role in preparing the future innovative workforce, we are
disappointed that competitiveness funding increases at NSF have not
included EHR. The minority endorses the proposed overall budget level
proposed for NSF, while acknowledging that even with the proposed
increases, funding still lags behind the levels authorized in the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368).
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
We continue to practice close oversight of the research and
development programs of the Department of Homeland Security and are
pleased with the overhaul of the Department's Science and Technology
Directorate over the past year to better align research programs with
specific needs. However, we note that the budget request for S&T
includes an $83.1 million reduction in addition to transfers of $90.1
million. This reduction will hamper the Department's efforts within the
Infrastructure and Geophysical research office to provide community-
based infrastructure assessments and advanced first responder
technologies. We also remain concerned about the Directorate's ability
to fully leverage university research communities, particularly given
proposed reductions to the Centers of Excellence. We urge that the S&T
Directorate be supported at least at an even level from FY 2007
funding.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REP. BOB INGLIS:
I am of the same mind as the Science Committee as to most of the
observations presented in the Views and Estimates, but I would like to
comment further on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). When
I was on the Budget Committee, we waged war against ``corporate
welfare.'' Many people attack MEP as the worst offenders and examples
of the saying, ``if you offer something for free, a line will form.''
However, the government can and should support certain types of
research and development, if (1) the technology faces barriers to
adoption in the market, and (2) the national interest overrides the
market's timing. Hydrogen is an excellent example of this. We need to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The costs and technological
barriers of a hydrogen, economy slow the rate of adoption. Therefore,
it is in our national interest to fund the research and development
(and especially basic research).
MEP can be a challenge to criticize because it impacts individuals
in a way that endears it to many people. Companies in my district have
taken advantage of this program. However, the government helping small
manufacturing firms to be more efficient cuts both ways. It champions
the little guy, but sounds an awful lot like a handout aimed at
specific types of businesses. I'm concerned that MEP is crowding out an
entire industry of small businesses and entrepreneurs that could be
providing consulting services to manufacturers. I support the
President's request to reduce funding to this marginal program in a
time where other initiatives deserve higher priority.
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2009
The President released his FY 2009 budget proposal on February 4,
2008. Overall, the $3.1 trillion budget request includes $147 billion
for R&D. Once again, the Committee, like the Congress as a whole, is
very concerned about our country's budget deficit and its impact on our
economic strength. However, the Committee also urges the Budget
Committee to recognize the contributions and benefits that research and
development and science and technology investments have for our
country's economic competitiveness, energy security, education
standards, job growth, and environmental health. In particular, the
Committee encourages the Budget Committee to use as guidelines the
funding levels included in two major authorizing bills signed into law
last year--the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140).
Last year, H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES) passed
the House of Representatives (367-57) and the Senate (by Unanimous
Consent) on August 2, 2007 and was signed into law by the President on
August 9, 2007. A response to the 2005 National Academies' report
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, COMPETES seeks to ensure U.S.
students, teachers, businesses, and workers are prepared to continue
leading the world in innovation, research, and technology. The law
implements recommendations from the Gathering Storm report, and
specifically:
Authorizes $33.6 billion over fiscal years 2008-2010
for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
research and education programs across the Federal Government;
Keeps research programs at NSF, NIST and the DOE
Office of Science on a near-term doubling path;
Helps to prepare new teachers and helps current
teachers improve their skills through NSF's Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program and Math and Science Partnerships Program;
Creates the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) at
NIST (replacing the existing Advanced Technology Program or
ATP) to fund high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology
development at small entrepreneurial firms with high potential
for public benefit;
Puts the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP),
which provides cost-shared technical assistance to small
manufacturers to modernize their operations, on a path to
doubling over 10 years; and
Establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for
Energy (ARPA-E), a nimble and semi-autonomous research agency
at the Department of Energy to engage in high-risk, high reward
energy research.
The FY 2009 budget request proposes funding increases for physical
sciences research programs as part of the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI), many of which are consistent with increases
authorized in COMPETES. However, the Administration's budget ignores or
neglects several core areas of COMPETES, including math and science
education activities at NSF, manufacturing and technology stimulus
programs at NIST, and important energy programs including ARPA-E. The
Committee asks the Budget Committee to reject these cuts proposed by
the Administration and include funding for these important COMPETES
programs.
In addition, this year, the Committee plans to move reauthorizing
legislation in several areas within the Committee's jurisdiction, which
will set appropriate funding levels (where applicable) for agencies and
programs and make necessary programmatic changes. These authorizations
include:
NASA;
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program;
U.S. Fire Administration; and
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a multi-
agency program to ensure U.S. leadership in nanotechnology
involving NSF, NIST, DOE, DHS, DOT, EPA, and NASA, among other
agencies.
The following is a more detailed analysis of the Committee's budget
priorities, by Subcommittee and agency. In addition, the Committee has
provided a section on Oversight of Government Performance, as required
by Sec. 207(e) of S.Con.Res. 21 (the FY 2008 Budget Resolution).
Additional charts also are attached showing each agency's FY 2009
budget request compared to FY 2008 appropriations and authorized levels
if available.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over all Department of Energy
civilian national laboratories, civilian energy research, development
and demonstration programs, and activities related to the commercial
application of energy technologies.
The Committee recognizes there are many important programs at the
Department of Energy that are essential to ensuring our ability to
harness and utilize energy from diverse sources now and into the
future. The Committee believes our energy research and development
programs must include a continuum of investments from long-term basic
energy research through to demonstration and testing of promising new
technologies to expedite their acceptance into the marketplace.
Office of Science
Basic research plays a critical role in enhancing our nation's
competitiveness, and the Committee believes the FY 2009 budget for the
DOE Office of Science of $4.7 billion is a step forward in addressing
our near- and long-term needs. The request represents an increase of
approximately $700 million or 18 percent over the appropriated FY 2008
level. The Committee believes strong support for basic energy research
is needed to achieve major breakthroughs in technologies that will
enable our country to secure the energy supplies we need for the future
while addressing the challenges of climate change. In addition, basic
research in energy sciences supports the education and development of
scientists and engineers in a wide array of key areas such as
mathematics, computer sciences, and advanced material sciences.
The Office of Science has maintained a long-standing role as
steward of large world-class scientific user facilities. However, the
Committee is concerned that the expertise to construct and manage these
facilities may diminish over the next several years with a wave of
imminent retirements. There does not appear to be a significant effort
to make it easier to bring in top talent and pass on institutional
knowledge in a timely fashion, and so the Committee encourages a review
of recruiting and hiring practices to ensure a free-flowing pipeline of
such talent in the near future. The Committee appreciates the increased
facilities operation hours proposed in the Basic Energy Sciences and
Nuclear Physics programs, and continues to support optimal utilization
of current facilities even as new facilities are planned.
The Committee fully supports a restoration of funding for the U.S.
contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) fusion project and research towards a proposed International
Linear Collider (ILC). The Committee recognizes that the international
agreement approved by Congress for ITER went into force in October
2007, and withdrawal of the U.S. from ITER in violation of this
agreement would result in a penalty of--500 million (approximately $750
million). In addition, the credibility of the United States as a
reliable partner in large international research projects will be
significantly undermined if corrective actions are not taken.
The Committee recognizes that while no formal international
agreement currently exists for the ILC, research towards this project
is closely coordinated among the U.S., Europe, and Asia. The Committee
also supports the High Energy Physics program moving forward with the
planned neutrino experiment at Fermilab and the University of Minnesota
until a final decision on the level of U.S. participation in the ILC is
made.
The Committee supports the FY 2009 request for the Basic Energy
Sciences program of $298 million above the FY 2008 enacted level. The
Committee is pleased that the Basic Energy Sciences program is
following up on its recent applications-driven workshops with specific
research programs acting on their consolidated recommendations,
including programs in electrical energy storage, carbon sequestration,
and solar energy.
In addition, the Committee supports the Administration's request
for increases in the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) and
the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs. The proposed
increase for the ASCR program increase is five percent over the FY 2008
enacted levels. This program supports a wide variety of research
activities throughout the Department as well as research activities of
other federal agencies, in the extramural research community, and in
the private sector. The requested increase of four percent over FY 2008
enacted levels for BER will enable the Department to further fund the
three Bioenergy Research Centers designated in 2007, and in particular,
to accelerate research on cellulosic biomass energy conversion and
other improvements in bioenergy production. The Committee supports this
increase.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
In the push to discover new energy resources and technologies the
contribution of efficiency and conservation to the Nation's energy
portfolio is often overlooked and understated. This FY 2009
Administration budget request is no exception. The President's proposal
of $1.26 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program
at DOE represents a 27 percent cut from FY 2008 congressional
appropriations, with key energy efficiency programs bearing a large
brunt of the decreases.
However, the Committee is pleased that proposed funding for the
Geothermal Technology Program increased by $10 million to a total of
$30 million in FY 2009, but notes that this is still far short of the
$95 million authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (P.L. 110-140). The Committee strongly believes the proposed cuts
in funding for Solar Energy, Hydrogen, Industrial Technologies, and the
Weatherization Program are unjustified and unwise.
The proposed funding for the Solar Energy program would be
decreased by $12.4 million, a seven percent reduction, to a total of
$156.1 million in FY 2009, which is also $93.9 million below the level
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The
Committee also notes that the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (P.L. 110-140) specifically authorized an additional $7 million
for research in thermal energy storage for concentrating solar power
and $10 million for a solar energy workforce development program in FY
2009.
Heavy industry accounts for approximately one-third of energy use
in the U.S., and the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) at DOE has
maintained a long and successful history of developing technologies and
deploying them in industry, despite being funded at one-third of the
levels from as recently as FY 2000 ($175 million). The Department's own
web site states that ``ITP's efforts have resulted in over 160
technologies successfully reaching the marketplace, providing
significant economic and environmental impacts for the United States.''
The Committee believes that the Administration's request of $62 million
is inadequate to address the scale of challenges in industrial
efficiency, and reap the public benefits of advances in this area. To
restore this program, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-140) calls for $190 million in FY 2009, and the Committee
strongly recommends that the program be funded as close as possible to
this level.
The Committee believes the proposed budget for ``Water Power'' is
much too low. Research in marine and hydrokinetic energy was authorized
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 at a level of $50
million in FY 2009. The Administration's budget request provides $3
million for both conventional hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic
energy research. The Committee believes that a much higher level of
federal effort is needed to take advantage of this underdeveloped
renewable resource in an environmentally friendly manner.
The Committee feels strongly that advances in energy efficiency
technologies coupled with sound conservation practices offer the lowest
cost and easiest way to balance our national energy needs, and that the
Federal Government must play a leadership role in supporting both.
While the requested 13.5 percent increase in Building Technologies is
commendable, advances in this area are hindered if deployment programs
at the Department do not pick up where this vital research and
development leaves off. The proposal to zero out the Weatherization
program at DOE represents the most shortsighted of the Administration's
proposed cuts. And despite token increases, the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) remains chronically under-funded given its
charge of increasing the efficiency of the entire Federal Government.
If the pipeline for energy efficiency technologies and practices is to
continue to flow from the laboratory shelf to the marketplace,
deployment programs such as these must continue to receive strong
federal funding.
Fossil Energy
As underscored by the Committee's unanimous support for carbon
capture and sequestration research, development, and demonstration
legislation included in the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-140), the Committee is supportive of the increase requested
for Fossil Energy to develop more efficient coal-fired power plants and
advanced technologies for demonstrating integrated systems of carbon
capture and sequestration. The budget request for FY 2009 includes an
increase of 21 percent over the FY 2008 enacted funding for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative, FutureGen, and the Fuels and Power Systems
program. Because coal provides 50 percent of our nation's electric
power, the Committee believes it is critical that we make substantial
investments in clean coal technologies, especially in carbon capture
and sequestration to help reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases
associated with electric power production.
The Committee is concerned about the Department's recent
announcement that it intends to restructure the FutureGen program due
to projected cost increases in the program. First announced in 2003,
FutureGen was promoted as a near-zero-emissions power plant that would
combine electricity and hydrogen production. Congress has funded the
Administration's requests for this program through appropriations of
$174 million over the past five years. The Department's revised
FutureGen initiative will now focus on carbon capture and sequestration
technologies at multiple commercial sites being planned by private
interests. This proposal is intended to capitalize on industry's
investment in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) clean coal
power plants by providing the funds for the CCS component of the IGCC
power plants. The Committee recognizes the need to accelerate the
development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies and will
continue to monitor this program to ensure that it delivers the
capability we need in the most cost-effective and rapid time frame
possible.
The Committee is disappointed that once again the Administration
proposes to eliminate all oil and gas R&D, including the $50 million
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) for
unconventional onshore and offshore natural gas exploration
technologies that was primarily intended for small, independent oil and
gas producers.
Nuclear Energy
The Administration request for Nuclear Energy (NE) is $629.7 for
research and development with nearly half of that request dedicated to
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which is focused on implementing the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). For NE's Research and
Development programs, this represents approximately $191.7 million
above the FY 2008 enacted funding level ($438 million).
The United States has been conducting research on the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel since 2002 under the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI). In 2006, the Administration announced a change in
this program when it unveiled GNEP as its plan forward to develop
advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies that
would maximize the energy extracted from nuclear fuels and minimize
nuclear waste. The Committee notes that GNEP has drawn criticism based
on the substantial costs estimated for implementing the program and the
technical challenges associated with developing, demonstrating and
deploying advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that
do not separate plutonium. Last fall, the National Academies issued a
report expressing similar concerns. The FY 2009 request is $301.5
million, substantially higher than the FY 2008 enacted funding for GNEP
of $181 million. The Committee remains concerned about financial and
technical difficulties with implementing GNEP as currently proposed by
the Administration, but finds general research activities on a closed
nuclear fuel cycle to be worthwhile.
Although the FY 2009 budget request eliminates funding for the
University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance program, it
does include directions to Nuclear Energy, through its Energy Research
Initiative process, to designate at least 20 percent of the R&D
appropriated funds for purposes of supporting R&D activities at
university research institutions through competitive awards focused on
advancing nuclear energy technology. While the Committee is supportive
of this effort to help universities expand their R&D capabilities and
strengthen the nuclear science programs at institutions of higher
education, the Administration's proposal is not an adequate replacement
for the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance
program.
ARPA-E
On August 9, 2007 the President signed into law the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) which authorized the establishment of an
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. Like other
provisions in the COMPETES Act, this followed on the direct
recommendation of the National Academies' report, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, which called for an ARPA-E to fill the gap in the
existing energy programs by performing high-risk, high-reward R&D in
collaboration with the university and private sector. ARPA-E is
intended to be unique not only in the type of research it conducts, but
also in how it conducts that research.
The COMPETES Act calls for initial year funding of $300 million,
with such sums thereafter. The Gathering Storm report and other
legislative proposals in Congress called for subsequent years to be
funded at levels exceeding $1 billion. However, the Administration has
failed to request funding for this critical program. The establishment
of ARPA-E is a priority for the Committee, and we strongly encourage
funding for the initial year of this program at $300 million, with
expectations that full operations will eventually exceed $1 billion.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
The FY 2009 budget requests $19.9 million to administer the
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program established in Title XVII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The FY 2008 omnibus
appropriations bill included $38.5 billion for loan obligation
authority for FY 2008 and FY 2009. Within that authority, $18.5 was
designated for nuclear power facilities, $6 billion for coal-based
power generation and industrial gasification facilities, $2 billion for
advanced coal gasification projects, $10 billion for renewable and
efficiency projects and $2 billion for front end advanced nuclear
facilities. The Administration's FY 2009 request does not seek
additional loan obligation authority, but requests extension for the
loan authority until 2011 for nuclear facilities and a 2010 extension
for all other projects.
Final regulations for the Loan Guarantee Program were issued in
October 2007. The Committee is supportive of this program as a
financial tool to support commercialization of innovative technologies
that will result in significant reductions in carbon emissions.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The President's FY 2009 budget request for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is $4.2 billion, nearly five percent
above the FY 2008 enacted funding. The Committee is very pleased to see
the Administration increase the request for NOAA. The previous years'
budget requests for flat or reduced funds as compared to current year
funding were unrealistic and have prevented NOAA from making the
investments required to improve forecasting, further our understanding
of climate and weather patterns, and to better manage our coastal and
ocean resources.
The National Weather Service (NWS) request is two percent over the
FY 2008 enacted funding level. Much of the increase for NWS is to
provide for the mandatory pay raise and other inflationary operation
and maintenance costs and does not represent an increase in program
funding. The Administration's request does include some important
investments in key forecasting equipment including the Advanced Weather
Interactive Processing System, the Wind Profiler Network, and for
Hurricane Forecast Modeling. However, the small overall increase may
not be sufficient to fully cover all operational and maintenance
requirements for NWS, especially if our country experiences a year with
high frequency of severe weather events and hurricanes that result in
damage or loss to weather monitoring and forecasting equipment. In
addition, the request will not enable NWS to move new monitoring and
forecasting equipment from research to fully operational mode.
The President's budget request would increase the overall budget
for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service
(NESDIS) by 21 percent (a $203 million increase). The budget for NESDIS
is dominated by the procurement, acquisitions and construction (PAC)
accounts for the polar and geostationary satellite systems. Also
reflected in this increase is $74 million in funding to develop and
deploy high priority climate sensors that were de-manifested from the
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) in 2006. The Committee supports this increase in funding for
climate sensors. Maintaining the continuity of climate data records is
extremely important if we are to expand our understanding of changing
climate patterns and their potential impacts on our society and our
environment.
The Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account for NESDIS
contains the programmatic funding for management, processing,
analyzing, and archiving the data received from all of NOAA's weather
monitoring equipment--ground-based and space-based. This program
accounts for data processing and analyses at data centers located in
Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland, and West Virginia. This account
also supports a number of regional climate centers. The FY 2009 request
for these accounts once again is significantly below the FY 2008
enacted levels. While funding for these programs is small relative to
the procurement of satellite systems, funding for data analyses,
processing, management, and archiving is essential to obtain value from
the large investments made in the satellites that gather and transmit
the data to support weather forecasting and climate prediction.
NOAA operates two satellite systems that collect data for weather
forecasting. The polar satellites orbit the Earth and provide
information for medium to long-range weather forecasts. The
geostationary satellites gather data above a fixed position on the
Earth's surface and provide information for short-range warnings and
current weather conditions. Both of these systems are scheduled for
replacement. Both of these new satellite series must be launched around
2014 to avoid gaps in satellite data.
The Committee continues to follow the procurement programs for
these two satellite series very closely. In addition, the Committee
continues to have serious concerns about the development of these new
satellite series both in terms of meeting our need for continuity of
weather and climate data and in terms of the present and future impacts
on the NOAA budget. The Committee remains concerned about the progress
of the NPOESS program. Development of a key sensor continues to be
behind schedule and to require additional funds. The Committee believes
the requested level of funding for NPOESS is the minimum required to
ensure this satellite procurement continues to move forward, meet the
planned launch schedule, and avoid in gap in polar satellite coverage.
The current series of Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES-N, O and P) are in the final stages of development.
The majority of the increase in the FY 2009 request in the GOES program
is to initiate the procurement of the new GOES-R series. The Committee
supports the requested increase and notes the importance of providing
sufficient funds in the early stages of procurement of a new satellite
series to adequately develop and assess preliminary designs for
satellite instruments. The reduction in funding for the GOES-R program
that occurred in the FY 2008 appropriations process may result in
schedule delays and cost increases to the overall program. The
Committee encourages a robust overall budget for NOAA that accommodates
the procurement of this vital satellite system.
The Government Accountability Office reported in October 2007 that
the estimate for the new GOES series of satellites--GOES-R--was $7
billion, but could rise by as much as an additional $2 billion. The
Committee believes NOAA's decision to obtain independent cost estimates
and to restructure the program to achieve cost reductions to reduce
technical risks was sound. However, the Committee is concerned the cost
savings that will be achieved by reducing the number of satellites in
the series may not be cost effective in the long run. The Committee
supports the Administration's decision to include an option of four
additional satellites in the solicitation for the GOES-R program.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research contains more than
half of the research programs at NOAA. Again, the budget proposes to
reduce these programs, this year by nearly $16 million (four percent)
below the FY 2008 enacted levels. Most of the reductions are within the
Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes program. Climate Research and Weather
and Air Quality Research receive small increases in the overall budget
proposed while the budget for Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes Research
is significantly reduced. The overall budget allocation for research at
NOAA is inadequate to support the future needs of the Agency and the
Nation for improved forecasting and management of natural resources.
The Presidential-appointed U.S. Commission on Oceans released its
report in 2004 recommending that Congress double the federal ocean and
coastal research budget over the next five years. No budget proposal
since the report was issued has included increases in ocean research
funding at NOAA that would achieve a doubling of funding for ocean
research programs. Once again, the Administration's budget request for
this area of research is cut below current funding levels.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The FY 2009 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is $7.1 billion, approximately $400 million less than the FY 2008
enacted budget for the Agency. The bulk of the reduction has once again
come from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants, the account that
funds maintenance and upgrading of wastewater treatment infrastructure
across the Nation.
The President's FY 2009 proposal for EPA's Science and Technology
(S&T) programs is $790 million. This includes $763.5 million in the
Science and Technology program account plus a transfer of $26.4 million
from the Superfund account to support Superfund-related research. This
request reflects approximately one percent increase from the FY 2008
enacted level of $785.7 million, which was broken out into $760 million
for S&T programs generally and $25.7 million for Superfund research.
The majority of this increase comes from a $19.8 million addition to
the homeland security research division of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
The EPA's Science Advisory Board reviews EPA's S&T budget request
each year. Since their report on the FY 2005 budget proposal, the
Board's reports have indicated concerns about the erosion of EPA's
budget for S&T. Their review of the FY 2008 budget proposal stated,
``The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect
human health and the environment. To do that in an effective and
efficient way requires a deep understanding of environmental science
and technology. However, between 2004 and the proposed 2008 budget, the
overall support for Research and Development has declined by 25 percent
in inflation adjusted terms'' (EPA-SAB-STC-031407).
The Committee shares the Board's views on this issue and supports
the reinvigoration of environmental research and development through a
real increase in funding for EPA's S&T programs. The Committee believes
investments in research and development will return dividends in the
form of more cost-effective environmental protection programs and a
cleaner, healthier environment.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of
federal funding for non-biomedical research conducted at colleges and
universities, including 86 percent of funding for computer sciences, 77
percent of funding for mathematical sciences, 54 percent of funding for
environmental sciences, 46 percent of funding for engineering, and 40
percent of funding for the physical sciences. In addition, since its
creation in 1950, NSF has been tasked with strengthening science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels.
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 educational materials and assessments, create
better teacher training techniques, and move promising ideas from
research to educational practice.
NSF's funding of basic research across nearly all fields of science
and engineering and its education programs to prepare the next
generation of scientists and engineers, as well as to increase the
scientific and technical literacy of all Americans, provide the
underpinnings for assuring future U.S. economic competitiveness and
national security.
Recognizing the key role of NSF in science and engineering research
and education and responding to the recommendations of the National
Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Congress authorized
substantial funding increases for NSF in the recently enacted America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69). In addition to providing for a budget
doubling for NSF over seven years, COMPETES takes advantage of the
expertise and experience of NSF in STEM education by modifying and
enlarging existing NSF programs focused on teacher training and in-
service teacher professional development. These provisions respond to
the first and highest priority action item of the Gathering Storm
report, which is to increase substantially the number of K-12 STEM
teachers who are well grounded in their subjects and skilled in
pedagogical techniques for teaching science and math.
The President's FY 2009 budget request would provide $6.854 billion
for NSF, which is $822 million, or 13.6 percent above the FY 2008
appropriations level and $472 million, or 6.4 percent below the FY 2009
authorization level. While providing robust growth for the NSF research
accounts, the President's budget proposal provides only a 4.6 percent
increase for NSF's K-12 STEM education programs, which falls far short
of providing the funding called for in COMPETES. In particular, the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program would receive $103 million
less than the authorized amount and the Math and Science Partnerships,
which is the principal program for teacher professional development of
current STEM teachers, would receive $60 million less than authorized.
The Committee recommends that the NSF Education and Human Resources
Directorate receive $995 million for FY 2009, which is the authorized
level and is $205 million above the request. The additional funding
would be used to fully fund the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
program, which will provide scholarships for STEM majors who take
tailored courses needed to become certified as teachers and agree to
teach for two years for each year of scholarship support, and to fully
fund the Math and Science Partnerships. In addition, the increase will
support COMPETES initiatives to increase the number of undergraduate
degrees in STEM fields and the number of graduate STEM degrees in
emerging, interdisciplinary fields that are important for innovation
and economic development. The Committee recommends that this $205
million be added to the President's request for NSF, thereby providing
NSF with total funding of $7.059 billion for FY 2009.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA's FY 2009 budget request is $17.6 billion, approximately $400
million less than the amount stipulated for FY 2009 in the FY 2005
five-year budget plan that accompanied the President's Vision for Space
Exploration (VSE). That shortfall replicates the practice in each of
the previous two years--in FY 2007 the Administration's request was
$1.02 billion less than pledged in the President's VSE five-year budget
plan; in FY 2008, the request was $690 million less. The Committee is
very concerned about the cumulative effects of these budgetary
shortfalls, which, coupled with the Office of Management and Budget's
under-budgeting for the costs of Space Shuttle and the International
Space Station (ISS) in that same five-year budget plan, have created
strains and stresses that are visible in all of the Agency's programs.
The Committee notes with concern that in spite of the fact that the
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) directs NASA to launch
the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) ``as close to 2010 as possible,''
the FY 2009 budget request not only doesn't provide any additional
funding to move the CEV operational date closer to 2010, it only
provides funding sufficient to deliver the CEV in 2015--a year later
than the date directed by the President in his 2004 Vision for Space
Exploration. In addition, the FY 2009 budget request would do nothing
to reverse cuts to much of the rest of the Exploration Initiative,
including cuts to exploration-related technology R&D and ISS research
funding. Moreover, all of NASA's human space flight programs face
funding challenges in the out-years of the budget request, including
that no funding has been identified for post-2010 Shuttle transition
and retirement costs; reserves in the ISS and Constellation programs
remain extremely low or negative; and funding proposed for post-Shuttle
ISS crew and cargo support is so reduced that even NASA itself thinks
it is likely to prove inadequate.
The Committee also continues to be concerned about proposed funding
for Aeronautics programs. In the FY 2009 budget request, Aeronautics
remains at a level that is only one-fourth to one-third as much as the
funding provided in 1994--and significantly lower than the FY 2001
budget level. As a result, many aviation experts are worried about
NASA's ability to continue supporting critical interagency research
goals in air traffic management and aviation safety. NASA is a major
participant in the interagency initiative to develop the next
generation air traffic management system, and its R&D will be
critically important to that effort. The interagency initiative assumes
NASA will be given the resources necessary to carry out its R&D tasks.
In addition, the reductions in NASA's Aeronautics budget have led
to a situation where all but 16 percent of NASA's FY 2009 Aeronautics
funding is dedicated to in-house activities, with little money
available to support R&D conducted in partnership with universities and
industry. The Committee notes that this is likely to result in a
diminution of new and innovative research concepts from academia as
well as a reduction in the relevance of NASA's research to the needs of
the aviation industry.
The Committee also is aware that NASA's science programs are facing
significant stresses. Roughly $4 billion was removed from the five-year
budget plan for NASA's science programs over the last three years,
resulting in significant disruptions. The FY 2009 budget request and
its five-year run-out requests funds for a number of new space and
Earth science initiatives, the majority of which will cost over $500
million, and several of which will have costs that exceed several
billion dollars. While the Committee is pleased that the FY 2009 budget
request will initiate two of the missions recommended in the National
Academy of Sciences decadal strategy for Earth science research and
applications, and includes several new research projects within the
science account, the Committee is very concerned that no new funding
was included in NASA's science account to pay for these additional
programs. Instead, funds are simply shifted among the various parts of
the science account-an approach that runs a high risk of proving
unsustainable.
The Committee believes that NASA's space and aeronautics programs
represent some of the Nation's most challenging and exciting R&D
initiatives. As such, they can inspire our young people, advance our
understanding of the universe as well as of our home planet Earth, and
they can generate technological advances that will benefit both our
quality of life and our economic competitiveness. That will only be
possible with a balanced NASA program of science, aeronautics, and
human space flight and exploration. If NASA is to be successful in
carrying out the tasks it has been given by the White House and
Congress, it is going to need resources commensurate with those tasks.
Thus, the Committee believes that NASA should receive additional
funding in FY 2009 above the level contained in the President's FY 2009
budget request.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The FY 2009 budget request for the Federal Aviation
Administration's R&D programs contains an increase over the FY 2008
level, but provides less than is authorized for R&D in FY 2009 in H.R.
2881, the House-passed FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. The Committee
believes that the need for such R&D expenditures is clear, given the
important role FAA R&D will play in promoting aviation safety and
increased air transportation capacity and efficiency, as well as
enabling informed international agreements on noise, emissions, and
other environmental issues. For example, the FAA is the lead agency in
the interagency effort to develop the next generation air traffic
management system, and the success of that initiative will be dependent
on the FAA receiving the resources needed to develop and implement the
components of the next generation system. The Committee believes that
for FY 2009, the FAA's R&D programs should receive no less than the
funding authorized in H.R. 2881.
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION SUBCOMMITTEE
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-
regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce and the Nation's oldest
federal laboratory. Its mission is to promote U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science and
supporting the development of technical standards. NIST's wide range of
high-quality programs puts it in an excellent position to play a key
role in enhancing U.S. competitiveness.
The America COMPETES Act provided the first comprehensive
authorization of NIST's programs in 15 years, putting NIST on a 10-year
path to doubling by authorizing balanced increases for both the
intramural research laboratories and the extramural industrial
technology programs. However, the Administration's FY 2009 budget
proposes only $638 million for NIST, 28 percent lower than the amount
authorized in COMPETES. The request includes increases for the
intramural programs while eliminating or severely reducing funding for
the extramural programs. The Committee believes this is a mistake, as
the industrial technology programs have strong track records and serve
a critical function in supporting U.S. competitiveness.
The Committee believes that the proposal to eliminate federal
support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is
particularly problematic. Since 2000, the Nation has lost 3.4 million
manufacturing jobs, 272,000 of which were in 2007 alone. MEP is the
only federal program that specifically targets small- and medium-sized
manufacturers to help them modernize their operations, improve their
competitiveness, and reduce or reverse job losses. According to a
survey commissioned by NIST, small- and medium-sized manufacturers who
used MEP services in FY 2006 created or retained 52,000 jobs, increased
or retained sales of $6.8 billion, leveraged $1.7 billion in new
private-sector investment, and generated cost savings of $1.1 billion.
The Committee strongly supports this program, and does not agree with
the Administration's stated position that MEP can operate without
federal funding.
The Committee also is disappointed to see no funds requested for
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP was created in COMPETES to
provide cost-shared support for innovative technology development by
small- and medium-sized companies and joint ventures, updating and
building upon the proven success of the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP). The Committee has heard testimony that there is a systematic
lack of private venture capital for high-risk, high-reward, seed-stage
technology development, creating an urgent need for programs such as
TIP to fill this gap. A failure to fund these programs risks
sacrificing opportunities for U.S. technical advancement and long-term
economic growth. The Committee believes that TIP plays an important
role in supporting U.S. innovation, and that reducing or eliminating
funding for it would significantly reduce U.S. economic
competitiveness.
The budget request includes funding to complete the construction of
high-performance laboratory space at the NIST campus in Boulder, CO.
The Committee continues to support this project and believes it will
significantly enhance NIST's missions.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Committee oversees the R&D activities of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) which are primarily housed in the Science and
Technology (DHS S&T) Directorate and the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO). The Committee is pleased that the research and
development budget is increased significantly for both DHS S&T and
DNDO. The Administration has requested an increase of $38.5 million to
$868.8 million for DHS S&T, which includes $736.7 million for the
research account. For DNDO, the Administration has requested $563.8
million, an increase of $79.4 million.
The Committee remains concerned that DHS lacks balance between both
long- and short-term research and between its various R&D missions.
While the Committee is pleased that the Under Secretary is committed to
a strong investment in long-term basic research (defined as eight years
or longer to development), the Department's R&D portfolio (including
both DHS S&T and DNDO) appears to remain strongly weighted towards end-
stage technology development with little focus on basic research in
spite of assertions that basic research accounts for 20 percent of the
total investment. Moreover, the proposed cut to the University Centers
of Excellence program will further diminish the Department's investment
in long term basic research. And, the minimal funding proposed would be
further diluted by the Administration's plan to create additional
Centers, potentially forcing Centers to seek private funding in order
to conduct R&D critical to their missions. The Committee believes that
emphasizing short-term research makes the Department significantly less
agile and responsive, locking our country into a single technological
response to emerging and future threats.
The Committee also believes that DHS is not properly balancing its
research portfolio among R&D divisions. The Department's highest
priorities, as indicated by the funding request, remain nuclear
detection and biological research. While these might be the most
important areas, the Committee has yet to see any formal risk
assessment justifying this prioritization of nuclear detection and
biohazard research in spite of repeated requests in the 110th Congress.
Thus, while the Committee is pleased to see an increase in funding
in many critical areas such as explosives detection, cyber security,
infrastructure protection, and border security technologies, the
Department's request is only a small step in the right direction. A
formal risk assessment is essential to ensure that the Department's
resources are able to address both short- and long-term risks to the
Nation.
In addition, homeland security-related research is supported by a
number of agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Energy (DOE) and others. The Committee is concerned that
DHS has not leveraged these resources to its maximum benefit.
Finally, while the Department has a plan to improve responsiveness
to customers, the Committee is concerned that research supported by S&T
and DNDO ignores the needs of State and local government officials.
Recent technologies developed and tested by the Department, including
the counter-MANPADS system and nuclear material detection technology,
have been all but rejected by state and local users because of their
high purchase and maintenance costs. Moreover, DNDO once again requests
funding for the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal detection technology in
spite of serious reservations on the part of Congressional
investigators, the Government Accountability Office, and others about
their effectiveness. The Committee strongly recommends a formal
structure for processing reviews and comments from end users and
evaluators to ensure that technology coming out of DHS meets
performance and cost requirements. The Department must also streamline
testing and evaluation protocols, as well as work openly with expert
agencies, such as NIST, to provide customers with valid and useful test
results.
U.S. Fire Administration and FIRE Grants
The Committee oversees the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), housed
within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). The Committee believes that the President's
FY 2009 budget does not adequately fund USFA and continues the
Administration's neglect of programs for firefighters. The FY 2009
request of $40.9 million is 5.5 percent ($2.4 million) below the FY
2008 enacted level. This year, the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee reported out H.R. 4847, a bill to reauthorize the Fire
Administration. H.R. 4847 authorizes USFA at $70 million for FY 2009.
Members of the fire service community urged funding the agency at this
level when they testified at a Technology and Subcommittee hearing in
October of last year.
Through training opportunities, fire education and awareness
programs, data collection, fire policy analysis, and other services,
USFA provides important leadership to the Nation's first responders.
The Committee is concerned that the Administration's request, which is
$29 million below the proposed authorization, will not meet the full
demand for USFA leadership and programming that exists from
firefighters and public safety personnel around the country.
Additionally, the Committee is concerned that the Administration
proposes to transfer USFA from a stand-alone account to FEMA's
Operations, Management, and Administration account in FY 2009. This
move could further compromise funding for the agency. The Committee
will exercise oversight to ensure USFA remains intact.
The Committee also oversees two programs that provide funding
opportunities to local fire departments to meet their equipment and
staffing needs: the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and
the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant
program. For FY 2009, the Administration requests $287 million for the
AFG program and, as in previous years, no funding for the SAFER grant
program. This is a 49 percent decrease ($273 million) from the FY 2008
funding level for AFG and a 100 percent decrease ($190 million) for the
SAFER program over FY 2008. The FY 2009 request is $713 million below
the authorized level for the AFG program (P.L. 108-375) and $1.2
billion below the authorized level for SAFER (P.L. 108-136). The
Committee believes that the President's FY 2009 request for the AFG and
SAFER programs continue to ignore the growing pressures on local fire
departments as they are called on to prepare for and respond to an
increasing array of hazards. The Committee believes that funding the
AFG program well below the authorized level, and providing zero funding
for SAFER, neglects the needs of firefighters and the community's they
serve.
Department of Transportation (DOT), Surface Transportation
The Committee oversees surface transportation research and
development (R&D) activities at the Department of Transportation (DOT).
These activities are managed by several administrations within DOT,
including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). The Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) is responsible for coordinating research
portfolios across the Department. The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) is also a component of RITA.
While the Committee is pleased that the Administration requested
the authorized amount of $39 million for RITA, the Committee is
concerned that the requested increase will not support the emerging
research priorities identified by the 2006 Transportation Research,
Development and Technology Strategic Plan. Just over 10 percent of the
total requested funding ($1.5 million) for RITA will go toward
supporting R&D, and less than half of the requested funding will
support coordination of DOT research activities. Nearly $5 million, an
amount totaling more than the requested increase, is proposed for
maintenance of a nationwide global positioning system (GPS) system that
will be carried out on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which is
part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the Committee
understands the need for technological expertise in developing
important global positioning capabilities, important priorities
identified in the strategic plan are left unfunded in this request. The
Committee has not seen any justification for requiring RITA to perform
this R&D, which may be more appropriately housed in the U.S. Coast
Guard (which requests $16 million for R&D activities in FY 2009). The
Committee believes more emphasis should be given to research
coordination that supports energy efficiency, congestion reduction, and
safety as emphasized in the RITA strategic plan.
In addition to those research priorities identified by RITA, the
Committee urges that current research into intelligent transportation
systems, materials technology, and other fields be leveraged to support
enhanced mobility and energy efficiency. FTA's Research and University
Research Centers account supports research and development related to
public transit, training programs, and university research. The
Committee is pleased that FTA's multi-year research program plan
includes improving the accessibility of transit and improving safety
and security while considering the needs of the mobility-impaired
population. The Committee is concerned that FTA will be limited in its
ability to carry out needed research under the proposed FY 2009 budget,
however, which is cut by $5 million from FY 2008 to $60 million. The
Committee recommends that funding for Research and University Research
Centers be increased to the authorized level of $69.8 million in FY
2009.
The increase in funding for all components of research,
development, and technology within the Federal Highway Administration
will provide an important resource for transportation officials around
the Nation. The Committee is pleased to see a strong investment in
surface transportation research, development, and deployment, which is
increased by $27 million from FY 2008 to $196.4 million. Additionally,
the increase of $8.4 million to $110 million for intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) will support important developments in
technology for safety and energy efficiency. The increase of $2 million
to $26.7 million in the training and education account will support
technology transfer from research results at FHWA. The Committee
strongly supports this proposed funding.
The FHWA research, development, technology, and education
investment of $66.4 million in infrastructure research has an
appropriate focus on bridges following the collapse of the I-35W bridge
in Minnesota in August 2007. The Committee is pleased that technology
transfer is also a portion of this program, as technology deployment to
the user community is a crucial step in meeting FHWA's important goals
of improving infrastructure longevity, safety, and performance.
SEC. 207(E) OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Under Sec. 207(e) of S.Con.Res. 21 (the FY 2008 Budget Resolution),
committees were directed to review programs within their jurisdictions
to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program spending.
In the 110th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee re-
established the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (I&O) to
help identify places where waste, fraud or abuse could create savings
for the federal taxpayer. Early in this Congress, the Subcommittee held
a hearing on a Department of Defense aeronautics research program (DP-
2) which had survived as an item of Congressional interest for more
than a decade. Over the years, more than $60 million had been spent on
this program with no clear need, no clear client, no clear mission and
no clear technical accomplishments. Following that hearing, the
Appropriations Committee acted to terminate funding for this program.
Much of what the Committee has found falls into the realm of
maladministration. Program after program seems to be badly managed,
with important work being starved of funding as a result. For example,
a world class environmental research lab at the Savannah River National
Lab has been effectively de-funded by the Department of Energy, its 40
years of research abruptly terminated, for no good reason.
In addition, in a supposed effort to save money, EPA set about
closing their library system, a step that would deny to their own
researchers as well as the interested public, access to unique
collections of materials on chemicals and the environment. No plan to
put those materials on line was in place when EPA undertook this ``cost
savings'' effort and no cost estimate of what a proper effort to
digitize their holdings was ever developed. EPA management claimed they
would save money through digitization, but since they made no effort to
digitize records, even as they shuttered their library doors and filled
dumpsters with materials, it is difficult to take the agency's proposal
seriously. Under pressure from this Committee and others, the EPA
stopped their closure program, but not before irreversible harm had
occurred to some of the holdings and facilities.
The National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
also has been so badly managed by NOAA, NASA, and the U.S. Air Force
that it has suffered from cost overruns of many billions of dollars. In
addition, this program suffered from inaccurate and overly optimistic
cost estimates from its inception. To keep the overall cost growth
down, the Administration approved a re-scoping of the program in 2006
that jettisoned sensors essential to tracking climate change. However,
these sensors are critical for understanding climate change and its
impacts, and alternate plans must be implemented and funded to maintain
continuity of these data. So the ``savings'' gained by removing these
sensors from the NPOESS program are not savings at all. The cost of the
sensors will now be borne by other programs at NOAA and NASA. While the
Administration has included some initial funding in the new budget
request to restore several climate sensors and some funding to initiate
work at NASA on priority monitoring projects identified by the National
Academy last year, there is still no comprehensive budget plan to
ensuring the continuity of Earth observations needed to anticipate and
address the impacts of climate change. Therefore, the cost overruns
associated with unrealistic cost projections and poor management of
NPOESS exceed the simple bottom line increases to that program.
Unfortunately, rewarding bad management with budget cuts would be
counterproductive to the desires of Congress and the public. There is
broad-based support for seeing environmental science facilities and
weather satellites funded and operating. Further cuts in these budgets
would only jeopardize our ability to acquire vital weather and climate
forecasting information. There is no cheap fix for some of the problems
that the Committee has uncovered and no obvious savings for taxpayers
in fixing these problems, but the problems must be addressed.
There is one area of potential savings toward which the Budget
Committee may wish to turn its attention. The I&O Subcommittee has
learned of a software development tool created as part of an
acquisition by the National Reconnaissance Office that holds the
promise of reducing software development time, and coding errors, by
half. The Federal Government budgeted more than $65 billion for IT
systems in FY 2008, with another $43 billion in intelligence-related
acquisitions that appear (based on the limited information available in
unclassified sources) to be IT-related. A very high proportion of these
expenditures are for software development. If the costs of development
could be cut in half by using this tool, and by developing other
across-the-board development tools that would reduce costs, the
taxpayer could see tens of billions of dollars in savings year-in and
year-out.
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires OMB to analyze, track and
evaluate the risks and results of major government investments in
information systems. The Budget Committee might consider directing OMB
to investigate this tool and begin coordinating the development and
deployment of this and similar tools that can realize savings across
the government. This is an area where serious efforts at savings have
still not been undertaken, but the pay-off could be enormous. The
Committee on Science and Technology would be happy to work with the
Committee on the Budget to pursue this matter.
List of Signatures
Representative Bart Gordon
Representative Daniel Lipinski
Representative Ben Chandler
Representative Jerry Costello
Representative Harry Mitchell
Representative Darlene Hooley
Representative Brian Baird
Representative David Wu
Representative Steven Rothman
Representative Lynn Woolsey
Representative Paul Kanjorski
Representative Brad Miller
Representative Russ Carnahan
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Representative Jim Matheson
Representative Mark Udall'
Representative Baron Hill
Representative Charles Wilson
Representative Jerry McNerney
Representative Mike Ross
Representative Charles Melancon
Representative Gabrielle Gifford
Representative Nick Lampson
Representative Laura Richardson
Minority Views and Estimates
Committee on Science and Technology
Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09)
We are mindful that the Nation faces tight budgetary constraints
and recognize the difficulty in striking a balance between adequately
funding our nation's priorities while at the same time exhibiting
fiscal restraint to reduce the deficit. We are in agreement with the
Majority that if we are to remain ahead of the global curve with
regards to competitiveness and innovation, we must make the appropriate
investments in research, development, technology, and math and science
education.
We applaud the President for putting forward a budget that reduces
the deficit and keeps America on track to double the funding for
physical sciences and engineering at the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST), and
the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE). Building on
the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and
Republican-led efforts in the last Congress, this committee stepped up
to the plate and enacted the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES) (P.L. 110-
69) last year, authorizing increased levels of funding for these
agencies. We were disappointed to see that the Appropriators did not
adequately fund these agencies in the FY08 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161). The
funding they provided was not only 12 percent below the level that we
authorized in COMPETES, it was six percent below the President's FY08
budget request levels. This is simply unacceptable, and a situation we
do not want to see again.
Department of Energy (DOE)
We are pleased to see the Office of Science's budget request at an
increase of $700. million over the appropriated FY08 level. We were
very disappointed that the Appropriators cut funding to many important
programs at the Office of Science in the FY08 Omnibus and hope that the
Budget Committee will set full funding levels for these programs in
FY09. Programs such as High Energy Physics and projects such as the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) cannot
withstand another round of cut or zeroed out budgets, respectively,
without having a detrimental effect on high energy physics and fusion
research in the United States and on the reputation of our country as a
reliable international partner in scientific research.
We would like to point out that the bulk of the cuts to the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (SERE) budget request is
due to the absence of $187 million in congressionally directed projects
from FY08, $65 million in the Hydrogen Technology Program and $224
million in the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities program.
Of the cuts in the Hydrogen program, $32 million are due to the
transfer of three activities to Vehicle Technologies, and the remaining
reduction reflects a deferral of . certain R&D to focus on barriers in
hydrogen storage and fuel-cell components. According to DOE, the
Weatherization program will be refocused to high-return State and local
programs, and the funding that would have gone to Weatherization
Assistance Program Grants will be used for higher-priority R&D which
benefits all Americans. We would also like to point out that the $12
million in cuts to the Solar Energy program represent the down-
selection of industry contracts and the transfer of Solar Heating and
Cooling to Buildings Technology.
While we are pleased to see a significant increase in the
Geothermal Technology program in FY09, we are disappointed that the
Department did not request funding for geothermal energy production
from oil and gas fields (co-production) and recovery and production of
geopressured resources as provided for in Section 616 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140). According to a
National Renewable Energy Lab workshop in May of 2006, it is estimated
that in the next twenty years, these two resources (co-production and
geopressured) could provide as much as 70,000 MW of new power which
would approach 10 percent of our total national electric power needs.
In addition, substantial supplies of gas could be recovered from
geopressured resources.
In all, the FY09 budget request for EERE continues key elements of
the Advanced Energy Initiative within the constraints of a tight
federal budget.
We would like to echo the disappointment that the Majority has
expressed for the Administration's recommendation that the Petroleum
Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies research and development
programs be terminated as well as its recommendation that the Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research
Fund be repealed. In light of the fact that our country relies on
fossil fuels for about 85 percent of the energy it consumes, it makes
sense to continue funding R&D programs that will help us become more
dependent on domestic sources of oil and gas rather than on foreign
sources.
A majority of us are in disagreement with the Majority views on the
establishment of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-
E). We do not feel that creating a new agency to do work that is
currently being done at the Department of Energy is a justified use of
the limited funds available to the department and we support the
department's decision to not establish ARPA-E, but to engage in ARPA-E-
type projects within the current DOE structure.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Committee has sought to enable NASA to succeed as a multi-
mission agency in carrying out the goals expressed in the President's
Vision for Space Exploration and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-155). The Committee has remained supportive in the ensuing
years, but has grown increasingly concerned as NASA's requests have
repeatedly been below spending profiles originally proposed when the
vision was introduced. As a result, we share many of the views
expressed by the Majority.
We are concerned that the current FY09 budget request of $17.6
billion fails to even keep pace with inflation and further jeopardizes
NASA's ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio of missions. We
are especially concerned about the threat this request poses to manned
space flight capabilities. From FY05 thru FY10, NASA estimates that the
agency will be forced to absorb $2.7 billion in costs for returning the
Space Shuttle to flight following the Columbia accident, and an
additional $2.4 billion of previously unanticipated costs to retire the
Space Shuttle. This has contributed to delays in the development of a
Shuttle replacement as well as cuts in important exploration-related
research to offset these costs.
According to the FY09 budget request, March 2015 is the earliest
date NASA has committed for delivery of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
and its Ares 1 launcher. This date has slipped as a result of past
under-funding. We are very concerned that once the Shuttle is retired
in 2010, the United States will find itself entirely reliant on other
nations for as long as five years, to access our multi-billion dollar
Space Station. Furthermore, NASA is now faced with the task of asking
Congress for further exceptions from the Iran, North Korea and Syria
Non-Proliferation Act, so it can continue to purchase Russian cargo and
Soyuz flights at a cost of nearly $2 billion for hardware and services.
We would rather see these funds used to purchase similar capabilities
from American aerospace companies. Failure to enact an exception to
this Act will leave the United States without any capability to utilize
the Space Station. Furthermore, this impending, and widening, gap in
the transition from the Shuttle to the Constellation poses a
significant threat to the highly skilled aerospace workforce similar in
magnitude to the loss that accompanied the transition from the Apollo
program to the Space Shuttle. This is an unfortunate situation.
We applaud recent efforts by NASA to initiate a new series of
science missions. It is imperative that the cadence of missions be
improved to keep the science community fully engaged and to sustain the
pipeline of future scientists and engineers. We are especially pleased
to note NASA's budget proposes to initiate missions recommended by the
recently completed decadal survey on Earth Science and applications.
NASA's Aeronautics enterprise is by far the Federal Government's
largest program supporting civil aeronautics R&D. It has been subject
to a number of reductions and reorganizations over the last decade,
resulting in a budget that is today a fraction of its funding level
compared to the late 1990s. NASA and our country simply cannot afford
to absorb more cuts to Aeronautics research at the risk of completely
ceding this important source of technological and industrial advantage.
Our government is now in the early stages of designing and
developing a successor to the Nation's current, outmoded air traffic
control system. Many of the new technologies that will enable this
system--called NextGen--are under development within NASA's Aeronautics
program. At a minimum, the President's FY09 budget request for
aeronautics must be fully met. Otherwise, we are at risk of long-term
congestion in our national airspace system.
We agree with the Majority on the importance of NASA's space and
aeronautics programs. We also recognize the importance of global
leadership in space and aeronautics if we are to maintain our national
security, expand our economy, and advance our technological base. NASA
has been asked to do too much with too little. The Committee believes
that NASA will be unable to carry out the goals laid out in the
President's Vision and by Congress without additional funding in FY09.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
In keeping with the plan outlined in the ACI to double funding for
research at NSF over the next 10 years, the FY09 budget request for NSF
is $6.9 billion, an increase of 13.6 percent, or $822 million over the
FY08 Omnibus. We are pleased to see the increases spread across all of
the research fields NSF supports.
Within the Education and Human Resources account, we agree with the
Majority that the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, which we expanded
in COMPETES, and the Math and Science Partnership program are not
adequately funded in the FY09 request. However, we maintain that many
of the FY09 authorized amounts remain too high and encourage the Budget
Committee to consider setting increased funding levels for these
programs to meet the goals in COMPETES, but in a fiscally responsible
manner.
While COMPETES accelerates the path of doubling funding for NSF
over a seven-year period, most of our Members remain committed to the
10-year doubling path established in the House-passed version of
COMPETES and supported by the President.
Department of Commerce--National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)
We strongly support the President's request of $535 million for
NIST's Scientific, Technical, and Research Services (STRS) account,
which is $94 million or 21 percent more than the FY08 enacted level of
$441 million. This increase reflects the priorities laid out in the
President's ACI and overwhelmingly supported by both Chambers of
Congress in COMPETES. However, we object to the President's FY09
request to discontinue the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
and Technology Innovation Program (TIP). NIST's laboratory and
extramural activities directly support our nation's international
competitiveness and economic well-being and should be funded in
accordance with the levels agreed to in COMPETES.
Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
We support the FY09 budget request for NOAA of $4.1 billion, a $203
million (5.2 percent) increase over the FY08 enacted level. We believe
this request reflects the importance of the products and services NOAA
provides.
We believe that the request for the National Weather Service (NWS)
of $930.7 million, a 2.1 percent increase over the FY08 enacted level,
is an appropriate level to allow for NWS to invest in new forecasting
technology while maintaining the high standard for weather products and
services they provide. This includes $4.3 million for operating and
maintaining the 12 existing and three soon-to-be-deployed hurricane
buoys, a critical ``front line'' technology that provides critical
information on cyclone formation, locations, and intensity. The FY09
budget request includes a new request of $5.7 million for the NOAA All
Hazards Weather Radio Improvement Project (WRIP), to update obsolete
technologies and prevent national weather radio blackouts. The
Department of Homeland Security views the All Hazards Weather Radio as
part of the National Alert System.
We agree with the Majority regarding support for FY09 request for
$74 million for the National Environmental Satellite Data and
Information Service (NESDIS) for the acquisition of key climate sensors
for National Polar-Orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS). We
were very disappointed that Appropriators cut $25 million from the
individual Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bills passed in both
the House and the Senate that was for climate sensor acquisition when
the FY08 Omnibus was put together.
We believe that the Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF)
account of NESDIS is completely adequate for NOAA to conduct data
analysis, processing, management, and archiving. The decrease in the
FY09 funding request for ORF is due to the absence of $25.8 million in
congressionally directed projects from FY08.
We agree with the Majority views that there are still significant
concerns with the progress of the NPOESS program, and we will continue
to closely follow its advances. The funding request level in the FY09
budget will satisfy the needs of this program to continue with
satellite procurements. Furthermore, we were pleased by the
Administration's recognition that there is a natural ebb and flow in
the level of necessary funding for satellite programs as it goes
through its development, procurement, and operational phases and that
the greater level of funding expected to be requested in future years
is entirely appropriate to the nature of satellite technology,
procurements.
We are pleased to join the Majority in their support of the
significant increase of $242 million for the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) program. NOAA is ready to begin
awarding contracts for the individual instruments that will be
integrated into this satellite, and we feel that the request level is
entirely appropriate at this phase of the GOES-R program development.
We disagree with the Majority views that the request of $383
million for the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is
inadequate to support the future needs of NOAA. The reduction of
requested funds for FY09 from the FY08 enacted is in large part due to
the absence of congressionally directed projects.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
We are pleased to see that the FY09 budget request includes $868.8
million dollars for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), an
increase of 4.6 percent from FY08 levels. The increased funding will
primarily go to support new, high-priority laboratories: initial
operations at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures
Center (NBACC) and construction on the National Bio- and Agro Defense
Facility (NBAF). However, we continue to be concerned that the
distribution of funding within S&T is heavily weighted towards specific
hazards that are based primarily on programmatic inertia. We welcome
increases in the FY09 request to some overlooked divisions,
particularly the Border/Maritime division, but believe S&T should
continue to adjust its funding in support of effective, efficient, and
evolving defenses across the hazards spectrum.
The FY09 budget request includes $561.9 million for the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), an increase of $81 million or 16.8
percent from enacted FY08 levels. We are supportive of the research
activities of DNDO in the Exploratory Research Project and Academic
Research Initiative, but concerned that the requested increase would
primarily fund procurement and deployment of 120 Advanced Spectroscopic
Portal (ASP) systems. The ASP program is currently under review by DHS
and GAO and pursuant to the 2007 Homeland Appropriations Act will
require certification by the Secretary before procurement may begin.
Therefore, we urge caution before committing to large procurements for
this program.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)--Research and Development
We support the Administration's budget request for FAA Research and
Development. The FAA R&D enterprise has, over the years, produced
technologies enabling a much safer and more efficient national air
transportation system. Despite these efforts, however, traffic has
grown at a much faster rate. For FY09, FAA has requested a budget
increase coinciding with efforts related to NextGen. As FAA endeavors
to operate its current air traffic control system, and at the same time
incorporating NextGen-related technologies, it is vitally important
that their budget request be fully funded.
United States Fire Administration (USFA)
The FY09 budget request includes $40.9 million for the USFA, a
decrease of $2 million from FY08 enacted levels and nearly $30 million
below the authorized level. The mission of USFA is to ``reduce life and
economic losses due to fire and related emergencies, through
leadership, advocacy, coordination and support.'' This organization
provides vital assistance in the areas of training, fire education and
awareness, and oversees grants to a number of local fire departments
across the country. These activities have made a substantial impact
over the last 30 years. The Committee recently passed a reauthorization
bill for USFA that we believe accurately reflects the programmatic
needs of the agency. We urge funding at the full $70 million request
and the continuation of USFA as a separate line item within the budget
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES--110TH CONGRESS
Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives requires each standing Committee to adopt an oversight
plan for the two-year period of the Congress and to submit the plan to
the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and House
Administration not later than February 15 of the first session of the
Congress.
Part A of this section includes the Oversight Plan of the Committee
on Science and Technology for the 110th Congress, which the Committee
considered and adopted on February 14, 2007.
Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions taken to
implement the Oversight Plan, as well as additional oversight
activities undertaken by the Committee.
Part A--OVERSIGHT AGENDA FOR THE 110TH CONGRESS
Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives requires each standing Committee to adopt an oversight
plan for the two-year period of the Congress and to submit the plan to
the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and House
Administration not later than February 15 of the first session of the
Congress.
This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Science and
Technology for the 110th Congress. It includes the areas in which the
Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 110th Congress, but
does not preclude oversight or investigation of additional matters as
the need arises and as provided for under House Rule XI, clause (b)(1).
The Committee is listing items by Subcommittee, but many of the issues
and matters will cross Subcommittee jurisdictions and may be reviewed
by the Full Committee.
Oversight: Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee
Science Integrity Issues: The Committee will continue to collect
and examine allegations of intimidation of science specialists in
federal agencies or suppression or revisions of scientific findings
because of political or other pressures.
OIRA Guidance of Agency Science: The Committee will study the role
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the
Office of Management and Budget as it reviews proposed rules, guidance
documents or other actions by federal agencies.
Weather satellite modernization: The Committee will continue
oversight on the troubled National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System and the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite replacement program at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Voting system design and integrity: Because of problems in the 2006
election cycle, many states are mandating changes in their voting
systems. The Committee will examine issues in its jurisdiction under
the Help America Vote Act of 2002, including the role of the National
Institute of Technology (NIST) as technical specialists for the
Election Assistance Commission.
Contracting Management: Many of the problems the Committee
encounters in operations at the agencies under its jurisdiction trace
back to poor handling of the contracts by which the private sector
assists the Government in achieving national goals. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has continually cited the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of
Energy (DOE) as deficient in protecting the public's interests in their
activities. The Committee will continue its oversight of contracting at
these and other agencies.
Asset Management: In concert with the above, the Committee will
also examine how well the agencies control and use the physical
assets--equipment and facilities--paid for with taxpayer support. GAO
has also reported regularly on agency weaknesses in these areas,
putting billions of tax dollars at potential risk.
Oversight: Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
The Committee has oversight responsibility for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) research and development programs, FAA's Office
of Commercial Space Transportation, and the Department of Commerce's
Office of Space Commercialization. NASA is the largest agency under the
Committee's jurisdiction, measured by budget. It also has the highest
public profile. The agency continues its recovery from the tragic loss
of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia in February 2003, having flown
three Shuttle flights in support of International Space Station (ISS)
construction since returning the Shuttle to flight status.
Program and Funding Balance Between Space Science and Human Space
Flight: With the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration in
January 2004, the President defined new goals for the Nation's human
space flight program: use the Space Shuttle to complete construction of
the ISS before the Shuttle's retirement in 2010 and initiate
development of replacement launch and crew transport capabilities to
support human missions to the Moon and Mars. While Congress endorsed
those goals in the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of
2005, it also made clear in the Act that it expected NASA to carry out
a balanced set of activities in human space flight, aeronautics, and
science. That is, achievement of NASA's exploration initiative goals
should not be funded by sacrificing equally important goals in science
and aeronautics. Despite that congressional direction, however, NASA's
budget plans have been inadequate to accomplish all of these goals, and
the NASA Administrator has assigned a higher priority to the agency's
human space flight programs. The Committee will devote significant time
to an examination of the implications of NASA's plans and priorities
and the resource requirements of a balanced, robust, and beneficial
space and aeronautics program at NASA.
Lunar Program Risk: As the first steps in its human exploration
initiative, NASA has initiated the Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV)
and Ares crew launch vehicle (CLV) development programs. The schedule
for these programs assumes operational flights by 2014. The agency has
also announced its plan to develop a lunar base after the initial lunar
landings. Lunar missions will require the development of a heavy-lift
cargo-carrying launch vehicle, a lunar lander vehicle, and lunar
surface infrastructure, as well as supporting communications and
navigation capabilities. The Committee intends to examine the rationale
and objectives of the lunar program as well as the key programmatic
risks facing the initiative.
Workforce Transition Issues: As the Space Shuttle is retired, and
the new CEV program scales up, there is the potential for major
workforce transition issues. With the current schedule of Shuttle
retirement in 2010 and CEV/CLV deployment in 2014, there will be a four
year gap between those programs that will have implications for the
workforce. In addition, it will be important to ensure that the skilled
workforce needed to safely and successfully fly out the remaining
Shuttle missions will be retained until the Shuttle's retirement.
Contract, Financial and Program Management Challenges: The scope of
the lunar initiative, coupled with the likely funding constraints, will
put a premium on effective program management, as will also be the case
for NASA's science programs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has identified NASA contract management as a ``high-risk'' concern
since it began issuing such designations in 1990. In addition, the
infrastructure for managing NASA's financial activities has been
undergoing a long and painful upgrade. GAO has regularly stated it has
seen little evidence that the new system allows NASA managers to
control cost and schedule issues more effectively than in the past. The
Committee intends to maintain a close and continuing watch on these
management issues to ensure that NASA's programs are carried out as
effectively as possible.
Earth Science Continuity: NASA's science programs will also be an
important oversight area for the Committee. Approximately $4 billion
has been removed from the five-year funding plan for NASA's science
programs over the last two years, resulting in a predictable disruption
to planned science missions and activities. The Committee will examine
the impact of those programmatic changes on the outlook for realizing
NASA's current and future scientific objectives. In addition, with the
release of the National Academies' Decadal Survey of Earth Science and
Applications, the Committee intends to examine the recommendations of
the Survey and the consistency of NASA's Earth Science and Applications
plans and budgets with those recommendations.
International Space Station: The plans for utilization of the ISS
by the United States following its completion will be another oversight
topic. Given the significant national investment to date in the
facility, Congress has directed that NASA maintain a strong research
and technology program to take advantage of ISS's unique capabilities.
In addition, NASA has stated its intention to utilize the ISS to
support its exploration initiative. However, NASA has made significant
cuts to the programs for utilizing the ISS, virtually eliminating
entire areas of life and microgravity research for the foreseeable
future. In addition, the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle
raises questions about how NASA will support the utilization and
operation of the ISS post-2010, even as NASA seeks commercial operators
to undertake some portion of ISS logistical support.
Aeronautics R&D: Another important area for oversight will be
NASA's aeronautics program. The aeronautics program has been
restructured over the past year, and the Administration's FY07 budget
request would result in a 32 percent decline in NASA's aeronautics
budget over the years FY04-07. The Committee plans to examine the
impact of that restructuring and funding approach on NASA's ability to
support the interagency effort to modernize the Nation's air traffic
management system, as well as on its ability to undertake important R&D
on aircraft safety, emissions, noise, and energy consumption--R&D that
will have a big impact on the quality of life and U.S. competitiveness
in aviation.
FAA R&D: Committee jurisdiction also extends to the FAA's research
and development programs. FAA's authorization expires in 2007, and the
Committee will work to reauthorize FAA's R&D programs. The Committee
has a particular interest in the performance of the interagency Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which is responsible for
planning and coordinating the initiative to develop the Nation's next
generation air transportation system (NGATS). The NGATS initiative has
a host of issues associated with it, and the Committee plans a number
of oversight activities to examine its status.
FAA Commercial Space Transportation: FAA's Office of Commercial
Space Transportation (OCST) licenses commercial launch vehicles. An
area of increasing interest is the emergence of a number of fledgling
commercial human space flight ventures. In addition to its oversight of
the FAA's OCST, the Committee will examine the progress of the emerging
personal space flight industry as well as the challenges facing it.
Oversight: Technology and Innovation Subcommittee
Commerce Department technology programs: The Committee will conduct
program oversight for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and other programs assigned to the Technology
Administration of the Department of Commerce.
American economic competitiveness: The Nation faces a challenge for
economic and technological preeminence. The Committee will evaluate
appropriate responses based on the recent National Academies' report,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and other advice.
Technology transfer: The Committee will seek recommendations for
continued improvements in the technology transfer incentives built into
law by the Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts and the Small Business
Innovation Research program.
Cyber security: During debate on the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, the Committee stressed the protection of the cyber-
infrastructure now underpinning economic and public services. NIST's
authorization for work on cyber-system security runs out at the end of
FY 2007. The Committee will return to study this topic.
Transportation research and development: The Committee will study
research and development programs at the Department of Transportation
and efforts to improve safety and efficiency in surface and water
transportation.
Natural hazards monitoring and impact reduction: The Committee has
supported interagency research programs to identify improvements in
building and infrastructure designs to protect people when earthquakes
occur. Evaluating further needs for these and other hazard types is
ongoing.
U.S. Fire Administration: The Committee has another particular
interest in the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. The
U.S. Fire Administration is responsible for the Assistance to
Firefighters grant program, and the Committee has closely monitored the
direction of this program as the organizational structure of the
Department has coalesced. Continued attention is important to assure
first responders have necessary support and training.
Oversight: Research and Science Education Subcommittee
National Science Foundation oversight: The authorization for the
National Science Foundation (NSF) expires at the end of Fiscal Year
2007. The National Academies' Gathering Storm report highlighted the
budget straits of physical sciences, of which NSF is a major source for
support, in the United States. Accordingly, the Committee will devote
significant time to reviewing the agency's physical sciences program in
preparation for reauthorization.
Science and Mathematics Education: Education, particularly in
science and mathematics, is a vital component in the evolving economy.
Members of the Committee have intense interests in efforts to improve
the teaching of these subjects and develop better curricula for
schools, and in determining the appropriate forms of federal support to
achieve these outcomes.
Cooperative Relationships with Universities and Industry: Agencies
and universities are again debating the level of scrutiny and control
that should be applied to research in light of the possible use of new
findings by terrorists. At the same time, industry questions the value
of controls on technology sales and argues that such controls
disproportionately limit American firms in competition for global
sales. How to balance these competing interests remains a perennial
subject for Committee oversight.
Computer Sciences and Technologies: The Committee will continue its
studies of the contribution research can make to hardening computer
networks, promoting U.S. leadership in technologies likely to make
significant economic contributions in the future and continuing the
long-term trend toward higher-performance, lower-cost technologies
fueling the Internet revolution.
U.S. Antarctic Program: Since 1959, the U.S. has conducted
operations on the Antarctic continent under the terms of the Antarctic
Treaty System. Research there has been central to actions on protecting
the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer, and is likely to be as critical
to pending Congressional consideration of climate change issues. Of
immediate interest is the future of the icebreaker fleet that provides
vital logistical support for NSF's activities in the harsh polar
environment.
Oversight: Energy and Environment Subcommittee
Alternative Energy Supplies: Volatility in oil prices is increasing
interest in new fuel types for meeting the country's energy needs.
Special attention is being given to biomass substitutes such as
ethanol. The Department of Energy (DOE) helps to develop technologies
for this purpose. Questions have been raised about the net energy
efficiency gains and economic impacts of using food products as fuel.
Reviving Nuclear Power: Proponents argue that nuclear power offers
an attractive solution to the problem of finding low-carbon power
sources to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts. Public skepticism about the
safety and economic value of such plants, however, remains high. DOE,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the power industry hope to
restart reactor construction in the near future. The Committee will
examine their readiness to do so and the status of proposed
technologies.
Clean Coal Technology: The United States still has a massive
reserve in coal to use for energy. Finding ways to remove impurities
that contribute to air pollution, and then to reduce or sequester the
resulting carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming,
may allow coal to continue its contribution as a relatively inexpensive
fuel source.
Fusion and the ITER Demonstration: Technical challenges have for
decades hampered our ability to harness nuclear fusion as an energy
source. The United States has recently rejoined an international
consortium preparing to construct the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor to demonstrate whether fusion could be produced in
an economically viable manner. Committee Members supported the decision
to participate and will follow the project's progress.
DOE Science programs: DOE, like NSF, plays a leading role in
supporting U.S. physical science research. Budget limits are severely
restricting these programs and limiting use of major facilities such as
the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the new Spallation Neutron Source
and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Such cases raise
questions about the decision to invest in such capabilities if the
resources are not available to exploit them to the fullest.
Global Climate Change: Climate change sits at the nexus between
energy and environmental policy. The Committee will support the broader
discussion the Speaker intends to foster during the Congress through
oversight of climate science programs at our agencies.
Oceans Agenda: The President's Ocean Action Plan is a major
initiative aimed at addressing the future of our oceans. The Committee
will monitor implementation of this plan, as well as federal oceans
research and development policy generally.
DOE Laboratory Complex: The management and upkeep of the
Department's aging facilities, particularly the clean-up of radioactive
and hazardous material sites, remains a continuing concern of the
Committee. Efforts will continue to assure that the Department meets
its responsibilities to control risks in and around these facilities.
Part B--IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OVERSIGHT AGENDA AND OTHER OVERSIGHT
ACTIVITIES
Oversight: Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee
Science Integrity Issues:
Hearing entitled ``Shaping the Message, Distorting
the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Public Policy''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; March 28, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Transitioning the Environmental
Measurement Laboratory to the Department of Homeland Security''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; May 3, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Tracking the Storm at the National
Hurricane Center'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
jointly with Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; July
19, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``EPA's Restructured IRIS System:
Have Polluters and Politics Overwhelmed Science?''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; May 21, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Toxic Communities: How EPA's IRIS
Program Fails the Public'' (Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight; June 12, 2008)
OIRA Guidance of Agency Science
Hearing entitled ``Amending Executive Order 12866:
Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation?'' (Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight; February 13, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Amending Executive Order 12866:
Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation? Part II''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; April 26, 2007)
Weather satellite modernization
Hearing entitled ``National Imperatives for Earth and
Climate Science Research and Applications Investments over the
Next Decade: The Findings and Recommendations of the National
Academies' Decadal Survey of Earth Science and Applications
from Space'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Status Report on the NPOESS
Weather Satellite Program'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; June 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``GAO's Report on the Status of
NOAA's Geostationary Environmental Satellite Program''
(Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; October 23, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``An Insecure Forecast for
Continuity of Climate and Weather Data: The NPOESS Weather
Satellite Program'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment;
June 19, 2008)
Voting system design and integrity
(No action taken)
Contracting Management
Government Accountability Office Report entitled
``NASA Procurement: Use of Award Fees for Achieving Program
Outcomes Should Be Improved;'' As Requested by Chairman
(Released February 16, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The duPont Aerospace DP-2
Aircraft'' (Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; June
12, 2007)
Asset Management
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Part I''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight jointly with
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; July 17, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Part II''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight jointly with
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; August 1, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``EPA Library Closures: Better
Access for a Broader Audience?'' (Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight; March 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Oversight: Low-Level Plutonium
Spill at NIST--Boulder; Contamination of Lab and Personnel''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; July 15, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Biobanking: How the Lack of a
Coherent Policy Allowed the Veterans Administration to Destroy
an Irreplaceable Collection of Legionella Samples''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; September 9,
2008)
Oversight: Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
Program and Funding Balance Between Space Science and Human Space
Flight:
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; March 15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Space Science Programs:
Review of Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and Issues''
(Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; May 2, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Science Programs: Fiscal
Year 2009 Budget Request and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics; March 13, 2008)
Lunar Program Risk:
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; March 15, 2007)
Government Accountability Office Report entitled
``Assessment of NASA's Progress on Area I Crew Launch
Vehicle;'' As Requested by Chairman (Released November 29,
2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Exploration Initiative:
Status and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics;
April 3, 2008)
Workforce Transition Issues:
Hearing entitled ``Building and Maintaining a Healthy
and Strong NASA Workforce'' (Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics; May 17, 2007)
Contract, Financial and Program Management Challenges:
Government Accountability Office Report entitled
``NASA Procurement: Use of Award Fees for Achieving Program
Outcomes Should Be Improved;'' As Requested by Chairman
(Released February 16, 2007)
Earth Science Continuity:
Hearing entitled ``National Imperatives for Earth and
Climate Science Research and Applications Investments over the
Next Decade: The Findings and Recommendations of the National
Academies' Decadal Survey of Earth Science and Applications
from Space'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; March 15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Space Science Programs:
Review of Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and Issues''
(Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; May 2, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Earth Science and
Applications Programs: Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and
Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; June 28, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Science Programs: Fiscal
Year 2009 Budget Requests and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics; March 13, 2008)
International Space Station:
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; March 15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Space Shuttle and
International Space Station Programs: Status and Issues''
(Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; July 24, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's International Space Station
Program: Status and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics; April 24, 2008)
Aeronautics R&D:
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; March 15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Request'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Aeronautics R&D Program:
Status and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; May
1, 2008)
FAA R&D:
Hearing entitled ``The Federal Aviation
Administration's R&D Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008''
(Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; March 22, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Joint Planning and Development
Office and the Next Generation Air Transportation System:
Status and Issues'' (Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics;
March 29, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Next Generation Air
Transportation System: Status and Issues'' (Full Committee;
September 11, 2008)
FAA Commercial Space Transportation:
(No Action Taken)
Oversight: Technology and Innovation Subcommittee
Commerce Department technology programs
Hearing entitled ``The National Institute of
Standards and Technology's Role in Supporting Economic
Competitiveness in the 21st Century: the FY 2008 Budget
Request'' (Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; February
15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee, February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NIST's FY 2009 Budget Request:
What Are the Right Technology Investments to Promote U.S.
Innovation and Competitiveness?'' (Subcommittee on Technology
and Innovation; March 11, 2008)
American economic competitiveness
Hearing entitled ``Science and Technology Leadership
in a 21st Century Global Economy'' (Full Committee; March 13,
2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part I'' (Full Committee; June 12, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part II'' (Full Committee; July 26, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part III: How do Companies Choose Where to Build
R&D Facilities?'' (Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation;
October 4, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Globalization of R&D and
Innovation, Part IV: Implications for the Science and
Engineering Workforce'' (Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation; November 6, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee; February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Competitiveness and Innovation on
the Committee's 50th Anniversary with Bill Gates, Chairman of
Microsoft'' (Full Committee; March12, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``American Decline or Renewal?--
Globalizing Jobs and Technology'' (Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight; May 22, 2008)
Technology transfer
Hearing entitled ``Small Business Innovation Research
Reauthorization on the 25th Program Anniversary'' (Subcommittee
on Technology and Innovation; April 26, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``SBIR and STTR: How are the
Programs Managed Today?'' (Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation; June 26, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Bayh-Dole--The Next 25 Years''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; July 17, 2007)
Cyber security
(No Action Taken)
Transportation research and development
Hearing entitled ``Green Transportation
Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and Implementation''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; May 10, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Bridge Safety: Next Steps to
Protect the Nation's Critical Infrastructure'' (Full Committee;
September 19, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Sustainable, Energy-Efficient
Transportation Infrastructure'' (Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation; June 24, 2008)
Natural hazards monitoring and impact reduction
Hearing entitled ``The National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program: Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; July 24, 2008)
U.S. Fire Administration
Hearing entitled ``The United States Fire
Administration Reauthorization: Addressing the Priorities of
the Nation's Fire Service'' (Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation; October 2, 2007)
Oversight: Research and Science Education Subcommittee
National Science Foundation oversight
Hearing entitled ``National Science Foundation
Reauthorization, Part I'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education; March 20, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``National Science Foundation
Reauthorization: Part II'' (Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education; March 29, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee; February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Oversight of the National Science
Foundation'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science Education;
February 26, 2008)
Science and Mathematics Education
Hearing entitled ``Federal STEM Programs: Educators'
Perspective'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science Education;
May 15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Federal STEM Education Programs''
(Subcommittee on Research and Science Education; June 6, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Role of Community Colleges and
Industry in Meeting the Demand for Skilled Production Workers
and Technicians in the 21st Century Economy'' (Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education; June 19, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Assessment of the National Science
Board's Action Plan for STEM Education'' (Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education; October 10, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Women in Academic Science and
Engineering'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science Education;
October 17, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee; February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``STEM Education Before High School:
Shaping our Future Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
Leaders of Tomorrow by Inspiring Our Children Today'' (Full
Committee; May 12, 2008)
Cooperative Relationships with Universities and Industry
(No Action Taken)
Computer Sciences and Technologies
Hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) Program'' (Full Committee; July 31, 2008)
U.S. Antarctic Program
Hearing entitled ``National Science Foundation
Reauthorization: Part I'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education; March 20, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee; February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Oversight of the National Science
Foundation'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science Education;
February 26, 2008)
Oversight: Energy and Environment Subcommittee
Alternative Energy Supplies
Hearing entitled ``A Path Toward the Broader Use of
Biofuels: Enhancing the Federal Commitment to Research and
Development to Meet the Growing Need'' (Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment; June 14, 2007)
Reviving Nuclear Power
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2008'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2009'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 5, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Opportunities and Challenges for
Nuclear Power'' (Full Committee; April 23, 2008)
Clean Coal Technology
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2008'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Prospects for Advanced Coal
Technologies: Efficient Energy Production, Carbon Capture and
Sequestration'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; May
15, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2009'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 5, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy's
FutureGen Program'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment;
April 15, 2008)
Fusion and the ITER Demonstration
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2008'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2009'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 5, 2008)
DOE Science programs
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2008'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Funding for the America COMPETES
Act in the FY 2009 Administration Budget Request'' (Full
Committee; February 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Department of Energy Budget
Request for Fiscal Year 2009'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 5, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Foundation for Developing New
Energy Technologies: Basic Energy Research in the DOE Office of
Science'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; September
10, 2008)
Global Climate Change
Hearing entitled ``The State of Climate Change
Science 2007; The Findings of the Fourth Assessment Report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working
Group I Report'' (Full Committee; February 8, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``National Imperatives for Earth and
Climate Science Research and Applications Investments over the
Next Decade: The Findings and Recommendations of the National
Academies' Decadal Survey of Earth Science and Applications
from Space'' (Full Committee; February 13, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Perspectives on Climate Change''
(Subcommittee on Energy and Environment jointly with Energy and
Air Quality Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; March 21, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The State of Climate Change
Science 2007: The Findings of the Fourth Assessment Report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Working
Group II: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability'' (Full Committee; April 17, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The State of Climate Change
Science 2007: The Findings of the Fourth Assessment Report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working
Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change'' (Full Committee; May
16, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The National Security Implications
of Climate Change'' (Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight; September 27, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Disappearing Polar Bears and
Permafrost: Is a Global Warming Tipping Point Embedded in the
Ice?'' (Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; October
17, 2007)
Oceans Agenda:
Hearing entitled ``NOAA's FY 2008 Budget Proposal''
(Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; March 22, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal
and GAO's Report on the Aviation Weather Service''
(Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; February 26, 2008)
DOE Laboratory Complex
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Part I''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight jointly with
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; July 17, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy's Support
for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Part II''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight jointly with
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; August 1, 2007)
Oversight: Other Oversight Activities
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Homeland
Security's R&D Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; March 8, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``EPA's FY 2008 Science and
Technology Budget Proposal'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; March 14, 2007)
Investigation into Alleged Research Misconduct at
Purdue University (Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight; Report Released May 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The NASA Administrator's Speech to
Office of Inspector General Staff, the Subsequent Destruction
of Video Records, and Associated Matters'' (Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight; May 24, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Role of Technology in Reducing
Illegal Filesharing: A University Perspective'' (Full
Committee; June 5, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA Inspector General Robert
`Moose' Cobb'' (Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
jointly with Senate Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics and
Related Sciences; June 7, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Benefits and Challenges of
Producing Liquid Fuel from Coal: The Role for Federal
Research'' (Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; September
5, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``NASA's Astronaut Health Care
System--Results of an Independent Review'' (Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics; September 6, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``The Contribution of the Social
Sciences to the Energy Challenge'' (Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education; September 25, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Radiological Response: Assessing
Environmental and Clinical Laboratory Capabilities''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; October 25,
2007)
Hearing entitled ``Research on Environmental and
Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning
and Implementation Under the National Nanotechnology
Initiative'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science Education;
October 31, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Aviation Safety: Can NASA Do More
to Protect the Public?'' (Full Committee; October 31, 2007)
Hearing entitled ``Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)--Status
of the Survey Program and Review of NASA's 2007 Report to
Congress'' (Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; November 8,
2007)
Hearing entitled ``Status of Visas and Other Policies
for Foreign Scholars and Students'' (Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education; February 7, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Department of Homeland
Security's R&D Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; March 6, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Transfer of National
Nanotechnology Initiative Research Outcomes for Commercial and
Public Benefit'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education; March 11, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Aviation Security Research and
Development at the Department of Homeland Security''
(Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation; April 24, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Electronic Waste: Can the Nation
Manage Refuse in the Digital Age?'' (Full Committee; April 30,
2008)
Hearing entitled ``Water Supply Challenges for the
21st Century'' (Full Committee; May 14, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Toxic Trailers: Have the Centers
for Disease Control Failed to Protect Public Health?''
(Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; April 1, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``International Science and
Technology Cooperation'' (Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education; April 2, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Role of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences in National Security'' (Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education jointly with the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on
Armed Services; April 24, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``Harmful Algal Blooms: Challenges
on the Nation's Coastlines'' (Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment; July 10, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Role of Non-governmental
Organizations and Universities in International Science and
Technology Cooperation: (Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education; July 15, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``NASA at 50: Past Accomplishments
and Future Opportunities and Challenges'' (Full Committee; July
30, 2008)
Hearing entitled ``The Role of Social and Behavioral
Sciences in Public Health'' (Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education; September 18, 2008)
History of Appointments
Committee on Science and Technology
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
January 4, 2007--H.Res. 7
Bart Gordon, Tennessee, was named Chairman of the Committee on
Science and Technology.
January 4, 2007--H.Res. 8
Ralph Hall, Texas, was named as Ranking Member of the Committee
on Science and Technology.
January 10, 2007--H.Res. 45
Republican Members assigned to the Committee on Science and
Technology:
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Lucas, Mrs.
Biggert, Mr. Akin, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Smith of
Nebraska.
January 18, 2007--H.Res. 75
Democratic Members assigned to the Committee on Science and
Technology:
Mr. Costello, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Woolsey,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wu, Mr. Baird, Mr. Miller of North
Carolina, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Lampson, Ms. Giffords, Mr.
McNerney, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Honda, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mitchell,
and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
January 23, 2007--H.Res. 85
Democratic Members the Honorable Mr. Kanjorski (to rank
immediately after the Honorable Mr. McNerney) and the Honorable
Ms. Hooley (to rank immediately after Mr. Kanjorski) were
appointed to the Committee on Science and Technology.
March 12, 2007--H.Res. 236
Republican Member the Honorable Mr. Reichert of Washington
appointed to the Committee on Science and Technology to rank
immediately after the Honorable Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
May 10, 2007--H.Res. 393
Republican Member the Honorable Ken Calvert of California
resigned from the Committee on Science and Technology to accept
assignment to the Committee on Appropriations.
July 25, 2007--H.Res. 566
Republican Member the Honorable Paul C. Broun of Georgia was
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Committee on Science and
Technology.
September 20, 2007--
Democratic Member the Honorable Michael Honda of California
resigned from the Committee on Science and Technology.
September 20, 2007--H.Res. 667
Democratic Member the Honorable Laura Richardson of California
was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Committee on Science and
Technology.
February 25, 2008--
Republican Member the Honorable Jo Bonner of Alabama resigned
from the Committee on Science and Technology.
June 10, 2008--H.Res. 1256
Democratic Member the Honorable Andre Carson of Indiana
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Committee on Science and
Technology.
July 15, 2008--H.Res. 1342
Democratic Member the Honorable Donna Edwards of Maryland
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Committee on Science and
Technology.
RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE OF
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
CONTENTS
Rule 1. General Provisions
General Statement (a)
Membership (b)
Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power (c)
Sensitive or Confidential Information Received Pursuant to
Subpoena (d)
National Security Information (e)
Oversight (f)(g)(h)
Order of Business (i)
Suspended Procedures (j)
Other Procedures (k)
Use of Hearing Rooms (l)
Rule 2. Committee Meetings and Procedures
Quorum (a)
Time and Place (b)
Open Meetings (c)(d)
Audio and Visual Coverage (e)(f)
Special Meetings (g)
Vice Chairman to Preside in Absence of Chairman (h)
Opening Statements; 5-Minute Rule (i)(j)
Proxies (k)
Witnesses (l)(m)
Hearing Procedures (n)
Bill and Subject Matter Consideration (o)
Private Bills (p)
Consideration of Measure or Matter (q)
Requests for Written Motions (r)
Requests for Record Votes at Full Committee (s)
Postponement of Proceedings (t)
Report Language on Use of Federal Resources (u)
Committee Records (v)
Publication of Committee Hearings and Markups (w)
Committee Website (x)
Rule 3. Subcommittees
Structure and Jurisdiction (a)
Referral of Legislation (b)
Ex-Officio Members (c)
Procedures (d)(e)(f)(g)
Rule 4. Reports
Substance of Legislative Reports (a)(b)
Minority and Additional Views (c)(d)
Consideration of Subcommittee Reports (e)
Timing and Filing of Committee Reports (f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)
Oversight Reports (l)
Legislative and Oversight Jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Technology
Special Oversight Functions
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
General Statement
(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives, as applicable, shall
govern the Committee and its Subcommittees, except that a motion to
recess from day to day and a motion to dispense with the first reading
(in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are
privileged motions in the Committee and its Subcommittees and shall be
decided without debate. The rules of the Committee, as applicable,
shall be the rules of its Subcommittees. The rules of germaneness shall
be enforced by the Chairman. [XI 1(a)]
Membership
(b) A majority of the Majority Members of the Committee shall determine
an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members of each
Subcommittee and shall authorize the Chairman to negotiate that ratio
with the Minority party; Provided, however, that party representation
on each Subcommittee (including any ex-officio Members) shall be no
less favorable to the Majority party than the ratio for the Full
Committee. Provided, further, that recommendations of conferees to the
Speaker shall provide a ratio of Majority party Members to Minority
party Members which shall be no less favorable to the Majority party
than the ratio of the Full Committee.
Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power
(c)(1) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a subpoena may be authorized and
issued in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations
or activities to require the attendance and testimony of such witnesses
and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda,
papers and documents as deemed necessary, only when authorized by
Majority vote of the Full Committee or Subcommittee (as the case may
be), a majority of the Committee or Subcommittee being present.
Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chairman of the Full
Committee, or by any Member designated by the Chairman. [XI 2(m)]
(2) The Chairman of the Full Committee, after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, or if the Ranking Member
cannot be reached, the Ranking Minority Member of the relevant
Subcommittee, may authorize and issue such subpoenas as described in
paragraph (1), during any period in which the House has adjourned for a
period longer than seven (7) days. [XI 2(m)(3)(A)(i)]
(3) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other than at a
meeting or a hearing of the Committee.
Sensitive or Confidential Information Received Pursuant to Subpoena
(d) Unless otherwise determined by the Committee or Subcommittee,
certain information received by the Committee or Subcommittee pursuant
to a subpoena not made part of the record at an open hearing shall be
deemed to have been received in Executive Session when the Chairman of
the Full Committee, in his judgment and after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member, deems that in view of all the circumstances,
such as the sensitivity of the information or the confidential nature
of the information, such action is appropriate.
National Security Information
(e) All national security information bearing a classification of
secret or higher which has been received by the Committee or a
Subcommittee shall be deemed to have been received in Executive Session
and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. The Chairman of the Full
Committee may establish such regulations and procedures as in his
judgment are necessary to safeguard classified information under the
control of the Committee. Such procedures shall, however, ensure access
to this information by any Member of the Committee, or any other Member
of the House of Representatives who has requested the opportunity to
review such material.
Oversight
(f) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, the
Committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to adopt
its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the Committee
on Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration, in
accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of Rule X of the House of
Representatives.
(g) The Chairman of the Full Committee may undertake any formal
investigation in the name of the Committee after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee.
(h) The Chairman of any Subcommittee shall not undertake any formal
investigation in the name of the Full Committee or Subcommittee without
formal approval by the Chairman of the Full Committee, in consultation
with other appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen, and after consultation
with the Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee. The Chairman of
any Subcommittee shall also consult with the Ranking Minority Member of
the Subcommittee before undertaking any investigation in the name of
the Committee.
Order of Business
(i) The order of business and procedure of the Committee and the
subjects of inquiries or investigations will be decided by the
Chairman, subject always to an appeal to the Committee.
Suspended Proceedings
(j) During the consideration of any measure or matter, the Chairman of
the Full Committee, or of any Subcommittee, or any Member acting as
such, may recess the Committee at any point. Additionally, during the
consideration of any measure or matter, the Chairman of the Full
Committee, or of any Subcommittee shall suspend further proceedings
after a question has been put to the Committee at any time when there
is a vote by electronic device occurring in the House of
Representatives. Suspension of proceedings after a record vote is
ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting
an amendment, shall be conducted in compliance with the provisions of
Rule 2(t).
Other Procedures
(k) The Chairman of the Full Committee, after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member, may establish such other procedures and take
such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to
facilitate the effective operation of the Committee.
Use of Hearing Rooms
(l) In consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, the Chairman of
the Full Committee shall establish guidelines for use of Committee
hearing rooms.
RULE 2. COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES
Quorum [XI 2(h)]
(a)(1) One-third of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a
quorum for all purposes except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
this Rule.
(2) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a
quorum in order to: (A) report or table any legislation, measure, or
matter; (B) close Committee meetings or hearings pursuant to Rules 2(c)
and 2(d); and, (C) authorize the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to Rule
1(c).
(3) Two (2) Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for
taking testimony and receiving evidence, which, unless waived by the
Chairman of the Full Committee after consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, shall include at least one (1)
Member from each of the Majority and Minority parties.
Time and Place
(b)(1) Unless dispensed with by the Chairman, the meetings of the
Committee shall be held on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month the
House is in session at 10:00 a.m. and at such other times and in such
places as the Chairman may designate. [XI 2(b)]
(2) The Chairman of the Committee may convene, as necessary, additional
meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or
resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other
Committee business subject to such rules as the Committee may adopt.
The Committee shall meet for such purpose under that call of the
Chairman. [XI 2(c)]
(3) The Chairman shall make a public announcement of the date, time,
place and subject matter of any of its hearings, and to the extent
practicable, a list of witnesses at least one (1) week before the
commencement of the hearing. If the Chairman, with the concurrence of
the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin
the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote,
a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman
shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any
announcement made under this Rule shall be promptly published in the
Daily Digest, and promptly made available by electronic form, including
the Committee website. [XI 2(g)(3)]
Open Meetings [xi 2(g)]
(c) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup
of legislation, of the Committee shall be open to the public, including
to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the
Committee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by
record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that
day shall be in executive session because disclosure of matters to be
considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive
law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade or
incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of
the House. Persons other than Members of the Committee and such non-
Committee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional
staff, or departmental representatives as the Committee may authorize,
may not be present at a business or markup session that is held in
executive session. This Rule does not apply to open Committee hearings
which are provided for by Rule 2(d).
(d)(1) Each hearing conducted by the Committee shall be open to the
public including radio, television, and still photography coverage
except when the Committee, in open session and with a majority present,
determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that
hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of
testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate a law or rule of the House of
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding
sentence, and Rule 2(q) a majority of those present, there being in
attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the
Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony:
(A) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing
whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information or would violate Rule XI 2(k)(5) of the Rules of the House
of Representatives; or
(B) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in Rule XI 2(k)(5) of
the Rules of the House of Representatives. No Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner may be excluded from non-participatory attendance
at any hearing of any Committee or Subcommittee, unless the House of
Representatives shall by majority vote authorize a particular Committee
or Subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a
particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of
investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegate, and the
Resident Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this Rule
for closing hearings to the public; Provided, however, that the
Committee or Subcommittee may by the same procedure, vote to close one
subsequent day of the hearing.
Audio and Visual Coverage [XI, clause 4]
(e)(1) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is open
to the public, these proceedings shall be open to coverage by
television, radio, and still photography, except as provided in Rule XI
4(f)(2) of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall not be able
to limit the number of television, or still cameras to fewer than two
(2) representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space or
safety considerations in which case pool coverage shall be authorized).
(2)(A) Radio and television tapes, television film, and Internet
recordings of any Committee hearings or meetings that are open to the
public may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan
political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any
person for elective public office.
(B) It is, further, the intent of this rule that the general conduct of
each meeting or hearing covered under authority of this rule by audio
or visual means, and the personal behavior of the Committee Members and
staff, other government officials and personnel, witnesses, television,
radio, and press media personnel, and the general public at the meeting
or hearing, shall be in strict conformity with and observance of the
acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum
traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and may not be
such as to:
(i) distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or hearing or the
activities of Committee Members in connection with that meeting or
hearing or in connection with the general work of the Committee or of
the House; or
(ii) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the Committee, or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or bring the House, the
Committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into
disrepute.
(C) The coverage of Committee meetings and hearings by audio and visual
means shall be permitted and conducted only in strict conformity with
the purposes, provisions, and requirements of this rule.
(f) The following shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings or
hearings by audio or visual means:
(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be
presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be
conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship.
(2) The allocation among the television media of the positions or the
number of television cameras permitted by a Committee or Subcommittee
Chairman in a hearing or meeting room shall be in accordance with fair
and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of the
Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way
the space between a witness giving evidence or testimony and any Member
of the Committee or the visibility of that witness and that Member to
each other.
(4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but may not
be placed in positions that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the
hearing or meeting by the other media.
(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio media
may not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting room
while the Committee is in session.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights, spotlights,
strobelights, and flashguns may not be used in providing any method of
coverage of the hearing or meeting.
(B) The television media may install additional lighting in a hearing
or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in order to raise the
ambient lighting level in a hearing or meeting room to the lowest level
necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a hearing or
meeting at the current state of the art of television coverage.
(7) In the allocation of the number of still photographers permitted by
a Committee or Subcommittee Chairman in a hearing or meeting room,
preference shall be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos
and United Press International Newspictures. If requests are made by
more of the media than will be permitted by a Committee or Subcommittee
Chairman for coverage of a hearing or meeting by still photography,
that coverage shall be permitted on the basis of a fair and equitable
pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of Press
Photographers.
(8) Photographers may not position themselves between the witness table
and the Members of the Committee at any time during the course of a
hearing or meeting.
(9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions that obstruct
unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media.
(10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media
shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
(11) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be
currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery.
(12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media and
by still photography shall conduct themselves and their coverage
activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner.
Special Meetings
(g) Rule XI 2(c) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is hereby
incorporated by reference (Special Meetings).
Vice Chairman to Preside in Absence of Chairman
(h) A Member of the Majority party on the Committee, or any
Subcommittee, shall be designated by the Chairman of the Full Committee
as the Vice Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may
be, and shall preside during the absence of the Chairman from any
meeting. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee or
Subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the Committee or
Subcommittee, the Ranking Majority Member who is present shall preside
at that meeting. [XI 2(d)]
Opening Statements; 5-Minute Rule
(i) Insofar as is practicable, the Chairman, after consultation with
the Ranking Minority Member, shall limit the total time of opening
statements by Members to no more than 10 minutes, the time to be
divided equally between the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. The
time any one (1) Member may address the Committee on any bill, motion
or other matter under consideration by the Committee or the time
allowed for the questioning of a witness at hearings before the
Committee will be limited to five (5) minutes, and then only when the
Member has been recognized by the Chairman, except that this time limit
may be waived by the Chairman or acting Chairman. [XI 2(j)]
(j) Notwithstanding Rule 2(i), upon a motion the Chairman, in
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may designate an equal
number of Members from each party to question a witness for a period
not to exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate or, upon a motion, may
designate staff from each party to question a witness for equal
specific periods that do not exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate. [XI
2(j)]
Proxies
(k) No Member may authorize a vote by proxy with respect to any measure
or matter before the Committee. [XI 2(f)]
Witnesses
(l)(1) Insofar as is practicable, each witness who is to appear before
the Committee shall file no later than 24 hours in advance of his or
her appearance, both a statement of the proposed testimony and a
curriculum vitae in printed copy and electronic form. Each witness
shall limit his or her presentation to a five (5) minute summary,
provided that additional time may be granted by the Chairman when
appropriate. [XI 2(g)(4)]
(2) To the greatest extent practicable, each witness appearing before
the Committee shall include with the written statement of proposed
testimony a disclosure of any financial interests which are relevant to
the subject of his or her testimony. These include, but are not limited
to, public and private research grants, stock or stock options held in
publicly traded and privately owned companies, and any form of payment
or compensation from any relevant entity. The source and amount of the
financial interest should be included in this disclosure.
(3) Members of the Committee have two weeks from the date of a hearing
to submit additional questions for the record, to be answered by
witnesses who have appeared in person. The letters of transmittal and
any responses thereto shall be printed in the hearing record.
(m) Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee on any measure
or matter, the Minority Members of the Committee shall be entitled,
upon request to the Chairman by a majority of them before the
completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the Minority
to testify with respect to the measure or matter during at least one
(1) day of hearing thereon. [XI 2(j)(1)]
Hearing Procedures
(n) Rule XI 2(k) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is hereby
incorporated by reference.
Bill and Subject Matter Consideration
(o) Bills and other substantive matters may be taken up for
consideration only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or by a
majority vote of a quorum of the Committee, except those matters which
are the subject of special-call meetings outlined in Rule 2(g). [XI
2(c)]
Private Bills
(p) No private bill will be reported by the Committee if there are two
(2) or more dissenting votes. Private bills so rejected by the
Committee will not be reconsidered during the same Congress unless new
evidence sufficient to justify a new hearing has been presented to the
Committee.
Consideration of Measure or Matter
(q)(1) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any new
or original measure or matter unless written notice of the date, place
and subject matter of consideration and to the maximum extent
practicable, a written copy of the measure or matter to be considered,
and to the maximum extent practicable the original text for purposes of
markup of the measure to be considered have been available to each
Member of the Committee for at least 48 hours in advance of
consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. To the
maximum extent practicable, amendments to the measure or matter to be
considered, shall be submitted in writing to the Clerk of the Committee
at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of the measure or matter.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this rule, consideration of any
legislative measure or matter by the Committee shall be in order by
vote of two-thirds of the Members present, provided that a majority of
the Committee is present.
Requests for Written Motions
(r) Any legislative or non-procedural motion made at a regular or
special meeting of the Committee and which is entertained by the
Chairman shall be presented in writing upon the demand of any Member
present and a copy made available to each Member present.
Requests for Record Votes at Full Committee
(s) A record vote of the Members may be had at the request of three (3)
or more Members or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one (1)
Member.
Postponement of Proceedings
(t) The Chairman of the Full Committee, or of any Subcommittee, is
authorized to postpone further proceedings when a record vote is
ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting
an amendment, and to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any
time after reasonable notice. Upon resuming proceedings on a postponed
question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further
debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was
postponed. [XI (2)(h)(4)]
Report Language on Use of Federal Resources
(u) No legislative report filed by the Committee on any measure or
matter reported by the Committee shall contain language which has the
effect of specifying the use of federal resources more explicitly
(inclusively or exclusively) than that specified in the measure or
matter as ordered reported, unless such language has been approved by
the Committee during a meeting or otherwise in writing by a majority of
the Members.
Committee Records
(v)(1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee
action which shall include a record of the votes on any question on
which a record vote is demanded. The result of each record vote shall
be made available by the Committee for inspection by the public at
reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. Information so
available for public inspection shall include a description of the
amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each
Member voting for and each Member voting against such amendment,
motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those Members present
but not voting. [XI 2(e)]
(2) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records
Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance
with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision,
pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a
record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the
Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of
the Committee. [XI 2(e)(3)]
(3) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall make its
publications available in electronic form, including the Committee
website. [XI 2(e)(4)]
(4)(A) Except as provided for in subdivision (B), all Committee
hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and
distinct from the congressional office records of the Member serving as
its Chairman. Such records shall be the property of the House, and each
Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner, shall have access
thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than Members of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, may not have access to
the records of the Committee respecting the conduct of a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House
without the specific prior permission of the Committee.
Publication of Committee Hearings and Markups
(w) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee shall
be published as a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually
made during the proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical,
and typographical corrections authorized by the person making the
remarks involved. Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and
published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee and shall
be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by the
Chairman. [XI 2(e)(1)(A)]
Committee Website
(x) The Chairman shall maintain an official Committee website for the
purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and oversight
responsibilities, including communicating information about the
Committee's activities to Committee Members and other Members of the
House. The Ranking Minority Member may maintain a similar website for
the same purpose, including communicating information about the
activities of the Minority to Committee Members and other Members of
the House.
RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEES
Structure and Jurisdiction
(a) The Committee shall have the following standing Subcommittees with
the jurisdiction indicated.
(1) Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
authority on all matters relating to energy research, development, and
demonstration and projects thereof, commercial application of energy
technology, and environmental research including:
Department of Energy research, development, and
demonstration programs;
Department of Energy laboratories;
Department of Energy science activities;
energy supply activities;
nuclear, solar and renewable energy, and other
advanced energy technologies;
uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of
Energy waste management and environment, safety, and health
activities as appropriate;
fossil energy research and development;
clean coal technology;
energy conservation research and development;
energy aspects of climate change;
pipeline research, development, and demonstration
projects;
energy and environmental standards;
energy conservation including building performance,
alternate fuels for and improved efficiency of vehicles,
distributed power systems, and industrial process improvements;
Environmental Protection Agency research and
development programs;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including all activities related to weather, weather services,
climate, and the atmosphere, and marine fisheries, and oceanic
research;
risk assessment activities; and
scientific issues related to environmental policy,
including climate change.
(2) Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
authority on all matters relating to competitiveness, technology,
standards, and innovation:
standardization of weights and measures including
technical standards, standardization, and conformity
assessment;
measurement, including the metric system of
measurement;
the Technology Administration of the Department of
Commerce;
the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
the National Technical Information Service;
competitiveness, including small business
competitiveness;
tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and
governmental policies as they relate to technological
development and commercialization;
technology transfer including civilian use of defense
technologies;
patent and intellectual property policy;
international technology trade;
research, development, and demonstration activities
of the Department of Transportation;
surface and water transportation research,
development, and demonstration programs;
earthquake programs (except for NSF) and fire
research programs including those related to wildfire
proliferation research and prevention;
biotechnology policy;
research, development, demonstration, and standards
related activities of the Department of Homeland Security;
Small Business Innovation Research and Technology
Transfer; and
voting technologies and standards.
(3) Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
authority on all matters relating to science policy and science
education including:
Office of Science and Technology Policy;
all scientific research, and scientific and
engineering resources (including human resources), math,
science and engineering education;
intergovernmental mechanisms for research,
development, and demonstration and cross-cutting programs;
international scientific cooperation;
National Science Foundation, including NSF earthquake
programs;
university research policy, including infrastructure
and overhead;
university research partnerships, including those
with industry;
science scholarships;
issues relating to computers, communications, and
information technology;
research and development relating to health,
biomedical, and nutritional programs;
to the extent appropriate, agricultural, geological,
biological and life sciences research; and
materials research, development, and demonstration
and policy.
(4) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
authority on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical
research and development including:
national space policy, including access to space;
sub-orbital access and applications;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its
contractor and government-operated laboratories;
space commercialization including the commercial
space activities relating to the Department of Transportation
and the Department of Commerce;
exploration and use of outer space;
international space cooperation;
National Space Council;
space applications, space communications and related
matters;
Earth remote sensing policy;
civil aviation research, development, and
demonstration;
research, development, and demonstration programs of
the Federal Aviation Administration; and
space law.
(5) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
General and special investigative and oversight authority on all
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Technology.
Referral of Legislation
(b) The Chairman shall refer all legislation and other matters referred
to the Committee to the Subcommittee or Subcommittees of appropriate
primary and secondary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks unless the
Chairman deems consideration is to be by the Full Committee.
Subcommittee Chairmen may make requests for referral of specific
matters to their Subcommittee within the two (2) week period if they
believe Subcommittee jurisdictions so warrant.
Ex-Officio Members
(c) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as ex-officio
Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right to vote and be
counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before the
Subcommittee.
Procedures
(d) No Subcommittee shall meet for markup or approval when any other
Subcommittee of the Committee or the Full Committee is meeting to
consider any measure or matter for markup or approval.
(e) Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive
evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it.
For matters within its jurisdiction, each Subcommittee is authorized to
conduct legislative, investigative, forecasting, and general oversight
hearings; to conduct inquiries into the future; and to undertake budget
impact studies. Subcommittee Chairmen shall set meeting dates after
consultation with the Chairman and other Subcommittee Chairmen with a
view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
Subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible.
(f) Any Member of the Committee may have the privilege of sitting with
any Subcommittee during its hearings or deliberations and may
participate in such hearings or deliberations, but no such Member who
is not a Member of the Subcommittee shall vote on any matter before
such Subcommittee, except as provided in Rule 3(c).
(g) During any Subcommittee proceeding for markup or approval, a record
vote may be had at the request of one (1) or more Members of that
Subcommittee.
RULE 4. REPORTS
Substance of Legislative Reports
(a) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by
the Committee shall include the following, to be provided by the
Committee:
(1) the oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to
Rule X 2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, separately
set out and identified [XIII, 3(c)];
(2) the statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and identified, if the measure
provides new budget authority or new or increased tax expenditures as
specified in [XIII, 3(c)(2)];
(3) with respect to reports on a bill or joint resolution of a public
character, a ``Constitutional Authority Statement'' citing the specific
powers granted to Congress by the Constitution pursuant to which the
bill or joint resolution is proposed to be enacted.
(4) with respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure
or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and
the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in
the Committee report on the measure or matter;
(5) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Committee under Rule
XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
unless the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office prepared under subparagraph 2 of this Rule
has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report and
included in the report [XIII, 3(d)(3)(D)];
(6) in the case of a bill or joint resolution which repeals or amends
any statute or part thereof, the text of the statute or part thereof
which is proposed to be repealed, and a comparative print of that part
of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute
or part thereof proposed to be amended [Rule XIII, clause 3];
(7) a transcript of the markup of the measure or matter unless waived
under Rule 2(v); and,
(8) a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including
outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes
funding. [XIII, 3(c)]
(b) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by
the Committee shall further include the following, to be provided by
sources other than the Committee:
(1) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office required under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and identified,
whenever the Director (if timely, and submitted prior to the filing of
the report) has submitted such estimate and comparison of the Committee
[XIII, clauses 2-4];
(2) if the Committee has not received prior to the filing of the report
the material required under paragraph (1) of this Rule, then it shall
include a statement to that effect in the report on the measure.
Minority and Additional Views [XI 2(l)]
(c) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by the
Committee, any Member of the Committee gives notice of intention to
file supplemental, Minority, or additional views, that Member shall be
entitled to not less than two (2) subsequent calendar days after the
day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays)
in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that Member, with
the Clerk of the Committee. All such views so filed by one (1) or more
Members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part
of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or
matter. The report of the Committee upon that measure or matter shall
be printed in a single volume which shall include all supplemental,
Minority, or additional views, which have been submitted by the time of
the filing of the report, and shall bear upon its cover a recital that
any such supplemental, Minority, or additional views (and any material
submitted under Rule 4(b)(1)) are included as part of the report.
However, this rule does not preclude (1) the immediate filing or
printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the
opportunity to file supplemental, Minority, or additional views has
been made as provided by this Rule or (2) the filing by the Committee
of any supplemental report upon any measure or matter which may be
required for the correction of any technical error in a previous report
made by that Committee upon that measure or matter.
(d) The Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate,
shall advise Members of the day and hour when the time for submitting
views relative to any given report elapses. No supplemental, Minority,
or additional views shall be accepted for inclusion in the report if
submitted after the announced time has elapsed unless the Chairman of
the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate, decides to extend the
time for submission of views beyond the two (2) subsequent calendar
days after the day of notice, in which case he shall communicate such
fact to Members, including the revised day and hour for submissions to
be received, without delay.
Consideration of Subcommittee Reports
(e) After ordering a measure or matter reported, a Subcommittee shall
issue a Subcommittee report in such form as the Chairman shall specify.
Reports and recommendations of a Subcommittee shall not be considered
by the Full Committee until after the intervention of 48 hours,
excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, from the time the
report is submitted and made available to Full Committee membership and
printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if feasible, to the
Members, except that this rule may be waived at the discretion of the
Chairman after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.
Timing and Filing of Committee Reports [XIII]
(f) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to report or cause to be
reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee
and to take or cause to be taken the necessary steps to bring the
matter to a vote. To the maximum extent practicable, the written report
of the Committee on such measures shall be made available to the
Committee membership for review at least 24 hours in advance of filing.
(g) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by
the Committee shall be filed within seven (7) calendar days (exclusive
of days on which the House is not in session) after the day on which
there has been filed with the Clerk of the Committee a written request,
signed by the majority of the Members of the Committee, for the
reporting of that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the
Clerk of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chairman of
the Committee notice of the filing of that request.
(h)(1) Any document published by the Committee as a House Report, other
than a report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by
the Committee, shall be approved by the Committee at a meeting, and
Members shall have the same opportunity to submit views as provided for
in Rule 4(c).
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Chairman may approve the
publication of any document as a Committee print which in his
discretion he determines to be useful for the information of the
Committee.
(3) Any document to be published as a Committee print which purports to
express the views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the
Committee or any of its Subcommittees must be approved by the Full
Committee or its Subcommittees, as applicable, in a meeting or
otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members, and such Members
shall have the right to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional
views for inclusion in the print within at least 48 hours after such
approval.
(4) Any document to be published as a Committee print other than a
document described in paragraph (3) of this Rule: (A) shall include on
its cover the following statement: ``This document has been printed for
informational purposes only and does not represent either findings or
recommendations adopted by this Committee;'' and (B) shall not be
published following the sine die adjournment of a Congress, unless
approved by the Chairman of the Full Committee after consultation with
the Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee.
(i) A report of an investigation or study conducted jointly by this
Committee and one (1) or more other Committee(s) may be filed jointly,
provided that each of the Committees complies independently with all
requirements for approval and filing of the report.
(j) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a Congress sine
die, an investigative or oversight report approved by the Committee may
be filed with the Clerk at any time, provided that if a Member gives
notice at the time of approval of intention to file supplemental,
Minority, or additional views, that Member shall be entitled to not
less than seven (7) calendar days in which to submit such views for
inclusion with the report.
(k) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session of a
Congress, the Chairman may file the Committee's Activity Report for
that Congress under clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
with the Clerk of the House at anytime and without the approval of the
Committee, provided that a copy of the report has been available to
each Member of the Committee for at least seven (7) calendar days and
that the report includes any supplemental, Minority, or additional
views submitted by a Member of the Committee. [XI 1(d), XI 1(d)(4)]
Oversight Reports
(l) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as
read if it has been available to the Members of the Committee for at
least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except
when the House is in session on such day). [XI 1(b)(2)]
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Rule X. Organization of Committees.
Committees and their legislative jurisdictions.
1. There shall be in the House the following standing Committees, each
of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions assigned to
it by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of the
standing Committees listed in this clause shall be referred to those
Committees, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:
o) Committee on Science and Technology.
(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects
thereof, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy
laboratories.
(2) Astronautical research and development, including resources,
personnel, equipment, and facilities.
(3) Civil aviation research and development.
(4) Environmental research and development.
(5) Marine research.
(6) Commercial application of energy technology.
(7) National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of
weights and measures and the metric system.
(8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(9) National Space Council.
(10) National Science Foundation.
(11) National Weather Service.
(12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
(13) Science Scholarships.
(14) Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects
thereof.
SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
3.(k) The Committee on Science and Technology shall review and study on
a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating
to non-military research and development.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 24, 2007 H.R. 365, Methamphetamine Mediation Research H.Rept. 110-8
Act of 2007; H.Res. 59, Supporting the Goals (H.R. 365)
and Ideals of National Engineering Week; and H.Rept. 110-5
H.Con.Res. 34, Honoring the Life of Percy Lavon (H.Res. 59)
Julian H.Rept. 110-4
(Markup held by the Committee on Science (H.Con.Res. 34)
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 30, 2007 H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure 110-1
Research and Development Act .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 31, 2007 H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure H.Rept. 110-7
Research and Development Act (H.R. 547)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 8, 2007 The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The Findings 110-2 w/110-20, 110-30
of the Fourth Assessment Report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group I Report
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 13, 2007 National Imperatives for Earth and Climate Science 110-3
Research and Applications Investments Over the Next
Decade
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 13, 2007 Amending Executive Order 12866: Good 110-4 w/110-21
Governance or Regulatory Usurpation? Part I .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 14, 2007 The Administration's Fiscal Year 2008 Research and 110-5
Development Budget Proposal
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 15, 2007 The National Institute of Standards and 110-6
Technology's Role in Supporting Economic .........................
Competitiveness in the 21st Century: The .........................
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 28, 2007 H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through Science and H.Rept. 110-39
Engineering Research Act; H.R. 1068, To amend (H.R. 363)
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; H.Rept. 110-40
H.R. 1126, To reauthorize the Steel and Alu- (H.R. 1068)
minum Energy Conservation and Technology H.Rept. 110-41
Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 85, Energy (H.R. 1126)
Technology Transfer Act H.Rept. 110-38
(Markup held by the Committee on Science (H.R. 85)
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 7, 2007 The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2008 110-7
Research and Development Budget Proposal .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 8, 2007 The Department of Homeland Security's R&D Budget 110-8
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 8, 2007 Improving the Laboratory Experience for 110-9
America's High School Students .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 13, 2007 Science and Technology Leadership in a 21st Century 110-10
Global Economy
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 14, 2007 The Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 110-11
2008 Research and Development Budget .........................
Proposal .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 15, 2007 NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request 110-12
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 20, 2007 National Science Foundation Reauthorization: Part I 110-13 w/110-19
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 21, 2007 Perspectives on Climate Change 110-14
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Air Quality, Committee on Energy and .........................
Commerce, and the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 22, 2007 The Federal Aviation Administration's R&D 110-15
Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 22, 2007 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 110-16
(NOAA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 28, 2007 Markup of H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million H.Rept. 110-85
Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act; (H.R. 362)
H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the 50th Anniversary of .........................
the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and its .........................
past contributions to space research, and .........................
looking forward to future accomplishments; .........................
H.Res. 252, Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of .........................
John Herschel Glenn, Jr.'s historic achievement .........................
in becoming the first United States astronaut .........................
to orbit the Earth .........................
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 28, 2007 Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media 110-17
Strategies to Influence Science Policy
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 29, 2007 The Joint Planning and Development Office and the Next 110-18
Generation Air Transportation System: Status and
Issues
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 29, 2007 National Science Foundation Reauthorization: Part II 110-19 w/110-13
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 17, 2007 The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The 110-20 w/110-2,
Findings of the Fourth Assessment Report by the 110-30
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .........................
(IPCC), Working Group II: Climate Change .........................
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 19, 2007 H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and H.Rept. 110-115
Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007 (H.R. 1868)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 19, 2007 H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation H.Rept. 110-114
Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1867)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 25, 2007 H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation H.Rept. 110-114
Reauthorization Act of 2007; (H.R. 1867)
H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufac- H.Rept. 110-115
turing Stimulation Act of 2007; (H.R. 1868)
H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research .........................
accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006
recipient of the A.M. Turing Award; H.Res. 316,
Congratulating the achievement of Roger D. Kornberg,
Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George
F. Smoot for being awarded Nobel Prizes in science
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 26, 2007 Amending Executive Order 12866: 110-21 w/110-4
Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation? .........................
Part II .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 26, 2007 Establishing the Advanced Research 110-22
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)--H.R. 364 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 26, 2007 Small Business Innovation Research 110-23 w/110-43
Reauthorization on the 25th Program .........................
Anniversary .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2, 2007 NASA's Space Science Programs: Review of 110-24
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2007 Transitioning the Environmental Measurements 110-25
Laboratory to the Department of Homeland .........................
Security .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2007 Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research 110-26
Program Toward a User-driven Research .........................
Endeavor: H.R. 906 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 10, 2007 H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007; H.Rept. 110-171
H.R. 364, Providing for the establishment of an (H.R. 632)
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy .........................
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 10, 2007 Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges 110-27
to Access and Implementation .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2007 Federal STEM Education Programs: Educators' 110-28 w/110-35
Perspectives .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2007 Prospects for Advanced Coal Technologies: 110-29
Efficient Energy Production, Carbon .........................
Capture and Sequestration .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2007 The State of Climate Change Science 2007: The Findings 110-30 w/110-2, 110-20
of the Fourth Assessment Report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2007 Building and Maintaining a Healthy and Strong 110-31
NASA Workforce .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2007 Developing Untapped Potential: Geothermal and 110-32
Ocean Power Technologies .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 23, 2007 Markup of H.R. 364, Providing for the establish- H.Rept. 110-172
ment of an Advanced Research Projects Agency (H.R. 1467)
for Energy; H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by H.Rept. 110-173
2010 Act; H.R. 1716, the Green Energy (H.R. 1716)
Education Act of 2007; H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act H.Rept. 110-171
of 2007 (H.R. 632)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 24, 2007 The NASA Administrator's Speech to Office of 110-33
Inspector General Staff, the Subsequent .........................
Destruction of Video Records, and .........................
Associated Matters .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 2007 The Role of Technology in Reducing Illegal 110-34
Filesharing: A University Perspective .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2007 H.R. 906, Global Change Research and Data H.Rept. 110-605, Pt. 1
Management Act of 2007; H.R. 2304, Advanced (H.R. 906)
Geothermal Energy Research and Development H.Rept. 110-203
Act of 2007; H.R. 2313, Marine Renewable (H.R. 2304)
Energy Research and Development Act of H.Rept. 110-202
2007 (H.R. 2313)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2007 Federal STEM Education Programs 110-35 w/110-28
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 7, 2007 The Status Report on the NPOESS Weather 110-36
Satellite Program .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 7, 2007 Oversight Review of the Investigation of the 110-37
NASA Inspector General .........................
(Joint hearing held by the Senate Subcommittee on
Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences and the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 2007 The duPont Aerospace DP-2 Aircraft 110-38
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 2007 The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, 110-39 w/110-49,
Part I 110-62, 110-71
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 13, 2007 Markup of H.R. 2304, Advanced Geothermal H.Rept. 110-203
Energy Research and Development Act of (H.R. 2304)
2007; H.R. 2313, Marine Renewable Energy H.Rept. 110-202
Research and Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 2313)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2007 H.R. 2698, Federal Aviation Research and H.Rept. 110-329
Development Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2698)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2007 A Path Toward the Broader Use of Biofuels: 110-40
Enhancing the Federal Commitment to .........................
Research and Development to Meet .........................
the Growing Need .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007 Research, Education and Training Programs to 110-41
Facilitate Adoption of Solar Energy .........................
Technologies .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007 The Role of Community Colleges and Industry 110-42
in Meeting the Demands for Skilled .........................
Production Workers and Technicians in .........................
the 21st Century Economy .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2007 Markup of H.R. 2773, Biofuels Research and H.Rept. 110-302
Development Enhancement Act; H.R. 1933, (H.R. 2773)
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and H.Rept. 110-301
Storage Research, Development, and Demonstra- (H.R. 1933)
tion Act of 2007; H.R. 2774, Solar Energy H.Rept. 110-303
Research and Advancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2774)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22, 2007 Markup on H.R. 2698, Federal Aviation Research H.Rept. 110-329
and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007; (H.R. 2698)
H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling .........................
and simulation technology to the security and
prosperity of the United States, and recognizing
modeling and simulation as a national critical
technology
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2007 SBIR and STTR--How Are the Programs 110-43 w/110-23
Managed Today? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2007 Markup of H.R. 906, Global Change Research H.Rept. 110-605, Pt. 1
and Data Management Act of 2007; H.R. 1933, (H.R. 906)
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and H.Rept. 110-301
Storage Research, Development, and Demonstra- (H.R. 1933)
tion Act of 2007; H.R. 2773, Biofuels Research H.Rept. 110-302
and Development Enhancement Act; H.R. 2774, (H.R. 2773)
Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act H.Rept. 110-303
of 2007 (H.R. 2774)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28, 2007 NASA's Earth Science and Applications 110-44
Programs: Fiscal Year 2008 Budget .........................
Request and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 11, 2007 Markup of H.R. 2337, Energy Policy Reform and .........................
Revitalization Act of 2007; H.R. 2850, Green .........................
Chemistry Research and Development Act of .........................
2007 .........................
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 12, 2007 Markup of H.R. 2337, Energy Policy Reform and .........................
Revitalization Act of 2007
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2007 The Department of Energy's Support for the 110-45 w/110-50
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), .........................
Part I .........................
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment and the .........................
Subcommittee on Investigations and .........................
Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2007 The Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517, Amendments 110-46
to the Patent and Trademark Act .........................
of 1980)--The Next 25 Years .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 19, 2007 Tracking the Storm at the National Hurricane 110-47
Center .........................
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee .........................
on Energy and Environment and the .........................
Subcommittee on Investigations and .........................
Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2007 NASA's Space Shuttle and International 110-48
Space Station Programs: Status and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2007 The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, 110-49 w/110-39,
Part II: The University Response 110-62, 110-71
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1, 2007 The Department of Energy's Support for the 110-50 w/110-45
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), .........................
Part II .........................
(Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight and the .........................
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 5, 2007 The Benefits and Challenges of Producing 110-51
Liquid Fuel From Coal: The Role for .........................
Federal Research .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 6, 2007 NASA's Astronaut Health Care System--Results 110-52
of an Independent Review .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 19, 2007 Bridge Safety: Next Steps to Protect the 110-53
Nation's Critical Infrastructure .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2008 Compilation of Markups 110-54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 25, 2007 The Contribution of the Social Sciences to the 110-55
Energy Challenge .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 25, 2007 Revisiting the Industrial Technologies Program 110-56
(ITP): Achieving Industrial Efficiency .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 26, 2007 Meeting the Need for Inter-operability and 110-57
Information Security in Health IT .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 27, 2007 The National Security Implications of 110-58
Climate Change .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 2, 2007 The United States Fire Administration 110-59
Reauthorization: Addressing the Priorities .........................
of the Nation's Fire Service .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 2, 2007 Nanotechnology Education 110-60
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 3, 2007 Energy Storage Technologies: State of 110-61
Development for Stationary and Vehicular .........................
Applications .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 4, 2007 The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, 110-62 w/110-39,
Part III: How Do Companies Choose Where 110-49, 110-71
to Build R&D Facilities? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 10, 2007 Assessment of the National Science Board's 110-63
Action Plan for STEM Education .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 10, 2007 Markup of H.R. 1834, Ocean Exploration and H.Rept. 110-311, Pt. 2
Undersea Research Act; Discussion Draft--Energy (H.R. 1834)
Storage Technology DAdvancement Act of 2007; .........................
Discussion Draft--Industrial Energy Efficiency .........................
R&D Act of 2007 .........................
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 16, 2007 Markup of H.R. 3776, Energy Storage Technology H.Rept. 110-402
Advancement Act of 2007; H.R. 3775, Industrial (H.R. 3776)
Energy Efficiency Research and Development Act H.Rept. 110-401
of 2007 (H.R. 3775)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 17, 2007 Disappearing Polar Bears and Permafrost: 110-64
Is a Global Warming Tipping Point .........................
Embedded in the Ice? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 17, 2007 Women in Academic Science and Engineering 110-65
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 23, 2007 GAO's Report on the Status of NOAA's 110-66
Geostationary Weather Satellite Program .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 24, 2007 Markup of H.R. 1834, the National Oceanic H.Rept. 110-311, Pt. 2
Exploration Act; H.R. 2406, Healthcare (H.R. 1834)
Information Technology Enterprise Integration H.Rept. 110-451
Act; H.R. 3877, Mine Communications Technology (H.R. 2406)
Innovation Act H.Rept. 110-411
(Markup held by the Committee on Science (H.R. 3877)
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 25, 2007 Radiological Response: Assessing Environmental 110-67
and Clinical Laboratory Capabilities .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 30, 2007 Research to Improve Water-Use Efficiency and 110-68
Conservation: Technologies and Practices .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 31, 2007 Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts 110-69
of Nanotechnology: Current Status of .........................
Planning and Implementation Under the .........................
National Nanotechnology Initiative .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 31, 2007 Aviation Safety: Can NASA Do More to Protect 110-70
the Public? .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 6, 2007 The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, 110-71 w/110-39,
Part IV: Implications for the Science and 110-49, 110-62
Engineering Workforce .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 8, 2007 Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)--Status of the 110-72
Survey Program and Review of NASA's .........................
Report to Congress .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 15, 2007 Next Generation Border and Maritime Security 110-73
Technologies: H.R. 3916 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7, 2008 Markup of H.R. 3916, the Border Security H.Rept. 110-684
Technology Innovation Act of 2008 (H.R. 3916)
H.R. 4847, the United States Fire H.Rept. 110-559
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008; (H.R. 4847)
H.R. 5161, the Green Transportation Infrastruc- H.Rept. 110-576
ture Research and Technology Transfer Act (H.R. 5161)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7, 2008 Status of Visas and Other Policies for Foreign 110-74
Students and Scholars .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 13, 2008 NASA's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request 110-75
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 14, 2008 Funding for the America COMPETES Act in the 110-76
Fiscal Year 2009 Administration Budget .........................
Request .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 26, 2008 Oversight of the National Science Foundation 110-77
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 26, 2008 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 110-78
Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget .........................
Proposal and GAO's Report on the Aviation .........................
Weather Service .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 27, 2008 Markup of H.R. 3916, To provide for the next H.Rept. 110-684
generation of border and maritime security (H.R. 3916)
technologies; H.R. 4847, the United States Fire H.Rept. 110-559
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2007; (H.R. 4847)
H.R. 5161, the Green Transportation Infrastruc- H.Rept. 576
ture Research and Technology Transfer Act (H.R. 5161)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 29, 2008 Energizing Houston: Sustainability, 110-79
Technological Innovation, and Growth in .........................
the Energy Capital of the World .........................
(Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 5, 2008 The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2009 110-80
Research and Development Budget Proposal .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 6, 2008 The Department of Homeland Security's R&D 110-81
Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2009 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2008 The Transfer of National Nanotechnology 110-82
Initiative Research Outcomes for Commercial .........................
and Public Benefit .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2008 NIST's FY 2009 Budget Request: What Are 110-83
the Right Technology Investments to Promote .........................
U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 12, 2008 Competitiveness and Innovation on the 110-84
Committee's 50th Anniversary With .........................
Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 13, 2008 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 110-85
Library Closures: Better Access for a Broader .........................
Audience? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 13, 2008 NASA's Science Programs: Fiscal Year 2009 110-86
Budget Request and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2008 Utility-Scale Solar Power: Opportunities and 110-87
Obstacles .........................
(Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 1, 2008 Toxic Trailers: Have the Centers for Disease 110-88
Control Failed to Protect Public Health? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 2, 2008 International Science and Technology Cooperation 110-89
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 3, 2008 NASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues 110-90
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 7, 2008 Remote Sensing Data: Applications and Benefits 110-91
(Field Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Space and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 15, 2008 The Department of Energy's FutureGen Program 110-92
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 16, 2008 The National Nanotechnology Initiative 110-93
Amendments Act of 2008 .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 16, 2008 Markup of H.R. 5789, Science and Technology .........................
Innovation Act .........................
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 23, 2008 Opportunities and Challenges 110-94
for Nuclear Power .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 24, 2008 Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in 110-95
National Security .........................
(Joint Hearing held by the Armed Services .........................
Committee and the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 24, 2008 NASA's International Space Station Program: 110-96
Status and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 24, 2008 Aviation Security Research and Development at 110-97
the Department of Homeland Security .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 30, 2008 Electronic Waste: Can the Nation Manage 110-98
Modern Refuse in the Digital Age? .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2008 NASA's Aeronautics R&D Program: Status 110-99
and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 6, 2008 Markup of H.R. 3957, the Water Use Efficiency H.Rept. 110-802
and Conservation Research Act; (H.R. 3957)
H.R. 2339, the Produced Water Utilization Act H.Rept. 110-801
of 2007 (H.R. 2339)
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 7, 2008 Markup of H.R. 5940, National Nanotechnology H.Rept. 110-682
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5940)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2008 Fulfilling the Potential of Women in 110-100
Academic Science and Engineering Act .........................
of 2008 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 12, 2008 STEM Education Before High School: Shaping Our 110-101
Future Science, Technology, Engineering and .........................
Math Leaders of Tomorrow By Inspiring .........................
Our Children Today .........................
(Field Hearing held by the Committee on .........................
Science and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2008 Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century 110-102
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20, 2008 Markup of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics H.Rept. 110-702
and Space Administration Authorization Act of (H.R. 6063)
2008 .........................
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Space .........................
and Aeronautics.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 21, 2008 The National Sea Grant College Program Act: 110-103
H.R. 5618 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 21, 2008 EPA's Restructured IRIS System: Have Polluters 110-104 w/110-108
and Politics Overwhelmed Science? .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 22, 2008 American Decline or Renewal? Part I-- 110-105 w/110-111
Globalizing Jobs and Technology .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4, 2008 Markup of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics H.Rept. 110-702
and Space Administration Authorization Act of (H.R. 6063)
2008 .........................
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 2008 The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and 110-106
Monitoring Act: H.R. 4174 .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 10, 2008 Hybrid Technologies for Medium- to Heavy-Duty 110-107
Commercial Trucks .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 2008 Toxic Communities: How EPA's IRIS Program 110-108 w/110-104
Fails the Public .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2008 Markup of H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean H.Rept. 110-749
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of (H.R. 4174)
2007; H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant H.Rept. 110-701, Pt. 2
College Program Amendments Act of 2008; (H.R. 5618)
H.R. 6323, Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle H.Rept. 110-855
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act (H.R. 6323)
of 2008 .........................
(Markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2008 An Insecure Forecast for Continuity of Climate 110-109
and Weather Data: The NPOESS Weather .........................
Satellite Program .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24, 2008 Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Transportation 110-110
Infrastructure .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24, 2008 American Decline or Renewal? Part 2-- 110-111 w/110-105
The Past and Future of Skilled Work .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 25, 2008 Markup of H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean H.Rept. 110-749
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of (H.R. 4174)
2007; H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant H.Rept. 110-701
College Program Amendments Act of 2008; (H.R. 5618)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2008 The State of Hurricane Research and H.R. 2407, 110-112
the National Hurricane Research Initiative .........................
Act of 2007 .........................
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Energy and Environment and the Subcommittee on .........................
Research and Science Education.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 10, 2008 Harmful Algal Blooms: The Challenges on the 110-113
Nation's Coastlines .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 15, 2008 The Role of Non-governmental Organizations 110-114
and Universities in International Science .........................
and Technology Cooperation .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 15, 2008 The Low-level Plutonium Spill at NIST-Boulder: 110-115
Contamination of Lab and Personnel .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 16, 2008 Markup of H.R. 3957, the Water Use Efficiency H.Rept. 110-802
and Conservation Research Act; H.R. 2339, the (H.R. 3957)
Produced Water Utilization Act of 2007; H.Rept. 110-801
H.R. 6323, To establish a research of (H.R. 2339)
appropriate technologies for heavy-duty plug-in- H.Rept. 110-855
hybrid vehicles (H.R. 6323)
(Markup held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 23, 2008 A National Water Initiative: Coordinating and 110-116
Improving Federal Research on Water .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2008 The National Windstorm Impact Reduction 110-117
Program: Strengthening Windstorm .........................
Hazard Mitigation .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Technology and Innovation.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 2008 NASA at 50: Past Accomplishments and 110-118
Future Opportunities and Challenges .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 31, 2008 Oversight of the Networking and Information 110-119
Technology Research and Development .........................
(NITRD) Program .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 9, 2008 Biobanking: How the Lack of a Coherent Policy 110-120
Allowed the Veterans Administration to .........................
Destroy an Irreplaceable Collection of .........................
Legionella Samples .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2008 The Foundation for Developing New Energy 110-121
Technologies: Basic Energy Research in .........................
the Department of Energy (DOE) .........................
Office of Science .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy .........................
and Environment.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 11, 2008 The Next Generation Air Transportation System: 110-122
Status and Issues .........................
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science .........................
and Technology.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 18, 2008 The Role of Social and Behavioral 110-123
Sciences in Public Health .........................
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research .........................
and Science Education.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2008 The Globalization of R&D and Innovation: Scale 110-A
Drivers, Consequences, and Policy Options .........................
(Committee Print.) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------