[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